---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 09/20/04: 36 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:04:01 AM PST US From: DanJE@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:00:25 AM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: COM antenna in a gear leg fairing? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:11:23 AM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 26 Msgs - 09/19/04 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:53:42 AM PST US From: "Mark Sletten" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Sletten" --------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:39:33 AM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Sep 20, 2004, at 8:53 AM, Mark Sletten wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Sletten" > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:45:02 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Lead acid batteries: Vairiations on a theme. --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:17:17 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 07:53 AM 9/20/2004 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Sletten" > > >--------- >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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:19:51 AM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Sep 20, 2004, at 8:53 AM, Mark Sletten wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Sletten" > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:29:13 AM PST US From: SportAV8R@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:36:02 AM PST US From: "Fergus Kyle" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fw: Biblical proportions --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fergus Kyle" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:56:10 AM PST US From: Mickey Coggins theme. Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Lead acid batteries: Vairiations on a theme. --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:09:54 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:26:24 AM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: COM antenna in a gear leg fairing? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:41:35 AM PST US From: Ken Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People on juliet --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:58:43 AM PST US From: "Werner Schneider" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Lead acid batteries: Vairiations on a theme. --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Werner Schneider" > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:01:24 AM PST US From: SportAV8R@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:41:58 AM PST US From: "Paul Messinger" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People Reviewed --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" 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" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Aircraft Wiring for Smart People Reviewed > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Reviewed > > At 02:58 PM 9/19/2004 -0700, you wrote: > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" > > > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:46:35 AM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: COM antenna in a gear leg fairing? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:57:27 AM PST US From: Charlie Brame Subject: AeroElectric-List: OOPS! --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Brame 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:40:42 AM PST US From: SportAV8R@aol.com --> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:04:29 PM PST US From: echristley@nc.rr.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:37:48 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: AeroElectric-List: RF exposure levels --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:29:12 PM PST US From: plaurence@the-beach.net Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:58:48 PM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:51:56 PM PST US From: Phil Birkelbach Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: OOPS! --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Phil Birkelbach 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 > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:57:24 PM PST US From: Ozarkseller2@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:01:28 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: battery seminar power-point presentation --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:52:40 PM PST US From: "Tony Babb" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Lead acid batteries: Vairiations on a theme. --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tony Babb" Bob, The link didn't work for me either. Thanks, Tony ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Lead acid batteries: Vairiations on a theme. > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:24:49 PM PST US From: "Maureen & Bob Christensen" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RF exposure levels --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Maureen & Bob Christensen" 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" Subject: AeroElectric-List: RF exposure levels > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:14:48 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RF exposure levels --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd On Sep 20, 2004, at 7:24 PM, Maureen & Bob Christensen wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Maureen & Bob Christensen" > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:18:26 PM PST US From: "David Carter" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: OOPS! --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter" Charlie, check your manual for location of the fuse that protects your power supply - test it with ohmmeter David ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charlie Brame" Subject: AeroElectric-List: OOPS! > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Brame > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 06:46:51 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Terminal Strips --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" >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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:36:29 PM PST US From: "Eric M. Jones" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: RF exposure levels --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:24:05 PM PST US From: "Paul McAllister" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Slobovia Outernational Flyin Invitation --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister" 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" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Slobovia Outernational Flyin Invitation > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:47:17 PM PST US From: "Terry Watson" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Terminal Strips --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:16:22 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Terminal Strips --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 08:46 PM 9/20/2004 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Terry Watson" > >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 . . . ---