Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:00 AM - Re: heated seats (Jim Butcher)
2. 06:35 AM - Re: RF exposure levels (Matt Jurotich)
3. 06:54 AM - Polyswitches (Mark Banus)
4. 07:16 AM - Re: RF exposure levels (Brian Lloyd)
5. 07:46 AM - Re: Polyswitches (Mike Nellis)
6. 09:01 AM - The new Oddysey dry-cell (well, maybe damp) batteries (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 09:03 AM - Word for word (Fergus Kyle)
8. 09:06 AM - Re: B&C alternators (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 10:59 AM - Re: Re: B&C alternators (echristley@nc.rr.com)
10. 11:46 AM - wire size conversion (Jeff Orear)
11. 12:37 PM - Re: wire size conversion (Eric M. Jones)
12. 12:37 PM - Re: wire size conversion (Mickey Coggins)
13. 12:55 PM - Re: wire size conversion (Gilles Thesee)
14. 01:07 PM - Re: wire size conversion (Werner Schneider)
15. 01:10 PM - Re: wire size conversion (cgalley)
16. 01:12 PM - Re: wire size conversion (Tore S. Bristol)
17. 01:12 PM - Fw: wire size conversion (cgalley)
18. 01:23 PM - AW: wire size conversion (Europa (Alfred Buess))
19. 02:18 PM - Re: RF exposure levels (Paul Messinger)
20. 02:27 PM - Re: wire size conversion (rd2@evenlink.com)
21. 02:49 PM - Vans VOR antenna (Mickey Billings)
22. 03:03 PM - Re: wire size conversion (Gilles Thesee)
23. 03:11 PM - Strobe Power Supply Qstn (N27160@aol.com)
24. 04:10 PM - Re: Strobe Power Supply Qstn (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
25. 04:17 PM - Re: Re: B&C alternators (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
26. 05:22 PM - Rules and Regs (Fergus Kyle)
27. 05:37 PM - FCC treatise on RF exposure (Fergus Kyle)
28. 06:04 PM - barrier strip? (thomas a. sargent)
29. 06:41 PM - Re: FCC treatise on RF exposure (Brian Lloyd)
30. 06:48 PM - Whelen Strobes (Bobby Hester)
31. 09:00 PM - Re: barrier strip? (Rico Voss)
32. 10:12 PM - Re: wire size conversion (Gilles Thesee)
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: heated seats |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Butcher" <europa@triton.net>
Christopher,
We have purchased these for install in our Europa. Someone else on this
board had suggested them about a year ago. Haven't used them yet, but they
look very durable. The literature says each element is requires 4.7A at 12
VDC. They do have a thermostat built in, so the power will be less when
they are warm.
We purchased ours on line at www.sportsimportsltd.com.
Hope this helps.
Jim Butcher
Europa N241BW A185
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: RF exposure levels |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Jurotich <mjurotich@hst.nasa.gov>
There are some studies in microbiology that show even the ultra low
frequency stuff proposed for communicating with subs affect cells. I am
too lazy too find the articles, but am relatively sure my information came
from a summary in Science news in the middle 90s. Safe levels are usually
set to offend the fewest of the big money folk. That's why we have such
things as safe levels of arsenic. I am willing to take some informed risks
as an adult but am unwilling to knowingly expose children to many of those
same risks.
You are right to say the risk is slight given the power levels and
durations. I would think the transponder is more likely to be an offender
than a com radio.
Matthew M. Jurotich
NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
Swales contractor to the
JWST ISIM Systems Engineer
m/c : 443
e-mail mail to: <mjurotich@hst.nasa.gov>
phone : 301-286-5919
fax : 301-286-7021
JWST URL: <http://ngst1.gsfc.nasa.gov
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Banus" <mbanus@hotmail.com>
Bob,
In your thorough review of "Aircraft wiring for Smart People" (Thank you for
taking the time to review the doc.) you mention that you have considered polyswitches
twice and discarded the idea. Would you discuss your issues/concerns
about using these devices.
Mark Banus
Glasair II
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: RF exposure levels |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Sep 22, 2004, at 9:34 AM, Matt Jurotich wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Jurotich
> <mjurotich@hst.nasa.gov>
>
> There are some studies in microbiology that show even the ultra low
> frequency stuff proposed for communicating with subs affect cells. I
> am
> too lazy too find the articles, but am relatively sure my information
> came
> from a summary in Science news in the middle 90s.
Yes, there was a lot of "fear of all things EM" back then. It was
relatively easy to get a grant to study EM radiation.
> Safe levels are usually
> set to offend the fewest of the big money folk.
That is usually what happens when there is very little science to back
up the decision to set exposure levels. You have to set some level to
appease the People Who Are Afraid Of Everything They Don't Understand
and yet still let commerce continue. Nowhere is this more apparent
than with nuclear power.
But I digress.
> That's why we have such things as safe levels of arsenic.
Arsenic occurs naturally and therefore there is some level of exposure
just by being alive. The human body has evolved to deal with various
levels of toxins that occur naturally in the environment.
But I agree that arsenic is not something one would want to ingest on a
regular basis.
> I am willing to take some informed risks
> as an adult but am unwilling to knowingly expose children to many of
> those
> same risks.
We always have been overprotective of our children. (I have five
children and may be tarred with the same brush.)
> You are right to say the risk is slight given the power levels and
> durations. I would think the transponder is more likely to be an
> offender
> than a com radio.
And even then the exposure level is very low. The peak power output
from a transponder may be 200W but the average power is probably less
than 1W given the average interrogation rate.
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
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: Polyswitches |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mike Nellis <mike@bmnellis.com>
You might want to check out a couple of these articles
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/expbusad.html
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/fuseorcb.html
I don't want to speak for Bob, but I think his position on Poly Fuses is
similar to his position on Circuit Breakers.
It makes for interesting reading.
Mark Banus wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Banus" <mbanus@hotmail.com>
>
>Bob,
> In your thorough review of "Aircraft wiring for Smart People" (Thank you for
taking the time to review the doc.) you mention that you have considered polyswitches
twice and discarded the idea. Would you discuss your issues/concerns
about using these devices.
>
>Mark Banus
>Glasair II
>
>
>
>
--
Mike Nellis
Austin, TX
CMRA #32 Honda RC51
'97 YZF1000
'47 Stinson 108-2; RV6 (Fuselage)
http://bmnellis.com
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: | The new Oddysey dry-cell (well, maybe damp) batteries |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 12:18 PM 9/22/2004 +0930, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rex & Jan Shaw" <rexjan@bigpond.com>
>
>I have changed from a 8 month old normal flooded wet cell lead acid battery
>to an Odyssey Absorbed Glass Matt battery.
>YES !!!! all the claims are correct at this point anyway. The difference is
>amazing. Do it and you'll never regret it. It's worth the extra. The old
>girl has never started so easy even when the flooded cell batt was new.
>
>Rex.
>rexjan@bigpond.com
This is typical of the difference people not when replacing ANY flooded
battery with about ANY AGM/VRSLA/RG/SE lead-acid battery. The Odyssey
is a fine example of this technology but don't lust after an Odyssey
if your budget is limited. There are other practical choices.
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
'old Bob' and Mark,
Glad to see the accomodation each made to a controversial topic.
I remember two adages:
1 Accident reports come down to two choices;[a] there but for the Grace
of God, go I. [b] I wouldn't have done that; the guy was an ass. Of course,
keep reading them...........
2 When the L1011 came out, the airline company negotiated which parts of
the Aircraft Operating Manual it could write, and which were sacrosanct to
Lockheed.
For a year or so, because of the siting of one comma and of one "only", an
emergency overweight landing was permitted providing the aircraft was flown
at a maximum bank of 45 degrees. Everyone knew what it really meant, but
that's what it said.
Aviators noticed it but clerks changed it.
Ferg
Europa A064
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: B&C alternators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:52 PM 9/21/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ernest Christley
><echristley@nc.rr.com>
>
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> > If it were my airplane, I'd trash the generator and
> > regulator in favor of a PM alternator from B&C pictured
> > here:
> >
> > http://bandc.biz/200gdesc.html
> >
>
>Bob, what is it that makes these alternators so expensive?
>
>Several of the rotary guys are using Geo/Metro alternators that only
>weigh around 5lbs and cost a little over $100. B&C's site doesn't go
>into the advantages of their offering, but at 4 times the expense I
>would expect there to be some benefit. B&C just seems like a
>straight-up sort of company not to have some good reasoning.
If you can take a product off a garden tractor, build brackets
to mount it to your engine and drive it with a belt, you can
practically trade sweat-equity for purchase dollars. However, if
the product needs to plug-n-play on the gearbox of an engine with
reliability and performance goals of not having failures dump
metal into your engine, it's a bit more complex. Now, add
a quest for blessings of those-who-know-more-about-airplanes-
than-we-do and the price goes up still more.
Bob . . .
---
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: B&C alternators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: echristley@nc.rr.com
> If you can take a product off a garden tractor,
build brackets
> to mount it to your engine and drive it with a
belt, you can
> practically trade sweat-equity for purchase
dollars. However, if
> the product needs to plug-n-play on the gearbox
of an engine with
> reliability and performance goals of not having
failures dump
> metal into your engine, it's a bit more complex.
Now, add
> a quest for blessings of
those-who-know-more-about-airplanes-
> than-we-do and the price goes up still more.
>
> Bob . . .
>
I've hunted around their site, but may very well
have missed it. Do they carry the 'unblessed' version?
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: | wire size conversion |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeff Orear" <jorear@new.rr.com>
List:
I have a friend who is installing a Walter Lom engine in an aircraft of his own
design. The engine, being Czech built, is metric based and calls out for wire
sizes using an odd-ball measurement standard. Apparently it uses the area of
a cross-section of the wire to base the size designation on. Anyone heard of
such a system?
What he needs is a way to convert this standard to commonly used gauge sizes.
Is there a conversion factor or some conversion table available that he can use?
Thanks, on his behalf.
Regards,
Jeff Orear
RV6A N782P (reserved)
firewall forward
Peshtigo, WI
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: wire size conversion |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeff Orear" <jorear@new.rr.com>
>What he needs is a way to convert this standard to commonly used gauge
sizes.
>Is there a conversion factor or some conversion table available that he can
use?
Google "metric AWG wire size conversion table".
"Too bad they gave it such a silly name. Five years from now it will be a
religion."
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
"The Okies moving to California raised the average IQ of both states."
---Will Rogers
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: wire size conversion |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Cross section of the wire? That's strange!
Next thing you know those metric dudes will
start sizing their drill bits using the diameter
of the thing, instead of useful numbers like
30, 40, E and stuff. :-)
Anyway, I found this using Google, which might help you:
http://www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm
Mickey
>I have a friend who is installing a Walter Lom engine in an aircraft of his own
design. The engine, being Czech built, is metric based and calls out for wire
sizes using an odd-ball measurement standard. Apparently it uses the area
of a cross-section of the wire to base the size designation on. Anyone heard
of such a system?
>
>What he needs is a way to convert this standard to commonly used gauge sizes.
Is there a conversion factor or some conversion table available that he can use?
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
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: wire size conversion |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles Thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Hi, Jeff
>
> I have a friend who is installing a Walter Lom engine in an aircraft of
his own design. The engine, being Czech built, is metric based and calls
out for wire sizes using an odd-ball measurement standard. Apparently it
uses the area of a cross-section of the wire to base the size designation
on. Anyone heard of such a system?
>
Yes, as have a few billions other people in the rest of the world ;-)
Pardon me, I just couldn't resist...AWG are just that, AMERICAN Wire Gauge.
> What he needs is a way to convert this standard to commonly used gauge
sizes. Is there a conversion factor or some conversion table available that
he can use?
>
AWG 22 => 0.38 mm
AWG 20 => 0.61 mm
AWG 18 => 0.96 mm
AWG 16 => 1.23 mm
AWG 14 => 1.94 mm
AWG 12 => 2.98 mm
AWG 10 => 4.74 mm
AWG 8 => 8.60 mm
AWG 6 => 13.6 mm
AWG 4 => 21.6 mm
Hope this helps,
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
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: wire size conversion |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Werner Schneider" <wernerschneider@compuserve.com>
Hello Jeff,
http://trueforce.com/encyclopaedia/wire_gauge_table.htm
and most probably they have based it on mm
2 which is r
2 * PI, as example
AWG20 == 0.61 mm
2
a very common wire in electrical (house) installation is 1.5mm
2 which is
around AWG17
Hope it helps
Werner
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Orear" <jorear@new.rr.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: wire size conversion
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeff Orear" <jorear@new.rr.com>
>
> List:
>
> I have a friend who is installing a Walter Lom engine in an aircraft of
his own design. The engine, being Czech built, is metric based and calls
out for wire sizes using an odd-ball measurement standard. Apparently it
uses the area of a cross-section of the wire to base the size designation
on. Anyone heard of such a system?
>
> What he needs is a way to convert this standard to commonly used gauge
sizes. Is there a conversion factor or some conversion table available that
he can use?
>
> Thanks, on his behalf.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Jeff Orear
> RV6A N782P (reserved)
> firewall forward
> Peshtigo, WI
>
>
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: wire size conversion |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
There is a system called circular mils for wire carrying capacity.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Orear" <jorear@new.rr.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: wire size conversion
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeff Orear" <jorear@new.rr.com>
>
> List:
>
> I have a friend who is installing a Walter Lom engine in an aircraft of
his own design. The engine, being Czech built, is metric based and calls
out for wire sizes using an odd-ball measurement standard. Apparently it
uses the area of a cross-section of the wire to base the size designation
on. Anyone heard of such a system?
>
> What he needs is a way to convert this standard to commonly used gauge
sizes. Is there a conversion factor or some conversion table available that
he can use?
>
> Thanks, on his behalf.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Jeff Orear
> RV6A N782P (reserved)
> firewall forward
> Peshtigo, WI
>
>
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: wire size conversion |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tore S. Bristol" <tf51@c2i.net>
Jeff,
In Europe we use metric measurements, and I know cars and houses here uses
wires in square mm. (25.4 mm to an inch)
I am using AWG as I am building an US kit, and is just as baffeled as your
friend.
Tore S Bristol
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Orear" <jorear@new.rr.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: wire size conversion
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeff Orear" <jorear@new.rr.com>
>
> List:
>
> I have a friend who is installing a Walter Lom engine in an aircraft of
his own design. The engine, being Czech built, is metric based and calls
out for wire sizes using an odd-ball measurement standard. Apparently it
uses the area of a cross-section of the wire to base the size designation
on. Anyone heard of such a system?
>
> What he needs is a way to convert this standard to commonly used gauge
sizes. Is there a conversion factor or some conversion table available that
he can use?
>
> Thanks, on his behalf.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Jeff Orear
> RV6A N782P (reserved)
> firewall forward
> Peshtigo, WI
>
>
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: | wire size conversion |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
I think that one can find a conversion table for gauge into circular-mils
> There is a system called circular mils for wire carrying capacity.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Orear" <jorear@new.rr.com>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 1:45 PM
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: wire size conversion
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeff Orear"
<jorear@new.rr.com>
> >
> > List:
> >
> > I have a friend who is installing a Walter Lom engine in an aircraft of
> his own design. The engine, being Czech built, is metric based and calls
> out for wire sizes using an odd-ball measurement standard. Apparently it
> uses the area of a cross-section of the wire to base the size designation
> on. Anyone heard of such a system?
> >
> > What he needs is a way to convert this standard to commonly used gauge
> sizes. Is there a conversion factor or some conversion table available
that
> he can use?
> >
> > Thanks, on his behalf.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> >
> > Jeff Orear
> > RV6A N782P (reserved)
> > firewall forward
> > Peshtigo, WI
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
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: | wire size conversion |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Europa (Alfred Buess)" <ykibuess@bluewin.ch>
Jeff,
We sure heard of this - and even use it because the metric system is
much more convenient than than these old fashioned units! Conversion is
as follows:
24AWG is 0.22 mm2
22AWG is 0.34 mm2
20AWG is 0.56 mm2
18AWG is 0.96 mm2
16AWG is 1.23 mm2
14AWG is 1.95 mm2
12AWG is 3.10 mm2
Does this help?
Regards,
Alfred
Alfred Buess
Laenggasse 81, CH-3052 Zollikofen, Switzerland
Tel.: +41 (0)31 911 63 32, Fax: +41 (0)31 911 56 32
E-Mail: albuess@bluewin.ch
Europa XS #097, Monowheel, Foam shortwing, Rotax 912S, Airmaster 332 CS
-----Ursprngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] Im Auftrag von
Jeff Orear
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 22. September 2004 19:46
An: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Betreff: AeroElectric-List: wire size conversion
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeff Orear"
--> <jorear@new.rr.com>
List:
I have a friend who is installing a Walter Lom engine in an aircraft of
his own design. The engine, being Czech built, is metric based and
calls out for wire sizes using an odd-ball measurement standard.
Apparently it uses the area of a cross-section of the wire to base the
size designation on. Anyone heard of such a system?
What he needs is a way to convert this standard to commonly used gauge
sizes. Is there a conversion factor or some conversion table available
that he can use?
Thanks, on his behalf.
Regards,
Jeff Orear
RV6A N782P (reserved)
firewall forward
Peshtigo, WI
==
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
==
==
==
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RF exposure levels |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
The studies I have seen show its the peak power and frequency, not just the
average power that is of concern. Depends on what effect you are
considering. Local heating requires average power at specific frequencies.
Peak power can damage individual cells and start a long term mutations with
interesting results.
Lots of studies have been done and are available, If one is willing to go
looking and discard those studies funded by those with lots to loose if any
correlation was recognized by governments. The truly independent studies
have concluded that RF can be damaging at levels much lower than commonly
accepted. Just my opinion from what I found years ago in researching the
subject.
In the case of this subject you can find studies to prove either side
depending on the bias of the studier.
So far I have not seen ANY post based on science, just opinion. This on a
list that usually requires science not opinion to decide things.
Personally I try to avoid any electrical field that has been shown to have
some (even temporary) effect at the cellular level and that is not very much
at some frequencies.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Lloyd" <brianl@lloyd.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RF exposure levels
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
>
>
>
> And even then the exposure level is very low. The peak power output
> from a transponder may be 200W but the average power is probably less
> than 1W given the average interrogation rate.
>
> Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: wire size conversion |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
And the "rule" goes: 3A/mm2 (3 Amp of load on a 1 mm2 wire).
(I usually add 50% or more mm2)
Rumen
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from Europa (Alfred Buess); Date: 10:22 PM
9/22/2004 +0200)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Europa (Alfred Buess)"
<ykibuess@bluewin.ch>
Jeff,
We sure heard of this - and even use it because the metric system is
much more convenient than than these old fashioned units! Conversion is
as follows:
24AWG is 0.22 mm2
22AWG is 0.34 mm2
20AWG is 0.56 mm2
18AWG is 0.96 mm2
16AWG is 1.23 mm2
14AWG is 1.95 mm2
12AWG is 3.10 mm2
Does this help?
Regards,
Alfred
Alfred Buess
Laenggasse 81, CH-3052 Zollikofen, Switzerland
Tel.: +41 (0)31 911 63 32, Fax: +41 (0)31 911 56 32
E-Mail: albuess@bluewin.ch
Europa XS #097, Monowheel, Foam shortwing, Rotax 912S, Airmaster 332 CS
-----Ursprngliche Nachricht-----
Von: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] Im Auftrag von
Jeff Orear
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 22. September 2004 19:46
An: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Betreff: AeroElectric-List: wire size conversion
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeff Orear"
--> <jorear@new.rr.com>
List:
I have a friend who is installing a Walter Lom engine in an aircraft of
his own design. The engine, being Czech built, is metric based and
calls out for wire sizes using an odd-ball measurement standard.
Apparently it uses the area of a cross-section of the wire to base the
size designation on. Anyone heard of such a system?
What he needs is a way to convert this standard to commonly used gauge
sizes. Is there a conversion factor or some conversion table available
that he can use?
Thanks, on his behalf.
Regards,
Jeff Orear
RV6A N782P (reserved)
firewall forward
Peshtigo, WI
==
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
==
==
==
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: | Vans VOR antenna |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mickey Billings" <mbilli@cox.net>
Vans offers a VOR antenna for the wing tip. It consist of a strip of copper
foil, a bulkhead fitting and enough RG58 to wire the antenna. My question
is this, does anyone know if this antenna works as well as say the Bob
Archer antenna? And should I use RG400 in place of the RG58?
Mickey and Jerry
N445BH
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: | Re: wire size conversion |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles Thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
> Cross section of the wire? That's strange!
> Next thing you know those metric dudes will
> start sizing their drill bits using the diameter
> of the thing, instead of useful numbers like
> 30, 40, E and stuff. :-)
Can you believe it ?
They even tampered with screw and rivet sizes ! Those poor fellows have to
remember a 6X50 screw is 6 mm diameter and 50 mm long and the corresponding
thread size is M6. And a 2.4 rivet needs a 2.4 mm hole...
Gilles
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: | Strobe Power Supply Qstn |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N27160@aol.com
If a strobe power supply is powered up without the strobe tube connected,
will the power supply fail prematurely?
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: Strobe Power Supply Qstn |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 06:11 PM 9/22/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N27160@aol.com
>
>If a strobe power supply is powered up without the strobe tube connected,
>will the power supply fail prematurely?
Wouldn't expect it to. If the tubes go bad and stop
firing, or if the trigger circuit quits, the power
supply charges up its energy storage capacitors and
simply waits. There's no undue "stress" on a power
supply that is driving failed or missing tubes.
Bob . . .
---
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: B&C alternators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 01:58 PM 9/22/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: echristley@nc.rr.com
>
>
> > If you can take a product off a garden tractor,
>build brackets
> > to mount it to your engine and drive it with a
>belt, you can
> > practically trade sweat-equity for purchase
>dollars. However, if
> > the product needs to plug-n-play on the gearbox
>of an engine with
> > reliability and performance goals of not having
>failures dump
> > metal into your engine, it's a bit more complex.
>Now, add
> > a quest for blessings of
>those-who-know-more-about-airplanes-
> > than-we-do and the price goes up still more.
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
>
>I've hunted around their site, but may very well
>have missed it. Do they carry the 'unblessed' version?
Some are blessed, others are not. None of the PM alternators
are "blessed" that I'm aware of. You can get the straight skinny
by calling 316-283-8000 and ask for Todd. He'll answer all your
questions. B&C used to have a belt driven PM alternator that
drove from a split pulley off the prop shaft. That's gone.
All of B&C's PM alternators are spline or gear driven meaning
that you do a lot of modification to the commercial product
before it can bolt to an engine.
The alternator I was recommending to the fellow with
the Erocoup is the 200G which bolts right onto the
generator drive pad of the C-85/O-200 engines. It's
only a 12A machine instead of the 20A generator
but plenty for day-vfr or even night-vfr if you flew
an hour before the sun went down and had the battery
fully charged before you light up the airplane.
The 200G is not PMA'd.
Bob . . .
---
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
An event to ponder:
The airline's first "metric" 767 ( a rule by government) ran out of
fuel halfway to destination and a hundred miles from the nearest airport,
because the fuellers didn't understand the system and the pilots were to
take their word (another rule) - and the fuel totalizer was bust in spite of
a Minimum Equipment List which forbade flight.
The captain was a glider instructor, the first officer knew where an
old airfield was. The made it but when it came time to look up a powerless
gear drop, it was not in the emergency chapter, but hidden in a hydraulic
explanation. the captain did what he could and the mains clicked somewhat
like the shuttle for timing on final. His estimates of best lift/drag ratio
speeds were proven to be within five knots all the way down from 33,000.
Nobody died. The captain put out the ensuing fire. The company tried
to censure him. NASA invited him to talk to the first shuttle pilots. He was
decorated by airline aviators while fighting to prove the company had lied
to him, both before the event and afterward. He succeeded.
So, being followers and toadies, they rewrote the manual,
rescheduled the emergencies and changed the rules. then they tried to have
everyone demonstrate a no-engine forced landing. Aviators refused so they
gave up.
So it's OK now - we can all relax.
Ferg
PS: The Gimli Glider
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: | FCC treatise on RF exposure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
Cheers,
Can someone please repeat to me what the URL was? I copied same for
a radio group and promptly lost it .
Thanks, Ferg
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "thomas a. sargent" <sarg314@earthlink.net>
I am trying to figure out what to use physically to distribute the +12
power for the main bus and the essential bus. I spotted some Molex
barrier strips (well, Beau, actually) that have optional shorting clips
you can insert to connect adjacent screw terminals together. I'm
thinking of attaching +12v supply in a few places to such a strip with
the shorting clips all across. Seems like one barrier strip for each
bus ought to do it.
Is this acceptable? Is there a better way to do this?
--
Tom Sargent, RV-6A, Landing gear
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: FCC treatise on RF exposure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Sep 22, 2004, at 8:38 PM, Fergus Kyle wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
>
> Cheers,
> Can someone please repeat to me what the URL was? I copied
> same for
> a radio group and promptly lost it .
I mentioned the discussion on the ARRL web site about acceptable levels
for hams at http://www.arrl.org. You will have to poke around to find
the exact page.
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bobby Hester <bhester@hopkinsville.net>
I read somewhere that cycling the strobe box is no longer needed. It is
still in the installation directions that it is not good for the box to
sit over a year without being cycled. I know I read somewhere that this
is no longer needed. I need documantation not just hear say. Thanks!
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: barrier strip? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Rico Voss <vozzen@yahoo.com>
--- "thomas a. sargent" <sarg314@earthlink.net> wrote:
> I am trying to figure out what to use physically to
> distribute the +12
> power for the main bus and the essential bus. I
> spotted some Molex
> barrier strips with
> the shorting clips all across. Seems like one
> barrier strip for each
> bus ought to do it.
>
> Is this acceptable? Is there a better way to do
> this?
>
Tom--
If I understand what you want to do, seems the best
solution (Bob's recommendation) would be the
fuseholders, such as B&C's:
"http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?7X358218%20#fh20"
[may have to re-connect the above link]
From a single feed wire, they provide 6,10, or 20
outputs, through ATC fuses, to male fast-on tabs.
Simple, effective and lightweight. Should be plenty
of info in the archives for other sources.
--Rico
__________________________________
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: wire size conversion |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles Thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
> Cross section of the wire? That's strange!
> Next thing you know those metric dudes will
> start sizing their drill bits using the diameter
> of the thing, instead of useful numbers like
> 30, 40, E and stuff. :-)
Can you believe it ?
They even tampered with screw and rivet sizes ! Those poor fellows have to
remember a 6X50 screw is 6 mm diameter and 50 mm long and the corresponding
thread size is M6. And a 2.4 rivet needs a 2.4 mm hole...
Gilles
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! --
|