Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:04 AM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 26 Msgs - 09/19/04 (DanJE@aol.com)
2. 04:00 AM - Re: COM antenna in a gear leg fairing? (Brian Lloyd)
3. 04:11 AM - Re: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 26 Msgs - 09/19/04 (Brian Lloyd)
4. 05:53 AM - Re: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People (Mark Sletten)
5. 06:39 AM - Re: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People (Brian Lloyd)
6. 06:45 AM - Lead acid batteries: Vairiations on a theme. (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 07:17 AM - Re: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 07:19 AM - Re: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People (Brian Lloyd)
9. 07:29 AM - Re: COM antenna in a gear leg fairing? (SportAV8R@aol.com)
10. 07:36 AM - Fw: Biblical proportions (Fergus Kyle)
11. 07:56 AM - Re: Lead acid batteries: Vairiations on a (Mickey Coggins)
12. 08:09 AM - Re: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People (BobsV35B@aol.com)
13. 08:26 AM - Re: COM antenna in a gear leg fairing? (Brian Lloyd)
14. 08:41 AM - Re: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People (Ken)
15. 09:58 AM - Re: Lead acid batteries: Vairiations on a theme. (Werner Schneider)
16. 10:01 AM - Re: COM antenna in a gear leg fairing? (SportAV8R@aol.com)
17. 10:41 AM - Re: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People Reviewed (Paul Messinger)
18. 10:46 AM - Re: COM antenna in a gear leg fairing? (Brian Lloyd)
19. 10:57 AM - OOPS! (Charlie Brame)
20. 11:40 AM - (SportAV8R@aol.com)
21. 12:04 PM - Re: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People Reviewed (echristley@nc.rr.com)
22. 12:37 PM - RF exposure levels (Brian Lloyd)
23. 01:29 PM - Re: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People Reviewed (plaurence@the-beach.net)
24. 01:58 PM - Re: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People Reviewed (BobsV35B@aol.com)
25. 02:51 PM - Re: OOPS! (Phil Birkelbach)
26. 02:57 PM - Re: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People Reviewed (Ozarkseller2@aol.com)
27. 03:01 PM - battery seminar power-point presentation (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
28. 03:52 PM - Re: Lead acid batteries: Vairiations on a theme. (Tony Babb)
29. 04:24 PM - Re: RF exposure levels (Maureen & Bob Christensen)
30. 06:14 PM - Re: RF exposure levels (Brian Lloyd)
31. 06:18 PM - Re: OOPS! (David Carter)
32. 06:46 PM - Terminal Strips (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
33. 07:36 PM - Re: RF exposure levels (Eric M. Jones)
34. 08:24 PM - Re: Slobovia Outernational Flyin Invitation (Paul McAllister)
35. 08:47 PM - Re: Terminal Strips (Terry Watson)
36. 09:16 PM - Re: Terminal Strips (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
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: AeroElectric-List Digest: 26 Msgs - 09/19/04 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: DanJE@aol.com
I just read all the web pages of informative stuff about the "Battery
Tender" devices... very educational... IF you have a lead-acid battery!
What about the new Oddysey dry-cell batteries everyone is using/
retrofitting into their Van's aircraft? Forgive me if you've gone over that topic
a
zillion times on this forum.. I get the email version, and dont know the method
to research past topics.
In particular, I'm curious if the Oddysey dry-cells can be successfully
'floated' or charge maintained by the family of BatteryTender products? Or.. is
there really a need to do so, consdering one of their claims to fame is being
able to hold a charge for about 2 years, just sitting on the shelf.
Dan Eikleberry
RV6
Las Vegas
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: COM antenna in a gear leg fairing? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Sep 19, 2004, at 9:21 PM, SportAV8R@aol.com wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
>
> 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.
Yes, it will work. Even a gamma match will work just fine.
And as for your wingtip antenna, put one in the other wingtip and then
use a power divider to feed both antennas in phase. The interference
pattern might make for an interesting radiation pattern but it might
work really well.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 26 Msgs - 09/19/04 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Sep 20, 2004, at 5:03 AM, DanJE@aol.com wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: DanJE@aol.com
>
> I just read all the web pages of informative stuff about the "Battery
> Tender" devices... very educational... IF you have a lead-acid battery!
>
> What about the new Oddysey dry-cell batteries everyone is using/
> retrofitting into their Van's aircraft? Forgive me if you've gone
> over that topic a
> zillion times on this forum.. I get the email version, and dont know
> the method
> to research past topics.
They are just sealed lead-acid batteries. They are not dry-cells like
you would find in your flashlight. The "Battery Tender" should work
fine with them.
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: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Sletten" <marknlisa@hometel.com>
---------
Bob wrote:
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,
This is one of the most profound things I've read on the list in quite a
while. You are a veritable "font of knowledge."
One word of caution: sometimes it's good not only to understand the
physics, but also *why* the rule was written. Commercial airlines
operate with an accident rate several times lower than we General
Aviation enthusiasts. Rules that take the pilot out of the
decision-making process (if the weather is this bad you can't go,
minimum equiment lists, etc.) are one of the most effective tools the
commercial carriers use to keep the accident rate down. We would do
well to emulate them...
Mark & Lisa Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
web.hometel.com/~legacyfgkit
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: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Sep 20, 2004, at 8:53 AM, Mark Sletten wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Sletten"
> <marknlisa@hometel.com>
> Rules that take the pilot out of the
> decision-making process (if the weather is this bad you can't go,
> minimum equiment lists, etc.) are one of the most effective tools the
> commercial carriers use to keep the accident rate down. We would do
> well to emulate them...
It is always a good idea to premake your decisions so when the
situation hits, you don't have to spend time making a decision. In
flying gliders we learned the decision points for what to do if the tow
rope broke, i.e. land out, turn back to a downwind landing, fly an
abbreviated pattern, or fly the full pattern. I didn't have to make
that decision as I had already made that decision. I apply that to the
process I teach my students, i.e. that you can make the critical
decisions ahead of time so that, should a problem occur you aren't
having to fly the plane AND make the decisions at the same time.
Applying it to weather is probably the biggest challenge.
But Bob's point is excellent. If you know WHY you can better make
those decisions ahead of time. Sometimes "why" is the most difficult
thing to teach.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
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: | Lead acid batteries: Vairiations on a theme. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 05:03 AM 9/20/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: DanJE@aol.com
>
>I just read all the web pages of informative stuff about the "Battery
>Tender" devices... very educational... IF you have a lead-acid battery!
The Oddysey is a lead-acid battery.
>What about the new Oddysey dry-cell batteries everyone is using/
>retrofitting into their Van's aircraft? Forgive me if you've gone
>over that topic a
>zillion times on this forum.. I get the email version, and dont know the
>method
>to research past topics.
>
>In particular, I'm curious if the Oddysey dry-cells can be successfully
>'floated' or charge maintained by the family of BatteryTender products?
>Or.. is
>there really a need to do so, consdering one of their claims to fame is
>being
>able to hold a charge for about 2 years, just sitting on the shelf.
See:
http://www.enersysreservepower.com/ody_b.asp?brandID=5
Oddysey is the latest offerings of Gates/Hawker/Enersys in
the long and relatively successful history of development
and marketing of sealed, valve regulated, lead-acid
(SVRLA) batteries. Except for small differences in manufacturing,
and electrolyte loading these are the same as recombinant gas
(RG), absorbed glass mat (AGM) and starved electrolyte variations
on a theme. While the term "dry" may appear in their marketing
literature, the battery is still loaded with liquid sulfuric acid
and water mixture . . . it's totally contained within the glass
mat separators held in place by capillary action. If you drive
a nail into one of these batteries it will dry out and fail but
no liquid will exit the compromised cell. Hence the appearance
of being "dry" when in fact, it's loaded with the same stuff
that sloshes around in your car's battery.
Note the other products listed on the Enersys webpage cited
above. Cyclon, Powersafe, DataSafe and Genesis are but a series
of variations on a theme of SVRLA batteries, each series
optimized for some task.
With respect to Battery Tenders . . . there are a number of
offerings with 2, 3 and 4-step charging algorithms with
each technique "optimized" for variations on the VRSLA
themes. If you have a high speed internet connection and
want to get this power point presentation, feel free to download
http://www.aeroelectric.com/ppt/Battery_Presentation_D.ppt
It's only going to be available there for a few more weeks
so if you're reading this in the archives and don't find the
presentation, write me directly and I'll get a copy to you.
This is a presentation I gave for folks at Raytheon during
a study (ongoing) of battery performance issues on our
products. Toward the end of the presentation I discuss
two of Battery Tender's charging algorithms but without
offering any judgement. It is axiomatic that any product
will be offered with a certain amount of marketing hype . . .
probably true but the BIG question is, are the differences
relevant and do they deliver good return on investment?
As soon as I have enough information to make a considered
judgement on the differences, sufice it to say that ANY of
the Battery Tender products will very nicely watch over
and maintain any variations on the VRSLA battery themes.
The power point presentation will be a bit weak when read
as a stand-alone document. I really hate to attend a program
where the presenter simply reads the slides. So, what I've
offered you are the illustrations and notes for my presentation
which are not very self explanatory. I'm looking into adding
a voice-over narration to the presentation so that it can
stand alone as a teaching document.
Bob . . .
---
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: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 07:53 AM 9/20/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Sletten"
><marknlisa@hometel.com>
>
>---------
>Bob wrote:
>
>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,
>
>This is one of the most profound things I've read on the list in quite a
>while. You are a veritable "font of knowledge."
>
>One word of caution: sometimes it's good not only to understand the
>physics, but also *why* the rule was written.
You betcha! This is part of understanding . . .
> Commercial airlines
>operate with an accident rate several times lower than we General
>Aviation enthusiasts. Rules that take the pilot out of the
>decision-making process (if the weather is this bad you can't go,
>minimum equiment lists, etc.) are one of the most effective tools the
>commercial carriers use to keep the accident rate down. We would do
>well to emulate them...
I'm not suggesting that to err on the side of safety is
a bad idea . . . I am suggesting that much of what is
offered by rule makers is so conservative and/or error driven
as to be counter-productive. Sorta like the old saw we
all grew up with about not going swimming until two hours
after eating. Dutiful parents would not dare let their children
hit the pond too early mostly out of deference to judgement
by their peers . . . but in the mean time, they're suffering the
benefits of children under foot with nothing better to do
than irritate the adults until they're finally herded out
toward the swimming hole.
Rules written by pilots to assist other pilots is probably
the best example of practical rule making. Rules written by
legislative and regulatory committees are suspect. Rules-of-thumb
handed around over beer-and-pretzels are the most suspect yet.
The only rational defense against counter-productive observance
of rules is knowledge and understanding . . . commodities not
highly prized in our public schools. So for the most part, we're
on our own to ferret out and then share the best we know how
to do. In all of my travels I've not seen any better examples
of knowledge sharing than in the OBAM aircraft community.
I'm headed for a meeting in a few minutes to try and convince
powerful decision makers and holders of purse strings that
it is in the best interests of our company to heed the examples
offered by the un-certified side of aviation. Policies and
procedures (rules) are not doing well as substitutes for
experience and common sense (knowledge and understanding).
You folks stand head-and-shoulders above our "professional"
counterparts in this endeavor.
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: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Sep 20, 2004, at 8:53 AM, Mark Sletten wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Sletten"
> <marknlisa@hometel.com>
> Rules that take the pilot out of the
> decision-making process (if the weather is this bad you can't go,
> minimum equiment lists, etc.) are one of the most effective tools the
> commercial carriers use to keep the accident rate down. We would do
> well to emulate them...
It is always a good idea to premake your decisions so when the
situation hits, you don't have to spend time making a decision. In
flying gliders we learned the decision points for what to do if the tow
rope broke, i.e. land out, turn back to a downwind landing, fly an
abbreviated pattern, or fly the full pattern. I didn't have to make
that decision as I had already made that decision. I apply that to the
process I teach my students, i.e. that you can make the critical
decisions ahead of time so that, should a problem occur you aren't
having to fly the plane AND make the decisions at the same time.
Applying it to weather is probably the biggest challenge.
But Bob's point is excellent. If you know WHY you can better make
those decisions ahead of time. Sometimes "why" is the most difficult
thing to teach.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
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: | Re: COM antenna in a gear leg fairing? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
Brian,
you disappointed me by not addressing the really salient issues with the nose gear
antenna:
1. how do you tune the thing in the shop with the "hot" end of the radiating element
just 6-18 inches (depending on whether the tail is tied to a concrete block)
above the reinforced concrete floor, and
2. what about that propeller blade tha passes so close to the radiating element
on its way around - is it best to tune the antenna with the prop blades horizontal,
vertical, or at some compromise position? If the blades do in fact de-tune
the antenna, will this cause "chop-modulation" as the transmitter final
VSWR protection folds back the power at 2x the rpm frequency?
So many lurking problems that could surprise the amateur experimenter ;-)
-Bill B
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fw: Biblical proportions |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
Subject: Biblical proportions
| Bob,
| The following copy of your message is perhaps a bit redundant, but
| wanted you to know I have copied it for future generations as well. If
those
| finely chosen phrases had been published ten years ago, much sweat would
| have been prevented........ I'm sure Brian Lloyd and many others will
agree
| that it's a very fine summation of the common VHF (& other) comm freqs and
| should be read by every interested builder.
| Once again your good common sense prevails. Congratualtions.
| Ferg
| Europa A064
|
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Lead acid batteries: Vairiations on a |
theme.
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
theme.
That would be golden!
Mickey
> ... I'm looking into adding
> a voice-over narration to the presentation so that it can
> stand alone as a teaching document.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
do not archive
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: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 9/20/04 7:54:36 AM Central Daylight Time,
marknlisa@hometel.com writes:
One word of caution: sometimes it's good not only to understand the
physics, but also *why* the rule was written. Commercial airlines
operate with an accident rate several times lower than we General
Aviation enthusiasts. Rules that take the pilot out of the
decision-making process (if the weather is this bad you can't go,
minimum equiment lists, etc.) are one of the most effective tools the
commercial carriers use to keep the accident rate down. We would do
well to emulate them...
Good Morning Mark,
Having flown under the philosophy you espouse for some thirty-eight of my
fifty-eight years of flying, I feel the necessity to comment.
The safety enjoyed by the air carrier community is not the result a slavish
adherence to the specifications you mention.
It is due to a collective interpretation of what is good and what is bad
about the current set of operating restrictions.
Those restrictions and procedures are in a constant state of evaluation and
consideration. The changes are developed primarily by the pilots who are
adhering to the rules and see areas wherein the rules do not operate optimally
for the current condition.
On the very first page of the operating specifications of the airline for
which I flew was a statement to the effect that nothing in that manual was to
be taken as restricting the captain in command of the flight taking any action
which he felt was appropriate even though that action was not in literal
compliance with the published procedures.
The only proviso was that it was expected that the captain would report the
deviation and be able to explain the action if so requested.
Accountability was the word.
Many of the procedures which were considered optimal, possibly even
mandatory, when I started as a raw first officer, would have been considered reason
for corrective counseling had they been used during my last few years at work.
Any of us can point to occasions when action was taken contrary to the
"book" where a successful outcome resulted from that action. Full compliance with
written procedures may well have resulted in the loss of the aircraft.
A perfect example of that is the 747 which lost a major portion of it's
fuselage near Maui. The Captain in command made several decisions which were
contrary to the written word. His action resulted in the only loss of life being
those lost in the initial decompression. Had he followed written
procedures, there is no doubt that the aircraft would have had to ditch in open
ocean.
It was constantly impressed upon us that the written guidance was there for
our use and guidance.
If we didn't like what it said, we were encouraged to get the rules changed.
That is what was done and the procedures changed often as conditions taught
us where change was needed.
You state: "Rules that take the pilot out of the decision-making process."
Do you really think that is what is desired?
I don't think it was every intended that the pilot be taken out of the
decision process.
It was always my understanding that I was being given guidance to follow so
that I would have a better chance of making the correct decision when a
decision was to be made.
The idea was that we be given all of the knowledge as to why things were
they way they were and what the results would be if the guidance was not
followed.
If the course of action seemed to have a potential of being counter to the
written word, I always considered how I would explain myself at the hearing.
If I was comfortable with my intended explanation, I pressed on.
Do you ever remember being told as a young man that you should never do
anything you wouldn't want your mother to know about?
That was how I felt about doing my job.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Thirty-eight years as an Air Carrier pilot
Thirty years as a captain.
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
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: COM antenna in a gear leg fairing? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Sep 20, 2004, at 10:28 AM, SportAV8R@aol.com wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
>
> Brian,
>
> you disappointed me
My apologies for causing you disappointment.
> by not addressing the really salient issues with the nose gear antenna:
>
> 1. how do you tune the thing in the shop with the "hot" end of the
> radiating element just 6-18 inches (depending on whether the tail is
> tied to a concrete block) above the reinforced concrete floor, and
Tie the tail to the floor and tune the antenna to achieve a match. Go
fly with your antenna analyzer, network analyzer, or SWR bridge in the
circuit and see how well it works. Come back, make changes, and go fly
again. This iterative process will eventually result in a successful
match. Also you need to consider that this antenna is going to be
operating over greater than a 10% range. It will never be quite tuned
at the band edges. As long as the VSWR is less than 3:1, it should
work just dandy.
> 2. what about that propeller blade tha passes so close to the
> radiating element on its way around - is it best to tune the antenna
> with the prop blades horizontal, vertical, or at some compromise
> position? If the blades do in fact de-tune the antenna, will this
> cause "chop-modulation" as the transmitter final VSWR protection folds
> back the power at 2x the rpm frequency?
I don't think you will get enough of a change in tuning to make a
difference. Try it. It might work. Then again, it might not. After
all, it is an experimental aircraft. You might try loading up one of
the main gear legs instead. Be creative.
> So many lurking problems that could surprise the amateur experimenter
> ;-)
One of the things I learned early on while designing protocols is that,
rarely do you need to deal with all the problems you can think up.
Make it as simple as possible then try it out. Fix the things you find
that really need fixing and let the rest go. Often the problems we
think up exist only in our minds.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
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: | Re: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People |
on juliet
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Those rules that take the pilot out of the decision making loop are good
for making one stop and think but they also force more dangerous courses
of action and are used to avoid doing the best thing. Some things, but
not everthing, can be best decided in advance. Who is the rule written
to protect, is also a consideration.
Gee I'd like to shoot this marginal minimums approach on this great
runway. Everything else is perfect but the rule says the visibility is a
tad low so I must go to the alternate with a more challenging runway
(and landing) and yes I'll also be tight on gas when I get there and I
don't like the crosswind there either. The vis rule can't factor in the
other considerations in real time. It will be used to hang the pilot for
making the best decision if something goes awry though and that protects
the boss, the employer, the regulators, not the passenger or pilot.
Gee I'm uncomfortable with this defect for this particular flight and
why not fix it at this maintanance base - but the boss says the Minimum
equipment list allows it and hints at disciniplary action, or there is
a pay loss involved because the rules said it was OK despite how stupid
it might be.
Sure that's what separates the experienced guys from the kids but the
young'uns tend to consider those rules carved in stone cause they don't
know any better or they believe that following the rules increases their
job security even if they don't like them. And the pay influence is
definately increasing. I wonder how safe those rules would prove to be
if they were followed religously.
Bob has it nailed as far as I'm concerned on this one.
Ken
(He was right, dead right as he sped along
but he's just as dead as if he were wrong...)
snip
>One word of caution: sometimes it's good not only to understand the
>physics, but also *why* the rule was written. Commercial airlines
>operate with an accident rate several times lower than we General
>Aviation enthusiasts. Rules that take the pilot out of the
>decision-making process (if the weather is this bad you can't go,
>minimum equiment lists, etc.) are one of the most effective tools the
>commercial carriers use to keep the accident rate down. We would do
>well to emulate them...
>
>
snip
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: Lead acid batteries: Vairiations on a theme. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Werner Schneider" <wernerschneider@compuserve.com>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/ppt/Battery_Presentation_D.ppt
Bob, could it be, that the URL is wrong? BTW ppt files are getting very
large so using winzip could help to get the download a bit faster.
Thanks a lot
Werner
do not archive
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: COM antenna in a gear leg fairing? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
Brian:
thanks for the reply.
The iterative process you suggest would involve a potentially huge number of cowl
removals for adjustment between test flights. Wrestling the RV lower cowl
is a task I dislike a great deal. I hope someone will do the work and post duplicatable
results for the rest of us who might want to follow their lead.
>>One of the things I learned early on while designing protocols is that,
rarely do you need to deal with all the problems you can think up.
Make it as simple as possible then try it out. Fix the things you find
that really need fixing and let the rest go. Often the problems we
think up exist only in our minds.
Brian Lloyd <<
Correct. I am reminded of the old ham radio maxim, oft repeated by Bob Nuckolls,
that a wet string will often perform up to expectations as an antenna for line
of sight close range work. Anything that shows the transmitter a decent SWR
is likely to work at least okay; the moreso if the radiation pattern and resistance
are reasonable.
-Bill B
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People Reviewed |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
Bob.
I am dismayed at your reply. Neither You or I are qualified to evaluate the
exposure risks that vary for example with power, frequency, and distance.
The standards that Hams are required to meet have been developed from a lot
of studies and are considered safe. ANY close proximity to RF at any
frequency/power/etc. is potentially harmfull. Flesh heating is not the issue
as damage can and has occurred at much lower levels that are needed for
local heating.
Frankly I do not know what the rules say with out looking and neither of us
has done that.
You are famous in your need to decide from science not "non scientific"
info.
I suggest that glass aircraft pilots need to get the facts before deciding
its safe enough.
Respectfully
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III Reviewed" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 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: COM antenna in a gear leg fairing? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Sep 20, 2004, at 12:58 PM, SportAV8R@aol.com wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
>
> Brian:
>
> thanks for the reply.
>
> The iterative process you suggest would involve a potentially huge
> number of cowl removals for adjustment between test flights.
Perhaps not. Set the gamma tap on the ground and then make adjustments
of the coupling capacitor. I bet you are in the ballpark without
having to remove the cowl if you do it right. Remember, a 3:1 VSWR is
all you really need.
We can always come up with reasons why we shouldn't or why it would be
too difficult. Often, once we get into the project it is not.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Brame <Charleyb@earthlink.net>
I have a Radio Shack 13.8 volt, 10 amp power supply that I have used to
power my panel and keep my PC680 battery charged. (Still haven't run the
engine or the alternator.) I generally connect the positive wire to the
alternator lead at the firewall, and the negative lead to the firewall
ground point. My panel pretty closely follows Bob's All Electric on a
Budget schematic.
Yesterday, I managed to hook the power supply up with reversed leads and
powered it up. Then I turned on my battery contactor. Within a few
seconds I could smell hot electrics and turned everything off. Despite
Bob's warnings to the contrary, I do have an avionics master switch, and
it was never turned on, so the expensive stuff was protected. As best I
can determine, nothing on my panel was damaged but I worry that I may
have toasted something that is not obvious. Are there any other panel
devices that I may have damaged other than the avionics and instruments
- like the voltage regulator or the diodes between the main and ess
busses or the wig wag system?
My power supply is mort. It did not blow its fuse, but I get no power
from it. Any suggestions as to how to fix the power supply?
Charlie
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
Paul wrote:
>>The standards that Hams are required to meet <<
Say what? I've got RF exposure standards to meet? Who enforces them and what
penalties am I liable to face?
"Inquiring minds" and all that,
-BB
do not archive
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: echristley@nc.rr.com
> I'm not trying to minimize risks around RF . .
>
Just one more anecdote to help Bob out.
The Europeans and Japanese have been riding Mag-Lev
and electric trains for YEARS. Now we're talking
real power. As finicky as they are about
environmental regulations, if there was any validity
to the enviro-Nazi's claims those trains would
either not move or weigh twice as much with all the
shielding.
OK. One more piece.
The part about the microwave. The 600W in the
microwave have been carefully directed to all hit
the food. Your antenna is mostly omnidirectional,
meaning that the energy scatters everywhere (mostly
away from you), and thereby it's output drops off at
the cube of the distance.
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: | RF exposure levels |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Sep 20, 2004, at 2:36 PM, SportAV8R@aol.com wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
>
> Paul wrote:
>
>>> The standards that Hams are required to meet <<
>
> Say what? I've got RF exposure standards to meet?
Unfortunately, yes.
> Who enforces them and what penalties am I liable to face?
As far as I have been able to determine, there is no enforcement other
than self enforcement within the ham community. Most stations do not
generate RF at a high enough power level to trigger the need for a
station evaluation.
We all have our opinions. I was going to write a big reply to Paul but
it boils down to FUD.
There was a big scare over RF and EM exposure some years ago. People
were worried about things like 50-60 Hz EM radiation from power lines
too. There was all kinds of pseudo-science and questionable studies
being tossed around so the FCC came up with exposure limit standards
based on smoke and mirrors from what I have been able to deduce.
But if you are really interested the details are on the ARRL web site
at http://www.arrl.org/news/rfsafety/eval/. This strikes me as a real
non-issue.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
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: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People Reviewed |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: plaurence@the-beach.net
Bob
the link doesn't seem to work
Peter
> members are welcome to check out this work in progress at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Aircraft_Wiring_For_Smart_People_
> Reviewed.pdf
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ---
>
>
> advertising on the Matronics Forums.
> http://www.matronics.com/chat
> ====
>
>
>
>
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People Reviewed |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 9/20/04 3:31:40 PM Central Daylight Time,
plaurence@the-beach.net writes:
Bob
the link doesn't seem to work
Peter
Good Afternoon Peter,
It worked for me. Is this what you used?
_http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Aircraft_Wiring_For_Smart_People_Reviewe
d.pdf_
(http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Aircraft_Wiring_For_Smart_People_Reviewed.pdf)
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Phil Birkelbach <phil@petrasoft.net>
I doubt if you hurt the e-buss diode. It takes quite a bit of reverse
voltage to bust through a diode. That is, after all what they are
designed to protect against. I suspect your smoke leakage came from the
battery contactor control wiring. If you have the diode on the
contactor then you would have a direct short if the polarity were
reversed. Check the diode and the wiring to the master switch. I don't
know how that system would react to having a power supply installed
parallel with a battery in the opposite polarity. You may have simply
dumped all the current into the battery and nothing else got hurt, but I
don't know enough about it.
I have a Battery Tender hooked up all the time. When I want to test
something I just hit the master switch like I would if the plane were
flying. The battery tender takes care of keeping the battery charged
and I don't have to connect it and disconnect it. It is probably
cheaper than the power supply you have (or used to have :-) ) too.
Godspeed,
Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
RV-7 N727WB (Reserved) - Panel
http://www.myrv7.com
Charlie Brame wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Brame <Charleyb@earthlink.net>
>
>I have a Radio Shack 13.8 volt, 10 amp power supply that I have used to
>power my panel and keep my PC680 battery charged. (Still haven't run the
>engine or the alternator.) I generally connect the positive wire to the
>alternator lead at the firewall, and the negative lead to the firewall
>ground point. My panel pretty closely follows Bob's All Electric on a
>Budget schematic.
>
>Yesterday, I managed to hook the power supply up with reversed leads and
>powered it up. Then I turned on my battery contactor. Within a few
>seconds I could smell hot electrics and turned everything off. Despite
>Bob's warnings to the contrary, I do have an avionics master switch, and
>it was never turned on, so the expensive stuff was protected. As best I
>can determine, nothing on my panel was damaged but I worry that I may
>have toasted something that is not obvious. Are there any other panel
>devices that I may have damaged other than the avionics and instruments
>- like the voltage regulator or the diodes between the main and ess
>busses or the wig wag system?
>
>My power supply is mort. It did not blow its fuse, but I get no power
>from it. Any suggestions as to how to fix the power supply?
>
>Charlie
>RV-6A N11CB
>San Antonio
>
>
>
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People Reviewed |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ozarkseller2@aol.com
In a message dated 9/20/2004 3:31:40 PM Central Daylight Time,
plaurence@the-beach.net writes:
> the link doesn't seem to work
>
> Peter
>
> >members are welcome to check out this work in progress at:
> >
> >http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Aircraft_Wiring_For_Smart_People_
> >Reviewed.pdf
It's working fine now.
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: | battery seminar power-point presentation |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Listers,
I'd forgotten about one of PowerPoint's printing features.
You can do the slides 4-up on a single sheet. I've
printed the battery presentation onto an Acrobat .pdf
file and compressed it down to about 5% of the original
file size. The NEW target URL for this document is:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/pdf/Battery_Presentation_D.pdf
Bob . . .
---
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: | Re: Lead acid batteries: Vairiations on a theme. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tony Babb" <tonybabb@alejandra.net>
Bob,
The link didn't work for me either.
Thanks,
Tony
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Lead acid batteries: Vairiations on a theme.
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 05:03 AM 9/20/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: DanJE@aol.com
> >
> >I just read all the web pages of informative stuff about the "Battery
> >Tender" devices... very educational... IF you have a lead-acid battery!
>
> The Oddysey is a lead-acid battery.
>
>
> >What about the new Oddysey dry-cell batteries everyone is using/
> >retrofitting into their Van's aircraft? Forgive me if you've gone
> >over that topic a
> >zillion times on this forum.. I get the email version, and dont know the
> >method
> >to research past topics.
> >
> >In particular, I'm curious if the Oddysey dry-cells can be successfully
> >'floated' or charge maintained by the family of BatteryTender products?
> >Or.. is
> >there really a need to do so, consdering one of their claims to fame is
> >being
> >able to hold a charge for about 2 years, just sitting on the shelf.
>
>
> See:
> http://www.enersysreservepower.com/ody_b.asp?brandID=5
>
> Oddysey is the latest offerings of Gates/Hawker/Enersys in
> the long and relatively successful history of development
> and marketing of sealed, valve regulated, lead-acid
> (SVRLA) batteries. Except for small differences in manufacturing,
> and electrolyte loading these are the same as recombinant gas
> (RG), absorbed glass mat (AGM) and starved electrolyte variations
> on a theme. While the term "dry" may appear in their marketing
> literature, the battery is still loaded with liquid sulfuric acid
> and water mixture . . . it's totally contained within the glass
> mat separators held in place by capillary action. If you drive
> a nail into one of these batteries it will dry out and fail but
> no liquid will exit the compromised cell. Hence the appearance
> of being "dry" when in fact, it's loaded with the same stuff
> that sloshes around in your car's battery.
>
> Note the other products listed on the Enersys webpage cited
> above. Cyclon, Powersafe, DataSafe and Genesis are but a series
> of variations on a theme of SVRLA batteries, each series
> optimized for some task.
>
> With respect to Battery Tenders . . . there are a number of
> offerings with 2, 3 and 4-step charging algorithms with
> each technique "optimized" for variations on the VRSLA
> themes. If you have a high speed internet connection and
> want to get this power point presentation, feel free to download
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/ppt/Battery_Presentation_D.ppt
> It's only going to be available there for a few more weeks
> so if you're reading this in the archives and don't find the
> presentation, write me directly and I'll get a copy to you.
>
> This is a presentation I gave for folks at Raytheon during
> a study (ongoing) of battery performance issues on our
> products. Toward the end of the presentation I discuss
> two of Battery Tender's charging algorithms but without
> offering any judgement. It is axiomatic that any product
> will be offered with a certain amount of marketing hype . . .
> probably true but the BIG question is, are the differences
> relevant and do they deliver good return on investment?
>
> As soon as I have enough information to make a considered
> judgement on the differences, sufice it to say that ANY of
> the Battery Tender products will very nicely watch over
> and maintain any variations on the VRSLA battery themes.
>
> The power point presentation will be a bit weak when read
> as a stand-alone document. I really hate to attend a program
> where the presenter simply reads the slides. So, what I've
> offered you are the illustrations and notes for my presentation
> which are not very self explanatory. I'm looking into adding
> a voice-over narration to the presentation so that it can
> stand alone as a teaching document.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ---
>
>
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RF exposure levels |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Maureen & Bob Christensen" <mchriste@danvilletelco.net>
It's not totally a non-issue particularly if you carry passengers, including
children.
At 50 watts, the "public" (read passengers), should be at least 7.4 to 10.5
feet from your transmitting antenna . . . most of us are running much less
than 50 watts, so the distance required also goes down . . . however its not
a linier change.
My suggestion, use common sense, and keep your transmitting antenna a far
away from the people flying with you as your plane's configuration allows.
Another consideration is "how much time you spend with the transmitter
keyed" for most pilots it's a little as possible in VFR conditions . . .
even flying IFR we really don't typically spend that much time transmitting!
Regards,
Bob Christensen
AB0KP (Ham call)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brianl@lloyd.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RF exposure levels
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
>
>
> On Sep 20, 2004, at 2:36 PM, SportAV8R@aol.com wrote:
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: SportAV8R@aol.com
> >
> > Paul wrote:
> >
> >>> The standards that Hams are required to meet <<
> >
> > Say what? I've got RF exposure standards to meet?
>
> Unfortunately, yes.
>
> > Who enforces them and what penalties am I liable to face?
>
> As far as I have been able to determine, there is no enforcement other
> than self enforcement within the ham community. Most stations do not
> generate RF at a high enough power level to trigger the need for a
> station evaluation.
>
> We all have our opinions. I was going to write a big reply to Paul but
> it boils down to FUD.
>
> There was a big scare over RF and EM exposure some years ago. People
> were worried about things like 50-60 Hz EM radiation from power lines
> too. There was all kinds of pseudo-science and questionable studies
> being tossed around so the FCC came up with exposure limit standards
> based on smoke and mirrors from what I have been able to deduce.
>
> But if you are really interested the details are on the ARRL web site
> at http://www.arrl.org/news/rfsafety/eval/. This strikes me as a real
> non-issue.
>
> Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
> brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
> +1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
>
>
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: RF exposure levels |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Sep 20, 2004, at 7:24 PM, Maureen & Bob Christensen wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Maureen & Bob Christensen"
> <mchriste@danvilletelco.net>
>
> It's not totally a non-issue particularly if you carry passengers,
> including
> children.
My opinion is different. And what do children have to do with it?
> At 50 watts, the "public" (read passengers), should be at least 7.4 to
> 10.5
> feet from your transmitting antenna . . . most of us are running much
> less
> than 50 watts, so the distance required also goes down . . . however
> its not
> a linier change.
Exposure levels vary linearly with transmit power level but are the
inverse square of distance. Double the distance and field strength
decreases by a factor of four.
Regardless, the exposure levels set by the FCC were in response to the
FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) back in the days when the word
"radiation" struck fear into people everywhere and they were afraid of
EM from their power lines and their computer screens. The official
"safe" exposure levels do not have a lot to do with reality. But they
are "official" and that makes people more comfortable since we all know
that our governmental agencies would never promulgate anything that
were not well reasoned with solid scientific fact behind them and
weren't in our best interests.
> My suggestion, use common sense, and keep your transmitting antenna a
> far
> away from the people flying with you as your plane's configuration
> allows.
Have you ever considered what the field strength is for a handheld
radio with the antenna next to your head? Most handhelds are a couple
of watts. Even a few feet will make the field strength from your panel
mounted radio lower than a handheld. I don't see people living in fear
of their handhelds or covering their heads with aluminum foil. The FCC
doesn't even set standards for exposure from handheld radios.
> Another consideration is "how much time you spend with the transmitter
> keyed" for most pilots it's a little as possible in VFR conditions . .
> .
> even flying IFR we really don't typically spend that much time
> transmitting!
No, we don't. This whole thing is a non-issue. As I said, this whole
thread is brought on by FUD, not by knowledge and understanding.
>
> Regards,
> Bob Christensen
> AB0KP (Ham call)
>
Brian Lloyd (WB6RQN-Extra) 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter" <dcarter@datarecall.net>
Charlie, check your manual for location of the fuse that protects your power
supply - test it with ohmmeter
David
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie Brame" <Charleyb@earthlink.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: OOPS!
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Brame
<Charleyb@earthlink.net>
>
> I have a Radio Shack 13.8 volt, 10 amp power supply that I have used to
> power my panel and keep my PC680 battery charged. (Still haven't run the
> engine or the alternator.) I generally connect the positive wire to the
> alternator lead at the firewall, and the negative lead to the firewall
> ground point. My panel pretty closely follows Bob's All Electric on a
> Budget schematic.
>
> Yesterday, I managed to hook the power supply up with reversed leads and
> powered it up. Then I turned on my battery contactor. Within a few
> seconds I could smell hot electrics and turned everything off. Despite
> Bob's warnings to the contrary, I do have an avionics master switch, and
> it was never turned on, so the expensive stuff was protected. As best I
> can determine, nothing on my panel was damaged but I worry that I may
> have toasted something that is not obvious. Are there any other panel
> devices that I may have damaged other than the avionics and instruments
> - like the voltage regulator or the diodes between the main and ess
> busses or the wig wag system?
>
> My power supply is mort. It did not blow its fuse, but I get no power
> from it. Any suggestions as to how to fix the power supply?
>
> Charlie
> RV-6A N11CB
> San Antonio
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>Bob,
>I am using a European style terminal block in an aera where I have a lot
>on connections, I have been tinning the wires before inserting then in the
>block and then tighting down the screw yo hold them in place.
>Is this and accepable method or do you have a suggestion for a better
>route to take.
>
I try to eliminate any type of terminal strip. Haven't
used one in a new design in 30 years. If you absolutely
have to have one, terminal strips used in stationary
situations are generally not suited for use on airplanes.
Suggest you consider terminal strips like these:
http://www.wicksaircraft.com/catalog/product_cat.php/subid=1565/index.html
You terminate the wire with a standard ring terminal
and then join it to other wires on captive treaded studs
using metal locknuts. Here's an example of this style
of terminal strip installed on a bizjet.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Terminal_Strip_Captive_Stud.jpg
In this case, a bus bar has been added across the studs
to tie them all together. I suspect your application will
use individual studs and no buss bar will be needed.
I will invite you to join us on the AeroElectric List
to continue this and similar discussions. It's useful to
share the information with as many folks as possible.
A further benefit can be realized with membership on
the list. There are lots of technically capable folks
on the list who can offer suggestions too. You can
join at . . .
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/
Thanks!
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
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: RF exposure levels |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
A friend of mine developed an acoustic neuroma on his left side thus quit
using the cellphone on his left side. Then he developed a glioblastoma on
his right side---cellphone on right side. Is this reversed for people who
drive on the other side of the road? Still who knows?
I'm with Brian on this. Frankly my airplane might have magnetron defrosting
for windows and a magnetron for heating the passengers. It really is a
better idea than it seems. You can rip the door off the microwave oven to
warm up the kitchen on chilly mornings--very efficient--heats up the people
not the furniture.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
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: Slobovia Outernational Flyin Invitation |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister@qia.net>
Hi Charlie,
Can you tell me a little about the typical kind of folk / aircraft who
attend this fly in ?. I am at Waukesha so its an easy day trip for me.
Regards, Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie England" <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Slobovia Outernational Flyin Invitation
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England
<ceengland@bellsouth.net>
>
> If you can make it to central Mississippi on Oct. 16, I'd like to invite
> you to Slobovia Outernational's fall flyin just north of Jackson MS.
>
> The fun starts at 10:00 AM & lunch will be served at noon. You are
> welcome to overnight either Friday or Saturday. Just email or call so we
> can plan for supper/breakfast, throw a bedroll in the plane/car & 'come
> on down'.
>
> No formal programs are scheduled, just lots of airplane rides, food &
> 'homebuilt conversation'.
>
> Info on our airport can be found at
>
> http://www.airnav.com/airport/MS71
>
> FAA Identifier: MS71
> Lat/Long: 32-29-42.508N / 090-17-34.325W
> 32-29.70847N / 090-17.57208W
> 32.4951411 / -90.2928681
> UNICOM: 122.75
>
> Disclaimer: Slobovia is a private airport. Pilots operate at their own
> risk. Please be alert for both very slow & very high speed aircraft
> around the airport; we are an 'equal opportunity airport'.
>
> If you need driving directions or more info, feel free to email me at
> ceengland@bellsouth.net
> or call at 601-879-9596.
>
> Ya'll come!
>
> Charlie
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
Bob,
One of the gizmos I am installing in my RV is a low fuel warning system
which uses those terminals where the end of a set screw cranks down on the
wire. I didn't like the idea of using them with small stranded wires, so I
tried crimping D-sub pins on the wires before I inserted them. Seems to
work ok. Do you see a problem with that? I have anchored the wires within
a couple of inches of the terminal strip.
Terry
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:46 PM 9/20/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson.com>
>
>Bob,
>
>One of the gizmos I am installing in my RV is a low fuel warning system
>which uses those terminals where the end of a set screw cranks down on the
>wire. I didn't like the idea of using them with small stranded wires, so I
>tried crimping D-sub pins on the wires before I inserted them. Seems to
>work ok. Do you see a problem with that? I have anchored the wires within
>a couple of inches of the terminal strip.
I'd put heatshrink over the wire-grip and a half-inch or so
of the wire as well. The d-sub pin by itself is no more robust
than the wire mashed under a clamp screw. Geesh! I wish those
mash-strips would go away. D-subs have a higher contact density
for the same board area, they're only slightly more expensive
and they let you pull a piece of equipment out by unplugging
and replugging instead of diddling with a bunch of wires that
might not get put pack in the right holes.
Bob . . .
---
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|