Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:15 AM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 12/16/04 (Graham Singleton)
2. 09:36 AM - Re: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 12/16/04 (Robert McCallum)
3. 09:39 AM - Thanks for All the Help (Dennis Johnson)
4. PM - ()
5. 12:37 PM - Batterydesulfator/charger (WRBYARS@aol.com)
6. 01:28 PM - Re: 1N4004 vs 1N4001 (Leo J. Corbalis)
7. 01:54 PM - SEASON'S GREETINGS (WRBYARS@aol.com)
8. 02:38 PM - Re: 1N4004 vs 1N4001 (Richard E. Tasker)
9. 03:16 PM - Re: 1N4004 vs 1N4001 (Fred Fillinger)
10. 05:22 PM - Re: 1N4004 vs 1N4001 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 06:27 PM - Re: 55 Amp Suzuki Alternator (John Crate)
12. 09:05 PM - Re: 1N4004 vs 1N4001 (Bob White)
13. 11:23 PM - Re: 1N4004 vs 1N4001 (Mickey Coggins)
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: AeroElectric-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 12/16/04 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Graham Singleton <graham@gflight.f9.co.uk>
At 23:55 16/12/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>Canard Pusher Grounding Scheme
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
>
>I have a vested interest in this---but if it were my airplane I would look
>at the Super-2-CCA FatWire.
>
>Regards,
>Eric M. Jones
So would I, but I'd also look at using a soft aluminum tube for the ground.
Might be a bit tricky though and certainly more work.
Does anyone make copper coated aluminum tube?
Graham
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: AeroElectric-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 12/16/04 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
Why a tube? A wiring bundle inside a tube is difficult to add to,
subtract from, or modify (especially if there are breakouts along the
run) whereas a normal laced bundle is easy to modify. Also aluminium is
VERY difficult to connect electrically to be reliable over the long
term. This is the reason aluminium house wiring was so short lived and
dangerous and why Eric has gone to all the trouble to offer copper
coated aluminium wire to reduce these difficulties. Simple copper wire
is by far the easiest and perhaps the best solution. The difference in
weight for the lengths involved is minimal. I know every pound counts
but is the reduction in reliability, and the increase in complexity and
time of installation worth the saving?
Bob McC
Graham Singleton wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Graham Singleton <graham@gflight.f9.co.uk>
>
>At 23:55 16/12/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>
>
>>Canard Pusher Grounding Scheme
>>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
>>
>>I have a vested interest in this---but if it were my airplane I would look
>>at the Super-2-CCA FatWire.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Eric M. Jones
>>
>>
>
>
>So would I, but I'd also look at using a soft aluminium tube for the ground.
>Might be a bit tricky though and certainly more work.
>Does anyone make copper coated aluminium tube?
>Graham
>
>
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: | Thanks for All the Help |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd@volcano.net>
Hi,
Thanks, Bob, for all the invaluable (and still free!) advice and teaching you provide.
I'm maybe a year away from flying my OBAM, and learning the electrical
details has been one of the most fun parts of the project. Mastering new skills
and knowledge areas is one of the reasons I'm building my own airplane and
this newsgroup, your seminar, and your book make this really fun. You are an
outstanding teacher and I really can't thank you enough.
Thanks also to all the other posters that make this newsgroup so good. I learn
as much from the answers to "dumb" questions as I do from the "smart" ones, so
please keep it up everyone!
Thanks to all,
Dennis Johnson
Lancair Legacy #257
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 |
|
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: | Batterydesulfator/charger |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: WRBYARS@aol.com
For those of you that are having a problem getting into the web site from my
previous post try this one.
_www.vdcelectronics.com_ (http://www.vdcelectronics.com)
Sorry about the problems.
Bill
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: 1N4004 vs 1N4001 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Leo J. Corbalis" <leocorbalis@sbcglobal.net>
The 1N4004 is rated at 1 AMP at 400 Volts. the 4 = 400 Volts and 1 = 100
volts DC. The body size is the same which means it can dissipate the same
amount of heat from forward current.
When I was doing field service, I always replace the 1N4001's with -4's and
never had a call back for a bad diode.
Leo Corbalis
----- Original Message -----
From: "B Tomm" <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 1N4004 vs 1N4001
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: B Tomm <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
>
> I'm going strictly from memory here as I don't have access to my books,
but
> I suspect the main difference is the current carrying capacity. IN4004 is
> likely a 4 amp. IN4001, 1 amp etc.
>
> Bevan
> RV7A fuse is now right side up.
> Seat pans are in and making airplane noises now.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mickey Coggins [SMTP:mick-matronics@rv8.ch]
> Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 11:15 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: 1N4004 vs 1N4001
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
> <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to figure out if in our 14v systems there would ever be a
> reason to use an 1N4004 diode vs. a 1N4001 diode. According to the data
> sheets I've read, the only difference seems to be Vmax is 50V for the
> 1N4001 and 400V for the 1N4004. Are there any other differences or
> advantages/disadvantages of one over the other? The application is to
> keep current from flowing the wrong way on a panel LED indicator.
>
> Thanks,
> Mickey
> --
> Mickey Coggins
> http://www.rv8.ch/
> #82007 wiring and stuff
>
>
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: | SEASON'S GREETINGS |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: WRBYARS@aol.com
The Night Before Christmas - Aviation Style
'Twas the night before Christmas, and out on the ramp,
Not an airplane was stirring, not even a Champ.
The aircraft were fastened to tie downs with care,
In hopes that come morning, they all would be there.
The fuel trucks were nestled, all snug in their spots,
With gusts from two-forty at 39 knots.
I slumped at the fuel desk, now finally caught up,
And settled down comfortably, resting my butt.
When the radio lit up with much noise and chatter,
I turned up the scanner to see what was the matter.
A voice clearly heard over static and snow,
Called for clearance to land at the airport below.
He barked his transmission so lively and quick,
I'd have sworn that the call sign he used was "St. Nick."
I ran to the panel to turn up the lights,
The better to welcome this magical flight.
He called his position, no room for denial,
"St. Nicholas One, turnin left onto final."
And what to my wondering eyes should appear,
But a Rutan-built sleigh, with eight Rotax Reindeer!
With vectors to final, down the glideslope he came,
As he passed all the fixes, he called them by name:
"Now Ringo! Now Tolga! Now Trini! and Bacun!
On Comet! On Cupid!", what pills was he takin?
While controllers were sittin, and scratchin their head,
They phoned to my office, and I heard it with dread,
The message they left was both urgent and dour:
"When Santa pulls in, have him please call the tower."
He landed like silk, with the sled runners sparking,
Then I heard "Left at Charlie," and "Taxi to parking."
He slowed to a taxi, turned off of three-oh
And stopped on the ramp with a "Ho, ho-ho-ho..."
He stepped out of the sleigh, but before he could talk,
I ran out to meet him with my best set of chocks.
His red helmet and goggles were covered with frost,
And his beard was all blackened from Reindeer exhaust.
His breath smelled like peppermint, gone slightly stale,
And he puffed on a pipe, but he didn't inhale.
His cheeks were all rosy and jiggled like jelly,
His boots were as black as a crop-duster's belly.
He was chubby and plump, in his suit of bright red,
And he asked me to "fill it up, with hundred low-lead."
He came dashing in from the snow-covered pump,
I knew he was anxious for drainin the sump.
I spoke not a word, but went straight to my work,
I filled up the sleigh, but I spilled, like a jerk.
He came out of the restroom, and sighed in relief,
Then he picked up a phone for a Flight Service brief.
And I thought as he silently scribed in his log,
These reindeer could land in an eighth-mile fog.
He completed his preflight, from the front to the rear,
Then he put on his headset, and I heard him yell, "Clear!"
And laying a finger on his push-to-talk,
He called up the tower for clearance and squawk.
"Take taxi way Charlie, the southbound direction,
Turn right three-two-zero at pilot's discretion"
He sped down the runway, the best of the best,
"Your traffic's a Grumman, inbound from the West."
Then I heard him proclaim, as he climbed thru the night,
"Merry Christmas to all! I have traffic in sight."
Hoo,Dee,Hooo, Hoooo, Hooooo
Bill Byars
Luscombe T8F
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: 1N4004 vs 1N4001 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net>
Close but not quite. The 4004 is in fact 400V, but the 4001 is 50V.
See my previous post explaining this in detail.
Your comment about replacing them is right on though!
Dic Tasker
Leo J. Corbalis wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Leo J. Corbalis" <leocorbalis@sbcglobal.net>
>
>The 1N4004 is rated at 1 AMP at 400 Volts. the 4 = 400 Volts and 1 = 100
>volts DC. The body size is the same which means it can dissipate the same
>amount of heat from forward current.
>When I was doing field service, I always replace the 1N4001's with -4's and
>never had a call back for a bad diode.
>Leo Corbalis
>
>
>
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: 1N4004 vs 1N4001 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu@comcast.net>
Richard E. Tasker wrote:
> The 4004 is in fact 400V, but the 4001 is 50V.
>
I once tested a bunch of 4001s, to see what they found objectionable,
but no luck on my bench supply, which goes only to 400V. Maybe that
was peculiar to a run of them, as I bought them all at once, but I
wonder if that might be common. The data sheet shows no difference
other than voltage, and I wonder if it's now cheaper just to make one
diode type and package them according to demand?
Fred F.
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: 1N4004 vs 1N4001 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 06:28 PM 12/19/2004 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu@comcast.net>
>
>Richard E. Tasker wrote:
> > The 4004 is in fact 400V, but the 4001 is 50V.
> >
>
>I once tested a bunch of 4001s, to see what they found objectionable,
>but no luck on my bench supply, which goes only to 400V. Maybe that
>was peculiar to a run of them, as I bought them all at once, but I
>wonder if that might be common. The data sheet shows no difference
>other than voltage, and I wonder if it's now cheaper just to make one
>diode type and package them according to demand?
That used to be essentially what was done. A factory I visited
in 1964 had one line of diodes that were graded on automatic
testing machines. A batch was tested for yield of the highest
voltage devices and then stepped down from there. It wasn't uncommon
for a part marked 1N4001 (50v) to have characteristics equal to
a 1N4005 (600v). Nowadays, the quality of the yields is so
good that there may be nothing less than 1N4006 (800v) parts
in the batch . . . but if you really want a 1N4001, they'll
be pleased to mark a diode with that part number and sell it to
you.
Bob . . .
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
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: 55 Amp Suzuki Alternator |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Crate" <john.crate@encode.com>
Hi
I am in the process of installing an alternator on my RV6A project. I have
three questions that I need help with. The alternator I am using is a 55
amp, internally regulated unit off a 1989 Suzuki Samurai.
Question 1
There are three terminal terminals on the back of the unit. If the
alternator is held so that two of the terminals are oriented vertically, the
other terminal is then oriented horizontally and located just below the
other two ( l _ l ). These terminals are not marked on the alternator as to
their function. If anyone can add insight on what these particular
terminals are used/not used for, it would be greatly appreciated.
Question 2
My plan is to use the OVM-14 with the requisite contactor for over-voltage
protection as per the Aeroelectric book/drawings. Reading a warning on
Van's web page about over-voltage protection on their 60 amp internally
regulated alternator now has me worried. In bright red letters it states:
Warning!
The internally regulated 60 ampere alternator should not be used with
overvoltage protection systems. If you open the charging circuit while it is
in operation, it will destroy the regulator.
I am now confused more than normal. Is this something I should be worried
about with respect to my particular alternator and planned application?
Question 3
Does anyone have experience with mounting a 55 amp suzuki alternator on a
O-320? If so, do any of the Van's installation kits work with this
particular alternator/engine combo?
I apologize in advance if these questions have been asked/answered before.
I did search the archives, but with negative results.
Regards, and Happy Holidays!
John Crate
---
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: 1N4004 vs 1N4001 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob White" <bob@whitek.com>
As the peak inverse voltage rating goes up with each different P/N, the
forward voltage (conducting) voltage drop also goes up.
Bob White
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mickey Coggins" <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 1N4004 vs 1N4001
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
<mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> ...
>
> Any of these will work in your plane. However, if you have a choice,
> use of the higher breakdown rating diodes gives you more margin with no
> downside. (although going to a 1000V rated diode is rather unnecessary).
Many thanks for the info. Since I've got both, I'll just use the 1N4004.
Best regards,
Mickey
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
do not archive
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: 1N4004 vs 1N4001 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> As the peak inverse voltage rating goes up with each different P/N, the
> forward voltage (conducting) voltage drop also goes up.
> Bob White
That was my concern, but I could not find any indication of this on
the data sheet. Did you see something else that led you to this
conclusion?
Thanks,
Mickey
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 Wiring
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! --
|