Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:37 AM - Re: Electrical system ergonomics (Brian Lloyd)
2. 08:43 AM - Re: Electrical system ergonomics (Mickey Coggins)
3. 11:01 AM - Re: Electrical system ergonomics (Ernest Christley)
4. 11:37 AM - Re: Electrical system ergonomics (Eric M. Jones)
5. 03:53 PM - This was in one of my books (Dww0708@aol.com)
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: Electrical system ergonomics <LONG> |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Dec 10, 2004, at 2:53 AM, James E. Clark wrote:
>> Actually, I disagree on this point. As Albert Einstein once said,
>> "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
>> If
>> something needs a knob, put the knob on the panel and label it. If
>> something needs a switch, put the switch on the panel and label it.
>> Hiding the complexity is the Microsoft, "don't worry your pretty
>> little
>> head about it," approach to interface design. It works only if
>> everything is done exactly right. When there is a problem, people
>> can't find the necessary "switch" to help work around the problem.
>>
>
> Maybe we are on different pages here. The point I was trying to get
> across
> goes something like this ...
>
> Early cars had chokes, spark advances, mechanical starter linkages
> (pushbutton with foot).
>
> Now there is a much greater complexity about running the engine
> efficiently.
> Clearly a lot of that could be "shared" with the user and a LOT of
> adjustments could be made available for the user to deal with. In this
> case
> we "hide" the complexity in an effort to "simply" the interaction.
Ah, I see where you are going with this. Technology tends to go
through three phases:
1. A simple technology demonstrator. Think of the earliest aircraft
to know what I am talking about here.
2. Fully functional but complex technology. Think of the last of the
piston-powered transport aircraft, vis a vis the Lockheed
'Constellation'. There was a knob, a switch, and a gauge for just
about everything. There was a real reason to have a flight engineer on
board.
3. Fully-functional but simple technology. Think of the current crop
of airliners with glass cockpits. You see what you need to see and the
automation takes care of the rest for you.
The latter has much more functionality but much greater simplicity and
lower workload for the pilot. To me this is *real* simplicity not the
pseudo-simplicity of 'hiding the knobs.'
Another example of this shows up with turbocharger systems. The
earliest systems had manual waste-gate controls. They increased the
pilot's workload. Some bright boy came up with the idea of a fixed
waste-gate (The evil Continental TSI0-360-GB comes to mind here) so
that the pilot's work load was sort-of reduced (no waste-gate knob) by
hiding. (Think, 'Microsoft solution'.) The mature technology added an
automatic density controller to manage the waste-gate which truly
reduced the pilot's workload.
> So in that sense yes, I mean "don't you worry your little head about"
> all
> the timing adjustments needed as you go from the flatlands in the
> desert at
> 100 degrees up the mountains to subzero temps at 10,000 feet. There is
> a lot
> of complex stuff going on that you *might* feel you could improve on
> but
> mabe not.
I agree.
> The same is true yes for Microsoft offerings to some extent and I
> agree with
> that. It was also true to some extent with the various incarnations of
> the
> UNIX OS and Linux variants. Many users don't care that much about the
> code
> surrounding "pipes".
Regardless, Microsoft is very bad about hiding necessary knobs. They
don't make the adjustments automatic, they just hide them (like the
fixed waste-gate). As someone who ends up supporting users with
Microsoft systems, I speak from experience. This is NOT the way to
build an operating system OR an airplane.
And pipes are a lousy form of interprocess communications anyway. ;-)
> If I have several pieces of equipment in my plane and when things go
> bad I
> want to get down to just the basics running, I don't think it is
> necessarily
> bad to be able to throw a switch and have just the basics be running.
> That
> is a variant of "hiding the complexity" to me.
Then what you have is a necessary knob or switch. (Frankly, that sounds
like the e-bus switch.) OTOH, think in terms of something like the
ubiquitous avionics master. What purpose does it really serve? It is
another level of complexity and another point of failure. You already
have an on/off switch on each of your radios.
> Maybe this is just a point where we disagree. No big deal but good to
> have
> the dialogue.
No, we really don't disagree. I think we were just looking at the
problem from a different angle. I refer to this as 'agreeing
violently.'
Bottom line: ask yourself if you really need it and if the answer is
'no', don't put it in.
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 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: Electrical system ergonomics <LONG> |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>...
>And pipes are a lousy form of interprocess communications anyway. ;-)
>...
Yeah, they are clunky, difficult to use, and not very powerful. :-)
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 QB Wings/Fuselage
do not archive
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: Electrical system ergonomics <LONG> |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
Mickey Coggins wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
>
>>...
>>And pipes are a lousy form of interprocess communications anyway. ;-)
>>...
>
>
> Yeah, they are clunky, difficult to use, and not very powerful. :-)
>
>
> --
They're also heavy and add a funky echo when you yell down them. 8*)
--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."
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: Electrical system ergonomics |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
Flying back from Catalina to Santa Monica with my little sister...sweeping
her hand across the C172 instrument panel she said, "What are all these
gauges?" I pretended to study them for a few moments, shrugged my
shoulders,
feigned a puzzled expression and replied, "Ah....Some sort of clocks I
think...."
From Brian,
>3. Fully-functional but simple technology. Think of the current crop
>of airliners with glass cockpits. You see what you need to see and the
>automation takes care of the rest for you.
Yes! Futurists among us are often criticized for getting fascinated by the
technology, but I think the opposite is more often true. I start from
fundamentals and try to see unneeded complexities and how they got that way.
Integrate, simplify, throw it out...!
Ideally the computer will take over almost all flight management details.
Will this detract from the joy of flight? Of course not. Did the word
processor detract from the joy of writing? Did the ECU detract from the joy
of driving? I hardly think so. A lot of the discussion on the AeroElectric
list is just how to handle the details and hammer out configurations.
The day is not far off when you might have an in-flight problem, and you can
push a red button marked "Panic" to ask Bob N, "Hey what do I do now?"
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
"A terrorist is one who has a bomb but no air force."
---BBC listener comment.
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: | This was in one of my books |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dww0708@aol.com
I would like to share some definititions pertaining to aircraft bussing.
1 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM The electrical power source,power distribution and
electrical loads
2 ELECTRICAL SOURCE- The electrical equipment which produces, converts
or transforms electrical power. Some common DC sources are generators,
convertors, and batteries. In practice an electrical source could be a combination
of these units connected in parallel.
3 ELECTRICAL SOURCE - PRIMARY This is equipment that generates
electrical power from energy other than electrical, and is independent of any
other
electrical source. The primary source of a DC electrical system may be the
battery , main engine driven generator.
4 ELECTRICAL SOURCE - SECONDARY This is equipment that transforms and/or
converts Primary power to supply electrical power to either AC or DC powered
equipment. A secondary source is entirely dependent upon the primary source
and is considered part of the load of the primary source.
5 ELECTRICAL SOURCE- NORMAL Is the source which provides electrical
power throughout the routine aircraft
6 ELECTRICAL SOURCE - ALTERNATE Is a second power source which may be
used in lieu of the normal source, usually upon failure of the Normal source.
The use of alternate sources creates a new load and power configuration, and
therefore a new electrical system , which may require separate source
capacity analysis.
7 NOMINAL RATING Rating found on data plate of the power source. This
rating may be considered its continuous duty rating
8 GROWTH CAPACITY This is the measure ot the power source capacity
avaliable to the aircraft electrical system to supply future load equipment.
Expressed in percent.
9 NORMAL ELECTRICAL POWER OPERATION This condition assumes that all of
the avaliable electrical power system is functioning correctly with in
published limitations.
10 ABNORMAL ELECTRICAL POWER OPERATION This condition occurs when a
malfunction or failure in the electric system has taken place and the protective
devices of the system are operating to remove the malfunction of the failure
from the remainder of the system before the limits of the abnormal operations
are exceeded. The power source may operate degraded mode on a continuous basis
where the power characteristics supplied to the utilization equipment exceed
normal operation limits but remain within the limits for abnormal operation.
.
11 EMERGENCY ELECTRICAL POWER OPERATION This condition occurs followinga
loss of all normal electrical generating power sources or other
malfunctioninthat results in operation on standby power. operation with out normal
electrical power.
Can a reccomend an affordable SWR checker for GA type COMM Transcevers
Thanks in advance
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! --
|