Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:48 AM - Re: Re: B&C alternators (echristley@nc.rr.com)
2. 06:03 AM - Re: FCC treatise on RF exposure (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 06:11 AM - Re: Whelen Strobes (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 06:43 AM - Re: Re: 11615 Frank (CFrank@edony.com)
5. 07:30 AM - Re: Re: B&C alternators (cgalley)
6. 07:31 AM - Re: Unstable 20A generator system (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 07:33 AM - Re: Re: B&C alternators (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 08:06 AM - Re: FCC treatise on RF exposure (Paul Messinger)
9. 10:37 AM - Re: Vans VOR antenna (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 03:10 PM - Re: Vans VOR antenna (Mickey Billings)
11. 03:31 PM - Re: Vans VOR antenna (Mickey Billings)
12. 06:28 PM - Re: Vans VOR antenna (Kevin Horton)
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: B&C alternators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: echristley@nc.rr.com
> 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.
>
*$#fricker..frackin%
&
I'm using a rotary engine (Mazda 13B). Gear driven
really isn't a choice.
> only a 12A machine instead of the 20A generator
> but plenty for day-vfr or even night-vfr if you
Hmm...
I was thinking that power requirements would be much
greater (still a ways from running the actual numbers).
What I'd really like to see is a stationary winding
system with PM magnets bolted on in place of the
drive shaft pulley. The shaft spins at 5000 to
6000rpm on the rotary.
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: FCC treatise on RF exposure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:38 PM 9/22/2004 -0400, you 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 .
>Thanks, Ferg
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/pdf/8505046.pdf
Also check out the directory at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/RF_Hazards
and get the documents you find there.
Bob . . .
---
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Whelen Strobes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:53 PM 9/22/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>--> 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!
In days gone by, critical characteristics of electrolytic
capacitors used for flash-tube energy storage would degrade
with age and disuse. A power supply that was stored inert for
long periods of time (years) was best brought back to serviceable
condition using an adjustable power supply and ramping up the
voltage from some lower than nominal value over a period of several
hours.
This process was called "reforming". See:
http://www.vcomp.co.uk/tech_tips/reform_caps/reform_caps.htm
http://www.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/~reese/electrolytics/
http://www.dscc.dla.mil/Downloads/MilSpec/Docs/MIL-HDBK-1131/hb1131.pdf
Modern electrolytic caps are not so afflicted and the
recommendation has been dropped.
Bob . . .
---
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: CFrank@edony.com
Bob,
Thank you very much for your response.
Can I substitute a 35 amp regulator for a 20 amp regulator? I do have a
spare 14V regulator on hand, but it is rated for 35 amps, not matching my 20
amp generator output. I suppose that this regulator will do the job, and
will just regulate for maximum generator output, but I have been reluctant
to try this out of fear of damaging something.
Either way, whether going with an alternator system or replacing the voltage
regulator, I will still need field approval. We'll see if Santa Claus has
some spare change left over after Xmas for the B&C alternator you recommend.
I have joined the list, and already am finding it worthwhile.
Thank you again,
Christopher Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III [mailto:bob.nuckolls@cox.net]
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: 11615 Frank
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>Dear Bob,
>
>I own a 1946 Ercoupe 415C (or does it own me?). It turns a 20-amp Delco
>generator.
>
>My ammeter is doing strange things lately, flickering full-scale between
>+/- 30, calming down for a second or two, then goes back to
>flickering. Do you have any idea what the cause of this could be?
>
>Regards,
>
>Christopher Frank
This can be a variety of problems. Do you have a spare
regulator? If you can substitute the regulator and get
any significant change in behavior, then the regulator
is the biggest suspect. You could have worn and poor
function in brushes. This can be checked by observation.
You can pull the generator and have it inspected and
tested as a separate component.
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
This alternator has been installed on a ton of C-120/140
and aircraft with the -12 case on a C-85 or O-200
engine. B&C can probably help you with a 337.
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 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: B&C alternators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "cgalley" <cgalley@qcbc.org>
Alternator on a Lycoming may spin 9,000 or more as many use a very small
pulley on the alternator due to clearance problems.
----- Original Message -----
From: <echristley@nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: B&C alternators
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: echristley@nc.rr.com
>
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> *$#fricker..frackin%
> &
>
> I'm using a rotary engine (Mazda 13B). Gear driven
> really isn't a choice.
>
> > only a 12A machine instead of the 20A generator
> > but plenty for day-vfr or even night-vfr if you
>
> Hmm...
> I was thinking that power requirements would be much
> greater (still a ways from running the actual numbers).
>
> What I'd really like to see is a stationary winding
> system with PM magnets bolted on in place of the
> drive shaft pulley. The shaft spins at 5000 to
> 6000rpm on the rotary.
>
>
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: | RE: Unstable 20A generator system |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:42 AM 9/23/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: CFrank@edony.com
>
>Bob,
>
>Thank you very much for your response.
>
>Can I substitute a 35 amp regulator for a 20 amp regulator? I do have a
>spare 14V regulator on hand, but it is rated for 35 amps, not matching my 20
>amp generator output. I suppose that this regulator will do the job, and
>will just regulate for maximum generator output, but I have been reluctant
>to try this out of fear of damaging something.
>
>Either way, whether going with an alternator system or replacing the voltage
>regulator, I will still need field approval. We'll see if Santa Claus has
>some spare change left over after Xmas for the B&C alternator you recommend.
>
>I have joined the list, and already am finding it worthwhile.
Substitute the 35A regulator for a quick test to see if
the system settles down. The 35A current limit is too large
to run . . . if your 20A generator is good, the too-large
current limit setting in the regulator will not protect
the generator. However, the test would be useful to see
if a different regulator makes the system behave better.
Bob . . .
---
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: B&C alternators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 08:47 AM 9/23/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: echristley@nc.rr.com
>
>
> > 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.
> >
>
>*$#fricker..frackin%
>&
>
>I'm using a rotary engine (Mazda 13B). Gear driven
>really isn't a choice.
Okay, there's dozens of PM alternators up to an including
30 or 35 amps that you can consider. Check out heavy duty
lawn and garden tractor equipment. All of these will be
belt driven. However, you may find it just as practical
and lighter to go the automotive alternator route. A real
wound-field alternator with 40 or so amps output is small,
light, cheap, plentiful and probably easier to implement
in your airplane than a fugitive from a garden tractor.
Bob . . .
---
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FCC treatise on RF exposure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
Thanks Bob.
For all you wanted to know (and more) on RF safety use the following link to
many sources including the related FCC regulations
http://www.arrl.org/news/rfsafety/
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: FCC treatise on RF exposure
> >
> http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/pdf/8505046.pdf
>
> Also check out the directory at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/RF_Hazards
>
> and get the documents you find there.
>
>
> 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: Vans VOR antenna |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 02:56 PM 9/22/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>--> 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?
400/142 is always a better choice than 58 . . . there's 60 years
difference in materials.
It's doubtful that anyone can provide a useful comparison between
the two antennas. It takes a concerted effort to make measurements
required to make an engineering choice of one over the other. Buy
the one most attractive to you and try it. The worst that can
happen is that it doesn't meet your expectations and you'll have
to go to "plan B" . . .
Bob . . .
---
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: | Re: Vans VOR antenna |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mickey Billings" <mbilli@cox.net>
Great answer! And thank you for taking the time to answer.
Mickey Billings
N445BH
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Vans VOR antenna
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 02:56 PM 9/22/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>
> >--> 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?
>
> 400/142 is always a better choice than 58 . . . there's 60 years
> difference in materials.
>
> It's doubtful that anyone can provide a useful comparison between
> the two antennas. It takes a concerted effort to make measurements
> required to make an engineering choice of one over the other. Buy
> the one most attractive to you and try it. The worst that can
> happen is that it doesn't meet your expectations and you'll have
> to go to "plan B" . . .
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ---
>
>
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: Vans VOR antenna |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mickey Billings" <mbilli@cox.net>
Bob, I guess I do have another question. If I use the Archer antenna fiber
glassed into the wing tip, where do I connect for a good ground plane?
Mickey Billings
N445BH
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Vans VOR antenna
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> At 02:56 PM 9/22/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>
> >--> 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?
>
> 400/142 is always a better choice than 58 . . . there's 60 years
> difference in materials.
>
> It's doubtful that anyone can provide a useful comparison between
> the two antennas. It takes a concerted effort to make measurements
> required to make an engineering choice of one over the other. Buy
> the one most attractive to you and try it. The worst that can
> happen is that it doesn't meet your expectations and you'll have
> to go to "plan B" . . .
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ---
>
>
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: Vans VOR antenna |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mickey Billings" <mbilli@cox.net>
>
>Bob, I guess I do have another question. If I use the Archer antenna fiber
>glassed into the wing tip, where do I connect for a good ground plane?
>
>Mickey Billings
>N445BH
>
The Archer antenna is designed for aircraft with metal wings. The
antenna is mounted where the wing tip is attached to the wing, so the
wing skin acts as the ground plane.
http://home.hiwaay.net/~sbuc/journal/sportcraft.htm
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
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! --
|