Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:41 AM - Re: Vinyl Insulated Ring Tongue Terminals (Harley)
2. 05:49 AM - Re: Vinyl Insulated Ring Tongue Terminals (Harley)
3. 05:58 AM - Re: Vinyl Insulated Ring Tongue Terminals (Harley)
4. 06:35 AM - Re: LASAR enunciator light wiring Q (Walter Tondu)
5. 08:00 AM - Miniature switch current ratings-was (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 08:01 AM - Re: Alt field switch amp rating (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 08:09 AM - Re: Vinyl Insulated Ring Tongue Terminals (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 08:34 AM - Re: care and feeding of batteries (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 08:46 AM - Re: Resetting CB in flight//Not in Russia (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 09:10 AM - Re: 11654 Murphy (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 09:16 AM - Vinyl Insulated Ring Tongue Terminals ()
12. 09:55 AM - Re: Vinyl Insulated Ring Tongue Terminals (John & Amy Eckel)
13. 10:43 AM - Re: Radio Range (Steve Sampson)
14. 11:18 AM - Re: Radio Range (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
15. 12:05 PM - Poor Man's Solder Sleeve? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 12:31 PM - Re: Z-13 - latest version of 'simplification' (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
17. 12:57 PM - Re: Radio Range (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
18. 02:19 PM - Potter & Brumfield W31 CBs (D Fritz)
19. 02:35 PM - Re: Re: care and feeding of batteries (Brian Lloyd)
20. 04:23 PM - Re: Poor Man's Solder Sleeve? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
21. 05:48 PM - Re: Potter & Brumfield W31 CBs (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
22. 11:43 PM - Re: Poor Man's Solder Sleeve? (william mills)
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: Vinyl Insulated Ring Tongue Terminals |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley <harley@agelesswings.com>
Morning, Kingsley..
Nothing "convoluted" about it...those numbers are the standard screw
sizes that have been in use for 100 years or more.
If your stud is 3/16" it's most probably really a #10 screw...most
likely a 10-32 (#10 screw with 32 threads per inch). 3/16" is 0.1875
inches, a #10 screw is 0.190 inches.
In any case, a #10 ring terminal will fit on either a #10 bolt, or a
3/16" bolt.
Harley Dixon
Kingsley Hurst wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Kingsley Hurst" <khurst@taroom.qld.gov.au>
>
>Bob et al,
>
>When I went to order some Vinyl Insulated Ring Tongue Terminals on the
>weekend, I noted in the ACS catalogue that for example, 22-16 (Red)
>terminals have stud sizes of 4,6,8,10, 1/4
>
>Could you enlighten me as to what this seemingly convoluted way of
>sizing the holes means please ? Eg If I want a terminal for a 3/16"
>stud, what is the correct number equivalent ?
>
>Thank you in anticipation.
>
>Kingsley Hurst
>Europa Mono Classic 281 in Oz.
>
>
>
>
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: Vinyl Insulated Ring Tongue Terminals |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley <harley@agelesswings.com>
Morning, again, Kingsley...
I just noticed your location! I see now why you would be confused!
Trying to deal with us Americans who create their own number systems (or
use archaic ones unrelated to actual dimensions)<G>.
Sorry I didn't notice that the first time.
Here's a chart that may help:
http://www.tpub.com/content/construction/14043/css/14043_100.htm
Harley
Harley wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley <harley@agelesswings.com>
>
>Morning, Kingsley..
>
>Nothing "convoluted" about it...those numbers are the standard screw
>sizes that have been in use for 100 years or more.
>
>If your stud is 3/16" it's most probably really a #10 screw...most
>likely a 10-32 (#10 screw with 32 threads per inch). 3/16" is 0.1875
>inches, a #10 screw is 0.190 inches.
>
>In any case, a #10 ring terminal will fit on either a #10 bolt, or a
>3/16" bolt.
>
>Harley Dixon
>
>
>Kingsley Hurst wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Kingsley Hurst" <khurst@taroom.qld.gov.au>
>>
>>Bob et al,
>>
>>When I went to order some Vinyl Insulated Ring Tongue Terminals on the
>>weekend, I noted in the ACS catalogue that for example, 22-16 (Red)
>>terminals have stud sizes of 4,6,8,10, 1/4
>>
>>Could you enlighten me as to what this seemingly convoluted way of
>>sizing the holes means please ? Eg If I want a terminal for a 3/16"
>>stud, what is the correct number equivalent ?
>>
>>Thank you in anticipation.
>>
>>Kingsley Hurst
>>Europa Mono Classic 281 in Oz.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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: Vinyl Insulated Ring Tongue Terminals |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley <harley@agelesswings.com>
Boy...I am having a bad morning...swore off coffee for awhile...maybe I
should get back on it!
Anyway, Kingsley, I sent you a link to the wrong chart. That one was
for wood screws! Here's the one for machine screws:
http://bosunsupplies.com/ScrewSizesThreads.cfm
Shutting down, and getting a cup of coffee..
Harley
Harley wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley <harley@agelesswings.com>
>
>Morning, again, Kingsley...
>
>I just noticed your location! I see now why you would be confused!
>Trying to deal with us Americans who create their own number systems (or
>use archaic ones unrelated to actual dimensions)<G>.
>
>Sorry I didn't notice that the first time.
>
>Here's a chart that may help:
>
>http://www.tpub.com/content/construction/14043/css/14043_100.htm
>
>Harley
>
>
>Harley wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Harley <harley@agelesswings.com>
>>
>>Morning, Kingsley..
>>
>>Nothing "convoluted" about it...those numbers are the standard screw
>>sizes that have been in use for 100 years or more.
>>
>>If your stud is 3/16" it's most probably really a #10 screw...most
>>likely a 10-32 (#10 screw with 32 threads per inch). 3/16" is 0.1875
>>inches, a #10 screw is 0.190 inches.
>>
>>In any case, a #10 ring terminal will fit on either a #10 bolt, or a
>>3/16" bolt.
>>
>>Harley Dixon
>>
>>
>>Kingsley Hurst wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Kingsley Hurst" <khurst@taroom.qld.gov.au>
>>>
>>>Bob et al,
>>>
>>>When I went to order some Vinyl Insulated Ring Tongue Terminals on the
>>>weekend, I noted in the ACS catalogue that for example, 22-16 (Red)
>>>terminals have stud sizes of 4,6,8,10, 1/4
>>>
>>>Could you enlighten me as to what this seemingly convoluted way of
>>>sizing the holes means please ? Eg If I want a terminal for a 3/16"
>>>stud, what is the correct number equivalent ?
>>>
>>>Thank you in anticipation.
>>>
>>>Kingsley Hurst
>>>Europa Mono Classic 281 in Oz.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
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: LASAR enunciator light wiring Q |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Walter Tondu <walter@tondu.com>
On 10/11 8:20, Werner Schneider wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Werner Schneider" <glastar@gmx.net>
>
> Walter,
>
> I was using a LED which is blinking (gets your attention faster).
>
> The 2nd post is just used as a push to test, that is the reason you have
> three, but as the ignition is on fault when you switch it on and do the
> magneto check, you do not need this functionality.
>
> You did wire it correctly, as the enunciator will go out, when the engine is
> running after about 20 seconds only =(;o).
>
> Just in case you have once problems starting after the first splutters, try
> to "reset" the Lasar by switch off power for a few seconds, then engage
> again and it will start immediately.
Thanks Werner,
I very much appreciate your help! I figured that the light
would go out after 20 seconds with the engine not running but
the EI engaged. If it stays on until the engine is running
that explains it all. Thanks again.
--
Walter Tondu
http://www.rv7-a.com
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: | Miniature switch current ratings-was |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 10:38 PM 10/10/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James Foerster"
><jmfpublic@comcast.net>
>
>Bob,
>
>Thanks for your comments. You mentioned that with these smaller switches I
>would need to use a relay for pitot heat, nav and landing lights, and other
>high current needs. I reread your chapter on switch ratings, and reread the
>spec sheet for the NKK 2100 series switches. They are rated for resistive
>loads only: 3 amps at 30 volts DC, 6 amps at 125 volts AC. With a life
>cycle of 25,000 electrical and 50,000 mechanical, I don't mind overloading
>them.
There's overload and then there's OVERLOAD. The spirit and intent
of the switch ratings article was to dispel the notion that a switch
is teetering on the edge of failure if you run say 10A through a 7A
switch.
> But the chapter on incandescent loads is worrisome. I may need to
>use some of the ugly automobile switches rated for 20 to 30 amps.
Incandescent inrush are high with respect to normal operating currents
but they are short lived . . . tens of milliseconds. Pitot heat
inrush is not as high but lasts 100-500 times longer due to long
time constant of the heavier mass to heat.
> Radio
>Shack, Pep Boys, Kragen Auto all have rocker type lighted switches with a
>round hole mount and 1/4 inch tabs. These use a large bar of copper
>internally to make contact. I took one apart last year, but can't do the
>nice photomicrographs that you do to show this. In any event, rather than
>use relays, I will use a switch with higher ratings for incandescent loads.
>
>Listers should know that there are a wide variety of high current switches
>with LED or illuminated actuators and 1/4 inch tabs. The highest quality
>unit, made by Cole-Hersee, is about $19 from West Marine, and is slightly
>larger than a standard toggle but with a plastic case. It is sealed, rated
>at 30 amps, and has a white LED tip. At the other end of the toggle
>spectrum, for about $4.00, is a #85909 Conduct-Tite switch from Kragen, also
>rated at 30 amps. It has a plastic toggle wrapped with an aluminum tube
>with a red LED at the tip. Looks nice, but I will carry spares.
>
>Fortunately, the landing lights are HID from Hella. I don't think the HID
>ballast will pull the same current spike as a cold filament, so I can use
>the nice NKK switch.
Sounds like you're doing the homework. I'm not trying to discourage
you . . . I just want you to have the benefit of all the data you
need to make a well considered decision.
Consider inrush limiters like those found here:
http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T043/1047.pdf
>I wonder if it is possible to estimate the risk of a welded switch by the
>rise in resistance after a small numbers of cycles, say, 100. Perhaps this
>is another application for the milliohmmeter...
Here's a couple of articles on poor-man's milliohm measurement:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/grnding.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/LowOhmsAdapter_3.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Practical_Low_Resistance_Measurements_A.pdf
I don't think I've ever seen a switch weld in service. Contact sticking
is generally a low force event that is easily overcome by operating forces
of the switch lever. Relays, especially small ones are another matter.
Their return spring forces are comparatively light. Contact resistance
in a switch is inversely related to current flowing in the switch. See:
http://content.honeywell.com/sensing/prodinfo/basicswitches/technical/001008_3.pdf
and
http://content.honeywell.com/sensing/prodinfo/basicswitches/technical/010172.pdf
Keep us informed of your progress!
Bob . . .
---
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: Alt field switch amp rating |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:30 AM 10/9/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley <richard@riley.net>
>
>I'm picking an alternator field switch. I want to use a locking miniature
>toggle. I understand that I need a 5 amp breaker on the alt field. The
>switch I'd like to use doesn't give me a rating at 12 volts. It lists 3
>amps at 30 VDC. Is it enough?
yes.
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: Vinyl Insulated Ring Tongue Terminals |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 03:28 PM 10/11/2004 +1000, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Kingsley Hurst"
><khurst@taroom.qld.gov.au>
>
>Bob et al,
>
>When I went to order some Vinyl Insulated Ring Tongue Terminals on the
>weekend, I noted in the ACS catalogue that for example, 22-16 (Red)
>terminals have stud sizes of 4,6,8,10, 1/4
>
>Could you enlighten me as to what this seemingly convoluted way of
>sizing the holes means please ? Eg If I want a terminal for a 3/16"
>stud, what is the correct number equivalent ?
American standard threads for small machine screws come in
numbered sizes 000 (tiny) through 12 (just under 1/4"). See:
http://corvetteactioncenter.com/tech/tools/screwinfo.html
So a numbered terminal without decimals or fractions are referring
to numbered thread sizes. Decimals and fractions are referring
to actual hole size in the terminal.
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: care and feeding of batteries |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 09:52 PM 10/9/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
>
>On Oct 8, 2004, at 2:43 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> >> Except that batteries do not recharge linearly. Constant voltage
> >> charging of lead-acid batteries puts most of the electrons back (up to
> >> about 85%) in short order but after that it takes a long time and you
> >> can't get the battery to suck more current without raising the voltage
> >> which will damage the battery. And since you probably haven't drawn
> >> more than a couple of AH out of the battery for starting, you already
> >> have more than 85% when you start recharging. Having a lot more
> >> alternator capacity will not speed charging.
> >
> > That's kind of picking at small straws . . . the nominal bus
> > voltage setting for most off-the-shelf regulators is already
> > "too-high".
>
>Actually, in my experience, the setting on aircraft VRs is too low to
>ensure a proper full charge in reasonable time (probably to prevent the
>battery from self-destructing on a long flight) but too high for a
>proper float (maintenance) charge. So you are never going to get the
>battery to accept a full charge in short order. The current will fall
>off too soon, before the battery is fully charged.
Too low, full charge, reasonable, too high, short order, etc
all non quantified. Not very helpful if we're trying to get
a handle on selection, care and feeding of batteries . . .
>Did you see the voltage-vs-temperature charge and float tables I posted
>for Deka's AGM and Gel-Cell batteries? It makes for interesting
>reading. Given that the chemistry for AGMs is very much like that
>flooded-cell batteries you can get an idea from that.
There are as many "optimized" charging philosophies as their
are manufacturers of batteries . . . Every manufacturer's
published data on battery performance is based on laboratory
tests and assumes optimized charging conditions. We can
try real hard to optimize those conditions in the field
but at some point, return on investment just isn't there
any more. You spend more $time$ caring for the battery
than it's worth.
> > If one has the patience, motivation, budget -AND-
> > a friendly microprocessor, it's easy to pamper the
> > airplane's battery. It gets down to return-on-investment
> > decisions that ask the question, "How much $time$ does
> > it take to increase a battery's service life by say
> > 10 percent?" I'm trying to answer that question for
> > RAC right now. As you might guess, there's no real
> > field data from which one might draw a conclusion.
>
>I think you need to look in the Marine and RV markets where they abuse
>the hell out of their batteries.
Yes, but those are ALL deep cycle applications. Most battery
manufacturer's offer variations on a theme for optimizing
batteries intended for deep cycle motive power and/or general
utility sources.
> > Lots of lab data but we never see laboratory conditions
> > in the field. In the mean time, rules-of-thumb rule:
> > Do you fly lots of LONG flights? 14.2 or even 13.8
> > may be your magic, room-temp setting. Short flights
> > once a week? 14.2 to 14.6 might be helpful. But it's
> > almost a sure bet that few operators will be able to
> > tell the difference.
>
>Good point. It does need to be made automatic. On my boat I have
>solved the problem with an energy monitor that keeps track of the AH I
>have pulled out of the battery and also controls the alternator
>controller to temperature compensate the charge process and to shift
>from charge to float when the battery is full. OTOH, my battery bank
>there costs $1500 so keeping it alive for 5+ years means real money in
>my pocket.
Most battery manufacturers state that their products will
sustain 100 or so deep cycles and still maintain 80% of their
original capacity . . . in the laboratory at least. Some
advertise more, some a little less. Bottom line is that
any battery is life limited by the number of watt-seconds of
energy exchanged.
Vehicular batteries are called upon to deliver perhaps
2% to crank a piston engine and 10% to start a turbine.
Further, for automobiles, the battery's capacity is not
a driving issue either. It's not unreasonable to expect
lots of years of service as long as you don't have dual
a/c blower motors that are constantly pecking away at
battery charge while stopped at a light.
> > I've been proposing smart regulators to the GA
> > OEMs for about 20 years. To date, B&C is the only supplier
> > I'm aware of that offers a temperature compensated
> > regulator. But for 95% of the missions where an RV6
> > is useful, adding this feature ($75 plus cost of
> > installation) the return on investment is very
> > problematical.
>
>OTOH, there is no reason that a properly cared-for battery shouldn't
>provide 90% capacity at 5 years. If viewed that way the extra
>complexity starts to look like break-even. Hey, guys are buying the
>Unison/Slick electronic magneto system.
Again, not enough data to support the premise. I have
"properly cared for" batteries in my shop that are well
over 5 years old. They're deep cycle batteries used in
instrumentation systems. Each one has been used to about
50% capacity perhaps a dozen times. They sit on Battery
Tenders the rest of the time. If those batteries
were in constant use . . . say discharged to 50% twice a
week . . . I can guarantee that they'd be sent to the
recycling pile a couple of years ago.
100 deep discharge cycles spread over 5 years is 20 cycles
per year. One every two weeks. How often do you pull your
batteries down to less than 50% charge?
> > I've been working on a White Paper for several weeks
> > extolling the virtues of elegant charging system
> > design. However, in the last few paragraphs, I may
> > have to recommend that these features be considered ONLY
> > for new airplanes were the whole airplane has to fly
> > through the hoops of certification. The cost of upgrading
> > an old airplane are so high that there may be a negative
> > return on investment. I.e., certification stifles
> > improvements and may indeed reduce safety.
>
>It shouldn't be all that difficult. Three-stage charge regulators for
>the marine and RV markets are less expensive then the B&C VR by a long
>way. Some even include current and/or temperature sensing to limit the
>output of the alternator to a safe level.
Keep in mind that the B&C "regulator" is an alternator
control system. It includes ov protection and low voltage warning.
This works out to three gizmos in one box for $75/gizmo. Yeah,
if the only task was to regulate the voltage based on some
scheme designed to enhance battery life, we could produce such
a device for a whole lot less than $225.
> > Our bizjet products see some wide variation of operating
> > temperatures and we would probably see improvement in battery
> > life by temperature compensating the recharge voltage.
> > The goal is to figure out a way to incorporate it with
> > a minimum number of drawing changes and test plans.
> > The engineering part is easy. Minimizing the paper-costs
> > will be the driver for a go/no-go decision.
> >
> > Wouldn't be surprised that it never happens.
>
>Just change the battery every year ...
That's essentially what happens. Most operators are getting
500 hours out of a battery before it drops below 80% . . . about
a year.
Batteries are more like house plants than fuel pumps. Most mechanical
devices are life limited on real usage. Batteries are sensitive
to discharge, charge and storage variables that make it difficult
to compare performance between brands, styles and sizes of battery.
No two batteries are treated the same way.
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: Resetting CB in flight//Not in Russia |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:41 AM 10/8/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
>
>Bob seems to have world wide influence :-) (well its nice to think so).
>
>The October AOPA pilot mag page 98 has an article on a unique twin amphibian
>from Russia.
>ALL the CB are only accessable from outside, on the ground, as "the mfgr
>"does not want popped breakers to be reset in the air.
>
>Paul
We're seeing breakers fleeing the cockpit in droves. Eclipse has
no breakers in the cockpit. I'm working with several new designs
in the certified world that won't have breakers in the cockpit.
I'd like to think we had that much influence but good, simple-ideas
have a way of propagating themselves.
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: 11654 Murphy |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>Bob
> Do you have a sourse for circuit breakers with Fast On terminals. B&C
> cannot supply. John Murphy
If you use breakers, go with the screws. You need to connect all the
breakers together with a common bus bar which will screw directly
onto the breaker terminals. One of the goals for using fuse blocks is to
reduce the system parts count. If you use fast-on breakers, then
the parts reduction gained with fast-ons at the breakers is lost
when you have to fabricate a bus bar, support it, insulate it
and install a jumper wire from the bus to the breaker with
more screws and two terminals, only one of which is a fast-on.
Really messy.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
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: | Vinyl Insulated Ring Tongue Terminals |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Kingsley Hurst"
<khurst@taroom.qld.gov.au>
<<Bob et al, When I went to order some Vinyl Insulated Ring Tongue Terminals on
the
weekend, I noted in the ACS catalogue that for example, 22-16 (Red)
terminals have stud sizes of 4,6,8,10, . Could you enlighten me as to what this
seemingly convoluted way of sizing the holes means please ? Eg If I want a terminal
for a 3/16" stud, what is the correct number equivalent ? Thank you in
anticipation.
Kingsley Hurst>>
10/11/2004
Hello Kingsley, My apologies. Sometime in the distant past someone in our non metric
society came up with the brilliant idea of sizing machine screws by assigning
them numbers. If there is a consistent numerical relationship between these
numbers and the actual diameters of the screws I have not yet found it.
What I have done is create an Excel spread sheet with several different screw (and
bolt and rivet) diameters displayed for ready reference. I keep this spread
sheet under plastic in my shop and refer to it often.
I will send you a separate email direct with a copy of this spread sheet attached
(attachments will not go through the listing). The data on the spread sheet
will be in inches, not metric, but I know that you already have a sheet that
gives you that data conversion information.
OC
PS: If any other listers would like a copy of this Excel spread sheet just email
me direct and I will email one to you.
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: Vinyl Insulated Ring Tongue Terminals |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John & Amy Eckel" <eckel1@comcast.net>
Kingsley,
This is yet another system for sizing screws and it is used in general for
screws less than 1/4 inch in diameter. A No. 10 screw is the same as
3/16 screw. Look at the following tables for screw sizes.
http://www.csgnetwork.com/drillsizeconvert.html
http://www.csgnetwork.com/screwnummachtable.html
John, A230
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kingsley Hurst" <khurst@taroom.qld.gov.au>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Vinyl Insulated Ring Tongue Terminals
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Kingsley Hurst"
<khurst@taroom.qld.gov.au>
>
> Bob et al,
>
> When I went to order some Vinyl Insulated Ring Tongue Terminals on the
> weekend, I noted in the ACS catalogue that for example, 22-16 (Red)
> terminals have stud sizes of 4,6,8,10, 1/4
>
> Could you enlighten me as to what this seemingly convoluted way of
> sizing the holes means please ? Eg If I want a terminal for a 3/16"
> stud, what is the correct number equivalent ?
>
> Thank you in anticipation.
>
> Kingsley Hurst
> Europa Mono Classic 281 in Oz.
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson" <SSampson.SLN21@london.edu>
I understand that theory says you have to have line of sight, but in
practice this is not the case. 20 miles out having descended 200' behind the
crest of a line of hills I can hear them clearly. Similarly at my home strip
I can talk to them from the ground with the intervening ground higher than
both locations. What is happening in practice? Is this a reflection?
Thanks, Steve.
---
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 06:42 PM 10/11/2004 +0100, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Sampson"
><SSampson.SLN21@london.edu>
>
>I understand that theory says you have to have line of sight, but in
>practice this is not the case. 20 miles out having descended 200' behind the
>crest of a line of hills I can hear them clearly. Similarly at my home strip
>I can talk to them from the ground with the intervening ground higher than
>both locations. What is happening in practice? Is this a reflection?
>
>Thanks, Steve.
Reflections, refractions, etc. The fact that you were so close
(20 miles) means that the direct, line of sight signal would
be very strong. It also means that once the direct signal is
shadowed, various sources of scattered signals, while many
dB below a direct signal, are still strong enough to be heard
by a good receiver.
Atmospherics can have a strong influence although they're
more rare. I was sitting on my front porch in Wichita one
morning as a cold front was moving across the area. I was
playing with a new hand held 2m transceiver and stumbled
across a repeater I'd not heard before. Turned out to
be 150 miles South in Oklahoma City. I had several conversations
with stations in Oklahoma City over the course of an hour
before the VHF ducting effects of the cold front faded.
Bob . . .
---
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Poor Man's Solder Sleeve? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
I looked at these a couple of years ago. They're not a PIDG style
splice . . . even if you close the insulation jacket down on the
wire outside the metal splicing sleeve, there's marginal support
of the wire outside the wire grip. May I suggest an alternative?
We know that solder sleeves have a wide following in aviation
and other venues for splicing wires.
http://www.mouser.com/catalog/619/628.pdf
http://workmanship.nasa.gov/lib/insp/2%20books/links/sections/406%20Solder%20Sleeves.html
http://www.raychem.com/US/datasheets/REVISED32004/Sec_8/8-006_8-011_SolderSleeve.pdf
So, if we can get past the ol' saw about "make it mechanically secure and
then solder for electrical integrity", how about this?
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/PM_SS_Splice/PM_Solder_Sleeve_1.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/PM_SS_Splice/PM_Solder_Sleeve_2.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/PM_SS_Splice/PM_Solder_Sleeve_3.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/PM_SS_Splice/PM_Solder_Sleeve_4.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/PM_SS_Splice/PM_Solder_Sleeve_5.jpg
This technique provides equivalent mechanical and electrical integrity
with your ordinary hand tools for a lot less cost than pe-fabricated
solder sleeves and splices. The only edge I can see for solder sleeves
is the sealant included in each end of the sleeve . . . but the
radio shack spice cited above isn't sealed either . . . nor is the
classic PIDG butt-splice. Everything "magic" happens at the crimp/soldered
joint. The next requirement is to support the joint to reduce flexure of
the stranding just outside the crimp/solder joint.
I'll suggest that the technique described meets our needs nicely
for a fraction of the cost. Bulk of the slice is small too.
However, if you're splicing a bundle of multiple wires, it's still
a good idea to stagger the splice locations along the bundle.
Bob . . .
At 10:13 AM 9/21/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dr. Andrew Elliott"
><a.s.elliott@cox.net>
>
>Gang:
>
>I found another type of crimp connector at Radio Shack about which I'd
>like to get some comments. RS calls them "Insulated Telephone Butt
>Connectors, for 22-26 gauge wire", PN 64-3073. Them come in packs of 24
>for about $1.50.
>
>These connectors are *much* smaller and lighter than PIDG for the same
>wire size, appear well matched to 22-gauge tefzel aircraft wire, but do
>not crimp the insulation. Instead, because of the good size match, the
>insulation receives some support from the insulator of the connector.
>RS sells a manual (non-ratcheting) crimp tool for this connector for
><$10.
>
>I have placed a picture of this connector, a crimp and the tool at
>
>http://members.cox.net/n481hy/connector/connector.jpg
>
>I like these because of their small size and weight, which makes for
>neat wiring, especially for wiring repairs. The crimps easily pass my
>"pull" test. But I would really like comments on aircraft applications
>please. If anyone knows of a ratcheting crimper for this connector (or
>die for my HX4), that would be great, too.
>
>Thanks,
>Andy Elliott
>N481HY/AA-1(TD,160)/KFFZ
>http://members.cox.net/n481hy/
---
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: Z-13 - latest version of 'simplification' |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 03:27 PM 9/1/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter"
><dcarter@datarecall.net>
>
>I've learned some more about Autocad (Intellicad actually) and figured out
>how to use the symbol "blocks", etc.
> - Wasn't able to eliminate the "alternator switch" and only use the CB.
>Reason: The OVM's relay coils are hooked up to the batt bus so it would
>suck the battery dry unless there's a switch to disconnect the coil after
>engine shutdown/overnight, etc. I don't want to use the CB after every
>shutdown - rather "use a switch for a switch - not a CB".
>
>I printed my dwg file as pdf and re-posted to my website. Hope to get some
>feedback form 'Lectric Bob and others.
> - Especially what I did to the Endurance Bus circuit. I don't like
>diodes - they fail, even though they are said to be "solid state, highly
>reliable". My experience is otherwise. Rather use a simple switch to
>select how the E-bus gets fed when the electrons hit the fan.
>
>http://www.datarecall.net/~dcarter/Builder's%20Log.html
A single pole, double throw e-bus switch was used in early versions
of drawings with an e-bus . . . but discarded because it's a single
point of failure for the e-bus power. The goal of an effective
e-bus implementation is DUAL, independent pathways for power to
the e-bus. Hence the diode drive normal path from the main bus
and a switched alternate path directly from the battery.
The 20AWG fuse-link in the e-bus alternate feed path is not necessary.
The diode across the starter push button is ineffective for catching
the spike generated by the starter engagement solenoid. See
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/spikecatcher.pdf
Don't understand the diode across the battery contactor.
If the 35A PM alternator is your only alternator, there's
no reason not to wire per Figure Z-11 with an alternator
ov disconnect contactor per Z-24.
Does the alternator have a grounded center tap on its
AC output winding? If not, then there's no advantage in
disconnecting both ends of the output lead.
Lo Voltage warning is the same as for any other system.
You need a sensor/flasher module equal to
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9005/9005.jpg
installed like
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9005/9005-701B.pdf
or build your own like
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/lvwarn/9021-620.pdf
Last, please don't call this drawing "Figure Z-13".
It's a long way from that which I published. Once modified
in any way, it's whatever you want to call it but NOT
what I called it. It's possible that problems people
perceive with some OBAM aircraft are attributed to the
'Connection when in fact, they are concepts borrowed
from the 'Connection but modified in significant ways.
I don't perceive much "simplification" that doesn't
negate some feature that was a considered part of the
original architecture.
Bob . . .
---
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 10/11/04 12:44:46 PM Central Daylight Time,
SSampson.SLN21@london.edu writes:
> What is happening in practice? Is this a reflection?
Nope- localized wormhole activity. Happens in TN all the time!
(sorry, do not archive)
Mark
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: | Potter & Brumfield W31 CBs |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Fritz <dfritzj@yahoo.com>
Can anyone comment on the suitability of the W31 Switch/Circuit Breaker combination or possibly suggest another similar type unit? Are these suitable for aircraft use? Also, ETA makes some circuit breakers that plug into an automotive style blade-type fuse block ( http://www.etacbe.com/n_america/e-t-a/etacbeframeset.html go to "thermal" then the 1610 model), this may be a way to have the best of both worlds: circuit breaker operations simplicity as well as fuse block assembly simplicity. Any thoughts out there?
Dan Fritz
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: care and feeding of batteries |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Oct 11, 2004, at 11:33 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>> Actually, in my experience, the setting on aircraft VRs is too low to
>> ensure a proper full charge in reasonable time (probably to prevent
>> the
>> battery from self-destructing on a long flight) but too high for a
>> proper float (maintenance) charge. So you are never going to get the
>> battery to accept a full charge in short order. The current will fall
>> off too soon, before the battery is fully charged.
>
> Too low, full charge, reasonable, too high, short order, etc
> all non quantified. Not very helpful if we're trying to get
> a handle on selection, care and feeding of batteries . . .
OK, I posted all this a couple of months back but here is the table for
charge and float voltages recommended by Deka for their AGM batteries
at different temperatures:
Temp. Charge Float Temp.
F Optimum Maximum Optimum Maximum C
120 13.60 13.90 12.80 13.00 49
110 120 13.80 14.10 12.90 13.20 43 49
100 110 13.90 14.20 13.00 13.30 38 43
90 100 14.00 14.30 13.10 13.40 32 38
80 90 14.10 14.40 13.20 13.50 27 32
70 80 14.30 14.60 13.40 13.70 21 27
60 70 14.45 14.75 13.55 13.85 16 21
50 60 14.60 14.90 13.70 14.00 10 16
40 50 14.80 15.10 13.90 14.20 4 10
40 15.10 15.40 14.20 14.50 4
I find that the numbers for AGMs seem to fall into the ranges specified
for flooded cell batteries so I tend to use AGM numbers for FC
batteries too.
>> Did you see the voltage-vs-temperature charge and float tables I
>> posted
>> for Deka's AGM and Gel-Cell batteries? It makes for interesting
>> reading. Given that the chemistry for AGMs is very much like that
>> flooded-cell batteries you can get an idea from that.
>
> There are as many "optimized" charging philosophies as their
> are manufacturers of batteries . . . Every manufacturer's
> published data on battery performance is based on laboratory
> tests and assumes optimized charging conditions. We can
> try real hard to optimize those conditions in the field
> but at some point, return on investment just isn't there
> any more. You spend more $time$ caring for the battery
> than it's worth.
That may be so. Today it is very easy to optimize the three-stage
charging regimen (constant-current, constant-voltage at the charge
voltage, step down to constant voltage at the float voltage when the
battery is charged) for batteries based on temperature. Three-stage
charge regulators for alternators that include temperature compensation
are pretty darned cheap. Some even include alternator load sensing or
alternator temperature sensing to prevent large loads from exceeding
the capacity of the alternator. And all at a fraction of the cost of
the B&C LR-3x.
>>> If one has the patience, motivation, budget -AND-
>>> a friendly microprocessor, it's easy to pamper the
>>> airplane's battery. It gets down to return-on-investment
>>> decisions that ask the question, "How much $time$ does
>>> it take to increase a battery's service life by say
>>> 10 percent?" I'm trying to answer that question for
>>> RAC right now. As you might guess, there's no real
>>> field data from which one might draw a conclusion.
>>
>> I think you need to look in the Marine and RV markets where they abuse
>> the hell out of their batteries.
>
> Yes, but those are ALL deep cycle applications. Most battery
> manufacturer's offer variations on a theme for optimizing
> batteries intended for deep cycle motive power and/or general
> utility sources.
That is true. We usually don't pull much out of our starting batteries
before putting it back. But the proliferation of sealed batteries
makes it much more likely that we will damage the batteries by
overcharging if the charge controller does not step down to the proper
float voltage.
The only point I am making in all of this is that, with a single charge
voltage setting, even if temperature compensated, if you set the charge
voltage high enough to push juice back into the battery, you are going
to be overcharging that battery once it is fully charged. Once the
battery is fully charged, keeping the voltage above the float voltage
will stress the battery. Given the very poor and very consistent
experience I have had with AGM batteries failing in aircraft with one
voltage setting, I believe this to be a common problem in aircraft.
>> Good point. It does need to be made automatic. On my boat I have
>> solved the problem with an energy monitor that keeps track of the AH I
>> have pulled out of the battery and also controls the alternator
>> controller to temperature compensate the charge process and to shift
>> from charge to float when the battery is full. OTOH, my battery bank
>> there costs $1500 so keeping it alive for 5+ years means real money in
>> my pocket.
>
> Most battery manufacturers state that their products will
> sustain 100 or so deep cycles and still maintain 80% of their
> original capacity . . . in the laboratory at least. Some
> advertise more, some a little less. Bottom line is that
> any battery is life limited by the number of watt-seconds of
> energy exchanged.
I agree.
> Vehicular batteries are called upon to deliver perhaps
> 2% to crank a piston engine and 10% to start a turbine.
> Further, for automobiles, the battery's capacity is not
> a driving issue either. It's not unreasonable to expect
> lots of years of service as long as you don't have dual
> a/c blower motors that are constantly pecking away at
> battery charge while stopped at a light.
Right. But I still hold that batteries need not fail in 18 months if
properly treated. And that has been my experience with AGM batteries
in certified aircraft use.
>> OTOH, there is no reason that a properly cared-for battery shouldn't
>> provide 90% capacity at 5 years. If viewed that way the extra
>> complexity starts to look like break-even. Hey, guys are buying the
>> Unison/Slick electronic magneto system.
>
> Again, not enough data to support the premise. I have
> "properly cared for" batteries in my shop that are well
> over 5 years old. They're deep cycle batteries used in
> instrumentation systems. Each one has been used to about
> 50% capacity perhaps a dozen times. They sit on Battery
> Tenders the rest of the time. If those batteries
> were in constant use . . . say discharged to 50% twice a
> week . . . I can guarantee that they'd be sent to the
> recycling pile a couple of years ago.
>
> 100 deep discharge cycles spread over 5 years is 20 cycles
> per year. One every two weeks. How often do you pull your
> batteries down to less than 50% charge?
On my boat? My normal daily cycle is about 25%-30% discharge. Every
couple of months I pull them down to about 70% discharge to check that
they are still delivering normal capacity. Deka claims that I should
see 600 cycles to 80% discharge and 2100 cycles at 25% discharge. So I
should still see something close to a 5 year life at these rates.
>> It shouldn't be all that difficult. Three-stage charge regulators for
>> the marine and RV markets are less expensive then the B&C VR by a long
>> way. Some even include current and/or temperature sensing to limit
>> the
>> output of the alternator to a safe level.
>
> Keep in mind that the B&C "regulator" is an alternator
> control system. It includes ov protection and low voltage warning.
> This works out to three gizmos in one box for $75/gizmo. Yeah,
> if the only task was to regulate the voltage based on some
> scheme designed to enhance battery life, we could produce such
> a device for a whole lot less than $225.
And the three-stage regulators are a charge control system. What's in
a name? OTOH, once you put in the microprocessor you can combine some
of the functions to reduce parts count.
>> Just change the battery every year ...
>
> That's essentially what happens. Most operators are getting
> 500 hours out of a battery before it drops below 80% . . . about
> a year.
>
> Batteries are more like house plants than fuel pumps. Most
> mechanical
> devices are life limited on real usage. Batteries are sensitive
> to discharge, charge and storage variables that make it difficult
> to compare performance between brands, styles and sizes of
> battery.
> No two batteries are treated the same way.
It all depends on what you want. As the man says, "you pays yer money
and you takes yer choice."
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
There is a time to laud one's country and a time to protest. A good
citizen is prepared to do either as the need arises.
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: Poor Man's Solder Sleeve? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 02:04 PM 10/11/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>I looked at these a couple of years ago. They're not a PIDG style
>splice . . . even if you close the insulation jacket down on the
>wire outside the metal splicing sleeve, there's marginal support
>of the wire outside the wire grip. May I suggest an alternative?
>
>We know that solder sleeves have a wide following in aviation
>and other venues for splicing wires.
>
>http://www.mouser.com/catalog/619/628.pdf
>
>http://workmanship.nasa.gov/lib/insp/2%20books/links/sections/406%20Solder%20Sleeves.html
>
>http://www.raychem.com/US/datasheets/REVISED32004/Sec_8/8-006_8-011_SolderSleeve.pdf
>
>So, if we can get past the ol' saw about "make it mechanically secure and
>then solder for electrical integrity", how about this?
I've formalized the solder sleeve photos into a shop notes
on the website at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/PM_Solder_Sleeve/PM_Solder_Sleeve.html
Bob . . .
---
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Potter & Brumfield W31 CBs |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 02:18 PM 10/11/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Fritz <dfritzj@yahoo.com>
>
>Can anyone comment on the suitability of the W31 Switch/Circuit Breaker
>combination or possibly suggest another similar type unit? Are these
>suitable for aircraft use?
About 80,000 W31 breakers or their ancestors are flying
in Bonanzas and Barons.
>Also, ETA makes some circuit breakers that plug into an automotive style
>blade-type fuse block (
>http://www.etacbe.com/n_america/e-t-a/etacbeframeset.html go to
>"thermal" then the 1610 model), this may be a way to have the best of both
>worlds: circuit breaker operations simplicity as well as fuse block
>assembly simplicity.
Breakers are more complicated that fuses. Even the least
expensive fuse will perform as designed. If you want to go
the fuseblock route, I'd recommend you use fuses. If you
want to go with breakers. The W31 is an okay breaker.
Bob . . .
---
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Poor Man's Solder Sleeve? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: william mills <courierboy@earthlink.net>
Bob -
Many thanks for sharing another elegant solution.
Bill
do not archive
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>-----snip------------
> I've formalized the solder sleeve photos into a shop notes
> on the website at:
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/PM_Solder_Sleeve/PM_Solder_Sleeve.html
>
> Bob . . .
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|