Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:54 AM - Strobe power supply rating (j1j2h3@juno.com)
2. 03:30 AM - Re: Ideas on Painting Panel (Bruce Niles)
3. 04:20 AM - Re: LOAD dump comments (D Fritz)
4. 05:13 AM - Instrument Decals (JOHNATHAN MACY)
5. 06:19 AM - Re: LOAD dump comments (Ken)
6. 06:29 AM - Radio Spacing (Brett Ferrell)
7. 06:42 AM - Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
8. 06:45 AM - Re: Load dump comments (Eric M. Jones)
9. 06:55 AM - Re: Radio Spacing (John Schroeder)
10. 07:02 AM - Re: Radio Spacing (BobsV35B@aol.com)
11. 07:15 AM - Re: KX-125 Problem Solved (jacklockamy)
12. 07:15 AM - Re: Radio Spacing (Brett Ferrell)
13. 07:31 AM - Re: Ideas on Painting Panel (Jim Stone)
14. 07:31 AM - Re: Radio Spacing (BobsV35B@aol.com)
15. 07:41 AM - Load dump and PM alternators (Gilles Thesee)
16. 07:47 AM - Re: Re: Load dump comments (Ken)
17. 07:55 AM - Re: Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens (Robert McCallum)
18. 08:35 AM - Modified Z-12 comments (James Redmon)
19. 08:43 AM - Re: Instrument Decals (erie@shelbyvilledesign.com)
20. 09:38 AM - Re: Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens (Bob Black)
21. 10:10 AM - Re: Instrument Decals (Ernest Kells)
22. 10:30 AM - Re: Radio Spacing (Brett Ferrell)
23. 10:39 AM - Re: Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
24. 11:08 AM - Re: Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens (Scott Jackson)
25. 11:19 AM - FW: Z13A - Basic question ? Help anyone? (Bill Schlatterer)
26. 11:27 AM - Re: Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens (Paul Messinger)
27. 11:58 AM - Re: Re: Load dump comments clamav-milter version 0.80j on juliet.albedo.net (Paul Messinger)
28. 11:58 AM - Re: LOAD dump comments (Paul Messinger)
29. 12:01 PM - Re: Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
30. 12:18 PM - Load dump and shutdown procedures (Paul Messinger)
31. 12:18 PM - Re: Re: Load dump comments (Paul Messinger)
32. 12:36 PM - Re: Re: Load dump comments (Kevin Horton)
33. 12:40 PM - Re: Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
34. 12:58 PM - Re: Re: Load dump comments (Paul Messinger)
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: | Strobe power supply rating |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: j1j2h3@juno.com
In looking at strobe power supplies, all of those at Strobesnmore.com are
rated in watts. However, the requirements for strobe lights are usually
given in joules. How does one make the calculation to determine whether
the output is sufficient? I know that one joule is equal to one
watt-second, but I don't know how to handle the time factor. I suspect
it has to do with flash duration and flashes per minute, but I haven't
seen these numbers published for the equipment I've looked at.
Jim Hasper - RV-7
Franklin, TN
Do not archive
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: Ideas on Painting Panel |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Niles" <bniles@cfl.rr.com>
I live in florida and I can tell you most certainly that when I paint my
panel it will be in a light color. Put your hand on top of a black car in
the summer and you will remove it quickly, probably with a burnt palm as
well. It might act as a large heat sink for you avionics as well?? Food
for thought.
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B@aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ideas on Painting Panel
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 1/7/2005 3:47:14 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> cajole76@ispwest.com writes:
>
> There is a big difference in glare factor between an airliner panel and
> an RV. Due to the relatively narrow glare shield, and bubble canopy,
> the RV with a light colored panel is going to expose you to a lot more
> reflectivity. Like you Bob, I like the looks of the light colored
> panels, but I'm not sure I would want to put up with all those
> reflections produced in the RV.
>
>
> Could be. I have never flown an RV.
>
> However, I fly my Bonanza a lot at night. It has a light tan panel.
>
> I also had the pleasure of putting four and a half hours in a USAF T-38 a
> couple of years ago. It had a light grey panel and somewhat of a bubble
> canopy
>
> I think the light colored panels are much more comfortable to use and I
> have
> never noted any reflections due to them.
>
> As you say: "But hey, what ever floats your boat"
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Airpark LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8502
>
> 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: LOAD dump comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Fritz <dfritzj@yahoo.com>
"Thus the Crowbar OVP action not only shorts the buss it creates a load dump,
neither action is desirable or necessary. OVP protection does not need to
be
crowbar in nature and surely not a unlimited current short."
In reading the above, it sounds like we should be looking at another method of
overvoltage protection, am I understanding this correctly? Does anyone have suggested
architectures? Is this load dump only an issue with internally regulated
alternators, or do externally regulated alternators just have protection
already built in? In another thread, Gary raises the question of why we don't
just attach the alternator directly to the battery (vice through the main contactor)
to mitigate the load dump issue, any comments out there on why we should
or should not do this?
Dan Fritz
---------------------------------
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: | Instrument Decals |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: JOHNATHAN MACY <bushpilot@optonline.net>
At one time on the web I came across a company that will make decals / overlays
per your drawing for instrument panels. For example, they could make a decal
that could go across you panel above all the switches. Now I can not find them.
Any idea? - Thx - Johnathan
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: LOAD dump comments |
clamav-milter version 0.80j
on juliet.albedo.net
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Well the advantage of using a proven OV module is that it should rarely
nuisance or falsely trip. In a real OV situation the alternator is
already going full bore so there is no disadvantage of the crowbar
method. Perhaps even an advantage as it draws down the voltage even
before the OV contactor opens. Yes there have been a few nuisance trips
mentioned here but I don't recall any associated equipment damage. I
don't recall any nuisance trips since the last module re-design??
The advantage of the external VR alternator is that you don't need the
OV contactor. My internal VR alternator is connected through a fuse to
the battery (not through the battery contactor) but that pesky OV
contactor is still necessary. We had a discussion a year or so ago on
alternative OV protection methods and this is still what I decided to
do. However I also chose to use a small 40 amp alternator to further
limit the magnitude of the energy that could be stored in the stator
windings and the amount of excess alternator current available.
So my battery contactor interupts current to all the things that do not
power any of my engine requirements, it does not disconnect either of my
alternators from their respective batteries.
Paul - thanks for expanding on the use of the three 1.5k devices instead
of the 5kp18.
Ken
D Fritz wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Fritz <dfritzj@yahoo.com>
>
>"Thus the Crowbar OVP action not only shorts the buss it creates a load dump,
> neither action is desirable or necessary. OVP protection does not need to
be
> crowbar in nature and surely not a unlimited current short."
>
>In reading the above, it sounds like we should be looking at another method of
overvoltage protection, am I understanding this correctly? Does anyone have
suggested architectures? Is this load dump only an issue with internally regulated
alternators, or do externally regulated alternators just have protection
already built in? In another thread, Gary raises the question of why we don't
just attach the alternator directly to the battery (vice through the main contactor)
to mitigate the load dump issue, any comments out there on why we should
or should not do this?
>
>Dan Fritz
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brett Ferrell" <bferrell@123mail.net>
Bob/folks,
Is there an easy way to get my radio spacing correct? I couldn't buy all of my
radios right away, but I did get their mounting trays. Can I just stack these
one on top of the other and mate their front edges to the front edge of my panel,
or should I allow some space between the mounting boxes (vertically), and
if so, how much? Thanks.
Brett
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: | Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
Has anyone looked into the single vs. double flash AEROFLASH NAV/STROBE/POSITION
LIGHT KITS and determined if the "intensity" is measurably less than the single
flash? Just observing these lights in single flash form vs whelens in formation
flight leaves my to personally believe that the whelens aren't worth any
the extra $ for them but still people seem to pass up these kits often enough
to go for the Whelens that I keep asking why...
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/aerofllightkits.php
Lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: j1j2h3@juno.com
>
>
> In looking at strobe power supplies, all of those at Strobesnmore.com are
> rated in watts. However, the requirements for strobe lights are usually
> given in joules. How does one make the calculation to determine whether
> the output is sufficient? I know that one joule is equal to one
> watt-second, but I don't know how to handle the time factor. I suspect
> it has to do with flash duration and flashes per minute, but I haven't
> seen these numbers published for the equipment I've looked at.
>
>
> Jim Hasper - RV-7
> Franklin, TN
>
> Do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
>
Has anyone looked into the single vs. double flash AEROFLASH NAV/STROBE/POSITION
LIGHT KITS and determined if the "intensity" is measurably less than the single
flash? Just observing these lights in single flash form vs whelens in formation
flight leaves my to personally believe that the whelens aren't worth any
the extra $ for them but still people seem to pass up these kits often enough
to go for the Whelens that I keep asking why...
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/aerofllightkits.php
Lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: j1j2h3@juno.com
In looking at strobe power supplies, all of those at Strobesnmore.com are
rated in watts. However, the requirements for strobe lights are usually
given in joules. How does one make the calculation to determine whether
the output is sufficient? I know that one joule is equal to one
watt-second, but I don't know how to handle the time factor. I suspect
it has to do with flash duration and flashes per minute, but I haven't
seen these numbers published for the equipment I've looked at.
Jim Hasper - RV-7
Franklin, TN
Do not archive
The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
/www.matronics.com/aeroelectric-list
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: Load dump comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Fritz <dfritzj@yahoo.com>
>"Thus the Crowbar OVP action not only shorts the buss it creates a load
dump,
> neither action is desirable or necessary. OVP protection does not need to
>be crowbar in nature and surely not a unlimited current short."
>In reading the above, it sounds like we should be looking at another method
of
>overvoltage protection, am I understanding this correctly? Does anyone
have suggested
>architectures?
Dan,
I think the old crowbar is dead. When batteries had high internal resistance
and the only method of disconnecting a circuit was a fuse, and the need for
greater control of OV was less important---maybe crowbar OVs were okay.
Today it seems unreasonable to me to take this approach. Would you crowbar
your computer?
I used to sell both crowbar and non-crowbar OVP and I never really liked the
crowbar method. Paul Messinger's testing has shown that the old crowbar
method drops humongous (~1000A) currents through the busses and tops it off
with a load dump. I just can't think of any reason why one would want to do
this when simpler, kinder, gentler methods are available.
I sell these on my website of course. I call them Linear OVPs
http://www.periheliondesign.com/ovp.htm When a monitored voltage stays
above 16.2 volts for more than 200 milliSeconds (glitch filter), the Linear
OVP politely disconnects the circuit. Okay so it's not very macho....
>Is this load dump only an issue with internally regulated alternators, or
do externally regulated alternators just have protection already built in?
Load dump is an issue with any source of power that uses a rotating
conductor in a magnetic field. By the way, overvoltage and load dump are
related in that they both have associated overvoltages. Load dump is a
strictly transient OV condition caused by disconnecting a load, but an
overvoltage condition can be caused by a failed regulator or other causes
and may be long term. Both need to be addressed.
>In another thread, Gary raises the question of why we don't just attach the
alternator directly to the battery (vice through the main contactor)
>to mitigate the load dump issue, any comments out there on why we should
>or should not do this? .........Dan Fritz
Just preventing the battery from being disconnected would help, but would
cause it's own problems. Besides, events other than battery disconnection
can cause load dumps, like a circuit breaker or fuse popping or a big load
being turned off.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
"The man who carries a cat by the tail
learns something that can be learned
in no other way."
--Mark Twain
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: Radio Spacing |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Brett
I would download the installation manuals for the items you intend to buy
and check the spacing they recommend. Another problem arises if you buy
different brands (Garmin vs Garmin AT vs Tru Trak, for example.)The bezels
may not line up exactly and you could get one box sticking out past the
others. This would not be by a lot, but somewhat noticeable. You can
compensate by mounting the trays a bit in front or behind the one above or
below.
I would then build the stack of trays with the spacing required. ie. mount
the trays on rails and also adding straps (braces) on the aft ends of the
trays as well. One problem that comes up in all of this is if one of the
trays is mounted slightly twisted in the rails. You could then expect the
boxe to bind a bit when sliding it into the tray and also it may not seat
completely into the back plane jacks/plugs.
Contact me off line if you want a copy of a "builder's hint" paper that
reflects the experiences of two Lancair ES builders' panel construction.
Hope this helps,
John
>Is there an easy way to get my radio spacing correct? I couldn't buy all
of my radios right away, but I did get their mounting trays. Can I just
stack these one on top of the other and mate their front edges to the front
edge of my panel, or should I allow some space between the mounting boxes
(vertically), and if so, how much? Thanks.
>
>Brett
>
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: Radio Spacing |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 1/8/2005 8:29:52 A.M. Central Standard Time,
bferrell@123mail.net writes:
Bob/folks,
Is there an easy way to get my radio spacing correct? I couldn't buy all of
my radios right away, but I did get their mounting trays. Can I just stack
these one on top of the other and mate their front edges to the front edge of
my panel, or should I allow some space between the mounting boxes
(vertically), and if so, how much? Thanks.
Brett
Different Bob here, but if you think you may be readjusting the sleeves in
the future, I would strongly consider using a set of RadioRax rails. They not
only make the between set adjustments easy, they are FAA approved for
mounting the radios with no rear support.
I installed a set recently and they seem to work very well. Should make
further changes a snap!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
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: KX-125 Problem Solved |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "jacklockamy" <jacklockamy@verizon.net>
YES! You still need the jumper.....
My buddy's set-up was exactly like yours (stand-alone unit, no CDI). His thinking
was also liken to yours..... no CDI, guess I don't need the jumper. WRONG.
Install the jumper and your KX-125 will work as advertised.
Thanks again to all those list members who helped solve the problem we were having.
Jack Lockamy
Camarillo, CA
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: Radio Spacing |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brett Ferrell" <bferrell@123mail.net>
Yea, I looked at those, and really wanted to use them, but the cant in my
velocity panel procludes their use, they didn't have a set thin enough to
utilize unfortunately.
Brett
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B@aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Radio Spacing
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 1/8/2005 8:29:52 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> bferrell@123mail.net writes:
>
> Bob/folks,
>
> Is there an easy way to get my radio spacing correct? I couldn't buy all
> of
> my radios right away, but I did get their mounting trays. Can I just
> stack
> these one on top of the other and mate their front edges to the front
> edge of
> my panel, or should I allow some space between the mounting boxes
> (vertically), and if so, how much? Thanks.
>
> Brett
>
>
> Different Bob here, but if you think you may be readjusting the sleeves
> in
> the future, I would strongly consider using a set of RadioRax rails.
> They not
> only make the between set adjustments easy, they are FAA approved for
> mounting the radios with no rear support.
>
> I installed a set recently and they seem to work very well. Should make
> further changes a snap!
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Airpark LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8502
>
>
>
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: Ideas on Painting Panel |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
White is too reflective. You won't like the reflections on your canopy.
Besides, how often do you touch your instrument panel? Go with medium to
dark shades for the panel.
Jim
HRII
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruce Niles" <bniles@cfl.rr.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ideas on Painting Panel
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Niles" <bniles@cfl.rr.com>
>
> I live in florida and I can tell you most certainly that when I paint my
> panel it will be in a light color. Put your hand on top of a black car in
> the summer and you will remove it quickly, probably with a burnt palm as
> well. It might act as a large heat sink for you avionics as well?? Food
> for thought.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <BobsV35B@aol.com>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ideas on Painting Panel
>
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>>
>>
>> In a message dated 1/7/2005 3:47:14 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>> cajole76@ispwest.com writes:
>>
>> There is a big difference in glare factor between an airliner panel and
>> an RV. Due to the relatively narrow glare shield, and bubble canopy,
>> the RV with a light colored panel is going to expose you to a lot more
>> reflectivity. Like you Bob, I like the looks of the light colored
>> panels, but I'm not sure I would want to put up with all those
>> reflections produced in the RV.
>>
>>
>> Could be. I have never flown an RV.
>>
>> However, I fly my Bonanza a lot at night. It has a light tan panel.
>>
>> I also had the pleasure of putting four and a half hours in a USAF T-38 a
>> couple of years ago. It had a light grey panel and somewhat of a bubble
>> canopy
>>
>> I think the light colored panels are much more comfortable to use and I
>> have
>> never noted any reflections due to them.
>>
>> As you say: "But hey, what ever floats your boat"
>>
>> Happy Skies,
>>
>> Old Bob
>> AKA
>> Bob Siegfried
>> Ancient Aviator
>> Stearman N3977A
>> Brookeridge Airpark LL22
>> Downers Grove, IL 60516
>> 630 985-8502
>>
>> Do Not Archive
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Radio Spacing |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 1/8/2005 9:16:37 A.M. Central Standard Time,
bferrell@123mail.net writes:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brett Ferrell"
<bferrell@123mail.net>
Yea, I looked at those, and really wanted to use them, but the cant in my
velocity panel procludes their use, they didn't have a set thin enough to
utilize unfortunately.
Brett
Good Morning Brent,
I used the RK 1020 as they were no bigger than the aluminum angle most folks
use.
Radio Rax has come out with a set of canted racks to be used for the Bonanza
and another set for the Baron. The ones for the Baron should work well for
any canted panel. The ones for the Bonanza don't work as well because it
moves the radios a half inch to the right and wastes a bit of panel space.
That came about because they wanted to use the same right hand extrusion for
both. But that is not pertinent unless you are putting them in a Bonanza!
For a canted panel in a home built, I would seriously consider the Radio Rax
designed for the Baron.
For a Bonanza, I would recommend using the RK 1020 mounted in the original
Bonanza canted panel.
See: _www.RadioRax.com_ (http://www.RadioRax.com)
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
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: | Load dump and PM alternators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles Thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Hi Eric and all,
Please pardon me for having followed the load dump thread with a casual eye.
> Load dump is an issue with any source of power that uses a rotating
> conductor in a magnetic field. By the way, overvoltage and load dump are
> related in that they both have associated overvoltages. Load dump is a
> strictly transient OV condition caused by disconnecting a load, but an
> overvoltage condition can be caused by a failed regulator or other causes
> and may be long term. Both need to be addressed.
>
Question : is the load dump issue the same for permanent magnet alternators
? At first glance I would say there are differences, but would one of you
experts tell me if I have to reconsider my "ordinary" crowbar OV module
setup ?
Thanks.
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
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: Load dump comments |
clamav-milter version 0.80j
on juliet.albedo.net
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Sure that sounds scary but I'll wait for the report before getting
concerned. With 6 feet of 18awg wire in series with a C/B, an SCR, and
several connections it may be possible to get a couple of hundred amps
of instantaneous current flowing but so what? It is drawing down the
voltage which is what we want.
The interesting thing to me is a nuisance trip. It sounds like it is
possible to ramp up the alternator output during the delay (40 ms?)
waiting for the OV contactor to open. However I haven't seen any reason
to be concerned about that yet and I will await the report. If it turns
out to be a concern, perhaps I will replace my OV C/B with a fuse for
quicker current interuption. A few folks have advocated transorbs to
tame these scenarios for several years now and it seems like they do the
job just fine. I really really appreciate it when someone like Paul or
Bob documents and shares the numbers so that I have more than anecdotal
evidence that my transorbs are up to the task that I installed them for.
Sorry if I sound snippy. I appreciate being able to purchase an elegant
solution when I want to. After all that does help the entire homebuilt
movement. However the fun of homebuilt aviation for me is being able to
try different things and sharing public domain solutions like we do
here. It is great that we can purchase a OV module from B&C (or Eric)
but it is really really neat that BOB also gives us the design to build
our own and experiment with if we choose. I don't think I really even
saved any money by building my own OV module, but I know how it works,
how to adjust it, how to repair it, and I can keep a spare around if I
choose. Well yes I guess the second one I needed cost me next to nothing
but the knowledge gained was still worth more than that saving and was
definately worth the time invested.
Ken
snip
>I used to sell both crowbar and non-crowbar OVP and I never really liked the
>crowbar method. Paul Messinger's testing has shown that the old crowbar
>method drops humongous (~1000A) currents through the busses and tops it off
>with a load dump. I just can't think of any reason why one would want to do
>this when simpler, kinder, gentler methods are available.
>
>
snip
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
The question isn't so much one of "how intense is the flash" but one of
human biometrics. The human eye and brain react extremely well to
motion or suddenness (if that's a word) of an event. The single flash
strobe gets your attention that something is there. But where?? By the
time your brain has recognized the existence of the flash it's gone.
This is the reason companies like whelan have developed the multiflash
units. The first part of the flash gets your attention the subsequent
flash or flashes gives your brain time to home in on where it is. It's
much easier to see a moving aircraft than one that' s stationary against
it's background for instance. Now suppose that lighting conditions,
glare, or visibility are such that the only thing you see of a plane is
the flash of the strobe. With a single flash it's moved before you can
zero in on the location. With "multiflash" you get to adjust your vision
on the second, third, or fourth part of the flash, thus being able to
locate the aircraft before it's moved to a new location until the next
flash sequence. MUCH easier and less stressfu, especially in marginal
conditions. Now don't you want your pride ands joy to be the one easy to
distinguish and pick out of the sky instead of the one where the other
guy is saying to himself " I know I saw something out there somewhere"?
Bob McC
lucky wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>
>Has anyone looked into the single vs. double flash AEROFLASH NAV/STROBE/POSITION
LIGHT KITS and determined if the "intensity" is measurably less than the single
flash? Just observing these lights in single flash form vs whelens in formation
flight leaves my to personally believe that the whelens aren't worth any
the extra $ for them but still people seem to pass up these kits often enough
to go for the Whelens that I keep asking why...
>
>http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/aerofllightkits.php
>
>Lucky
>
>
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: | Modified Z-12 comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James Redmon" <james@berkut13.com>
I have a builder buddy (not on list) that is in the process of wiring his
plane using a slightly modified Z-12 with the addition of an aux battery
wired in per Figure 17-6. He's asked me for my comments on the
"modifications" he made and I'm not too sure how to respond. It a "I would
not do it this way, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't", kinda thing.
The main parts of Z-12 are not changed other than adding the second battery
and contactor I mentioned above. The thing he changed was in the switching
of the main/aux batteries and the main/aux alternators. E-bus is run off
the main battery only - just like in Figure 17-6.
For the switches, he has used 2 DPST switches - one simultaneously activates
the main battery and main alternator together, and the second activates the
aux battery and the aux alternator together. There is no single "master"
switch in this combination, but there is also no way to run the aux
alternator from the main battery only. There are still two ways to send
power to the main bus - main on, aux on (or both of those on), and the e-bus
can be powered from the main battery via a separate e-bus switch. However,
there is now no way to isolate an alternator only from it's respective
battery.
Now, for you "theory" folks out there...is this an acceptable design
modification? It certainly saves panel switch space (two vs 4 switch
holes), but I'd like to hear some of the "knows more than me" crowd's
opinions on coupling the battery and alt switches together.
Thanks!
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
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: Instrument Decals |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: erie@shelbyvilledesign.com
Johnathan, contact me off list
erie
Quoting JOHNATHAN MACY <bushpilot@optonline.net>:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: JOHNATHAN MACY
> <bushpilot@optonline.net>
>
> At one time on the web I came across a company that will make decals /
> overlays per your drawing for instrument panels. For example, they could make
> a decal that could go across you panel above all the switches. Now I can not
> find them. Any idea? - Thx - Johnathan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob Black" <black@usa.sh>
Like some other builders (see http://www.rv7.us/daily040908%20w.htm - this
site has a sequence of strobes and position lights) I'm using emergency
vehicle systems that put out just as much brightness and allow you to tailor
the flash sequence to what you want. You need to build or buy separate
position lights if you want to do that. I have priced these systems and
they seem to cost less than half of what the aviation stuff costs. What are
the downsides?
Bob
Rv7 wings
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of lucky
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
Has anyone looked into the single vs. double flash AEROFLASH
NAV/STROBE/POSITION LIGHT KITS and determined if the "intensity" is
measurably less than the single flash? Just observing these lights in
single flash form vs whelens in formation flight leaves my to personally
believe that the whelens aren't worth any the extra $ for them but still
people seem to pass up these kits often enough to go for the Whelens that I
keep asking why...
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/aerofllightkits.php
Lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: j1j2h3@juno.com
>
>
> In looking at strobe power supplies, all of those at Strobesnmore.com are
> rated in watts. However, the requirements for strobe lights are usually
> given in joules. How does one make the calculation to determine whether
> the output is sufficient? I know that one joule is equal to one
> watt-second, but I don't know how to handle the time factor. I suspect
> it has to do with flash duration and flashes per minute, but I haven't
> seen these numbers published for the equipment I've looked at.
>
>
> Jim Hasper - RV-7
> Franklin, TN
>
> Do not archive
>
>
>
>
>
>
Has anyone looked into the single vs. double flash AEROFLASH
NAV/STROBE/POSITION LIGHT KITS and determined if the "intensity" is
measurably less than the single flash? Just observing these lights in single
flash form vs whelens in formation flight leaves my to personally believe
that the whelens aren't worth any the extra $ for them but still people seem
to pass up these kits often enough to go for the Whelens that I keep asking
why...
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/aerofllightkits.php
Lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: j1j2h3@juno.com
In looking at strobe power supplies, all of those at Strobesnmore.com are
rated in watts. However, the requirements for strobe lights are usually
given in joules. How does one make the calculation to determine whether
the output is sufficient? I know that one joule is equal to one
watt-second, but I don't know how to handle the time factor. I suspect
it has to do with flash duration and flashes per minute, but I haven't
seen these numbers published for the equipment I've looked at.
Jim Hasper - RV-7
Franklin, TN
Do not archive
The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
/www.matronics.com/aeroelectric-list
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: Instrument Decals |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ernest Kells" <ernest.kells@sympatico.ca>
Jonathan and Others:
I think that you are looking for
http://engravers.net/aircraft/standard_placards.htm
They provide a lot more design flexibility than you request. At $0.50 per
word I plan to use them for most or all of my panel. In addition, I will
also probably use them for engraving my fuel caps. Look at the RV example -
meets my needs perfectly (seems a little pricey for two colour matched
caps - - but very, very slick).
>> At one time on the web I came across a company that will make decals /
overlays per your drawing for instrument panels. For example, they could
make a decal that could go across you panel above all the switches. Now I
can not find them. Any idea? - Thx - Johnathan <<
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: Radio Spacing |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brett Ferrell" <bferrell@123mail.net>
The Velocity's cant doesn't have enough space for angles on both sides, it's
barely wider than the radios, you actually mount a piece of flat 1/4" bar
stock on that side, and angle AL on the other, so the canted system is still
too wide, sadly.
Brett
----- Original Message -----
From: <BobsV35B@aol.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Radio Spacing
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>
>
> In a message dated 1/8/2005 9:16:37 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> bferrell@123mail.net writes:
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brett Ferrell"
> <bferrell@123mail.net>
>
> Yea, I looked at those, and really wanted to use them, but the cant in my
> velocity panel procludes their use, they didn't have a set thin enough to
> utilize unfortunately.
>
> Brett
>
>
> Good Morning Brent,
>
> I used the RK 1020 as they were no bigger than the aluminum angle most
> folks
> use.
>
> Radio Rax has come out with a set of canted racks to be used for the
> Bonanza
> and another set for the Baron. The ones for the Baron should work well
> for
> any canted panel. The ones for the Bonanza don't work as well because it
> moves the radios a half inch to the right and wastes a bit of panel
> space.
>
> That came about because they wanted to use the same right hand extrusion
> for
> both. But that is not pertinent unless you are putting them in a Bonanza!
>
> For a canted panel in a home built, I would seriously consider the Radio
> Rax
> designed for the Baron.
>
> For a Bonanza, I would recommend using the RK 1020 mounted in the original
> Bonanza canted panel.
>
> See: _www.RadioRax.com_ (http://www.RadioRax.com)
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Airpark LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8502
>
>
>
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
Hi,
I agree which is why I am interested in the doubleflashers to begin with.
Since the Aeroflash is a weaker flash "on paper" (which I can'f find on the internet
anymore), I am wondering if someone has found any info on the double flash
version's lumens/joules/subjective viewing/whatever to do some kind of rough
compare to see if it was much weaker "on paper" than the single flash version.
The problem is I can't find the detailed info on their 152-0007 or their 152-0011
power supplys. I used to be able to. It doesn't appear to be on their
web site anymore. Maybe someone who bought them has the info.
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum
>
>
> The question isn't so much one of "how intense is the flash" but one of
> human biometrics. The human eye and brain react extremely well to
> motion or suddenness (if that's a word) of an event. The single flash
> strobe gets your attention that something is there. But where?? By the
> time your brain has recognized the existence of the flash it's gone.
> This is the reason companies like whelan have developed the multiflash
> units. The first part of the flash gets your attention the subsequent
> flash or flashes gives your brain time to home in on where it is. It's
> much easier to see a moving aircraft than one that' s stationary against
> it's background for instance. Now suppose that lighting conditions,
> glare, or visibility are such that the only thing you see of a plane is
> the flash of the strobe. With a single flash it's moved before you can
> zero in on the location. With "multiflash" you get to adjust your vision
> on the second, third, or fourth part of the flash, thus being able to
> locate the aircraft before it's moved to a new location until the next
> flash sequence. MUCH easier and less stressfu, especially in marginal
> conditions. Now don't you want your pride ands joy to be the one easy to
> distinguish and pick out of the sky instead of the one where the other
> guy is saying to himself " I know I saw something out there somewhere"?
>
> Bob McC
>
> lucky wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
> >
> >Has anyone looked into the single vs. double flash AEROFLASH
> NAV/STROBE/POSITION LIGHT KITS and determined if the "intensity" is measurably
> less than the single flash? Just observing these lights in single flash form
vs
> whelens in formation flight leaves my to personally believe that the whelens
> aren't worth any the extra $ for them but still people seem to pass up these
> kits often enough to go for the Whelens that I keep asking why...
> >
> >http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/aerofllightkits.php
> >
> >Lucky
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Hi,
I agree which is why I am interested in the doubleflashers to begin with.
Since the Aeroflash is a weaker flash "on paper" (which I can'f find on the internet
anymore), I am wondering if someone has found any info on the double flash
version's lumens/joules/subjective viewing/whatever to do some kind of rough
compare to see if it was much weaker "on paper" than the single flash version.
The problem is I can't find the detailed info on their 152-0007 or their 152-0011
power supplys. I used to be able to. It doesn't appear to be on their web
site anymore. Maybe someone who bought them has the info.
-------------- Original message --------------
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum
<ROBERT.MCCALLUM2@SYMPATICO.CA>
The question isn't so much one of "how intense is the flash" but one of
human biometrics. The human eye and brain react extremely well to
motion or suddenness (if that's a word) of an event. The single flash
strobe gets your attention that something is there. But where?? By the
time your brain has recognized the existence of the flash it's gone.
This is the reason companies like whelan have developed the multiflash
units. The first part of the flash gets your attention the subsequent
flash or flashes gives your brain time to home in on where it is. It's
much easier to see a moving aircraft than one that' s stationary against
it's backg
round for instance. Now suppose that lighting conditions,
glare, or visibility are such that the only thing you see of a plane is
the flash of the strobe. With a single flash it's moved before you can
zero in on the location. With "multiflash" you get to adjust your vision
on the second, third, or fourth part of the flash, thus being able to
locate the aircraft before it's moved to a new location until the next
flash sequence. MUCH easier and less stressfu, especially in marginal
conditions. Now don't you want your pride ands joy to be the one easy to
distinguish and pick out of the sky instead of the one where the other
guy is saying to himself " I know I saw something out there somewhere"?
Bob McC
lucky wrote:
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
Has anyone looked into the
single vs. double flash AEROFLASH
NAV/STROBE/POSITION LIGHT KITS and determined if the "intensity" is measurably
less than the single flash? Just observing these lights in single flash form vs
whelens in formation flight leaves my to personally believe that the whelens
aren't worth any the extra $ for them but still people seem to pass up these
kits often enough to go for the Whelens that I keep asking why...
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/aerofllightkits.php
Lucky
=============================================================
==================================================
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Scott Jackson" <jayeandscott@telus.net>
Has Aeroflash changed their power supplies? The reason I didn't install
Aeroflash-although the price was attractive-was the surging that its power
supply would induce in the electrical system, according to " The Electric
Connection" manual.
Scott in VAncouver
165 hrs on RV-6
police-car strobe power supply, Whelen heads
----- Original Message -----
From: "lucky" <luckymacy@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>
> Hi,
> I agree which is why I am interested in the doubleflashers to begin with.
>
> Since the Aeroflash is a weaker flash "on paper" (which I can'f find on
> the internet anymore), I am wondering if someone has found any info on the
> double flash version's lumens/joules/subjective viewing/whatever to do
> some kind of rough compare to see if it was much weaker "on paper" than
> the single flash version. The problem is I can't find the detailed info
> on their 152-0007 or their 152-0011 power supplys. I used to be able to.
> It doesn't appear to be on their web site anymore. Maybe someone who
> bought them has the info.
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum
>>
>>
>> The question isn't so much one of "how intense is the flash" but one of
>> human biometrics. The human eye and brain react extremely well to
>> motion or suddenness (if that's a word) of an event. The single flash
>> strobe gets your attention that something is there. But where?? By the
>> time your brain has recognized the existence of the flash it's gone.
>> This is the reason companies like whelan have developed the multiflash
>> units. The first part of the flash gets your attention the subsequent
>> flash or flashes gives your brain time to home in on where it is. It's
>> much easier to see a moving aircraft than one that' s stationary against
>> it's background for instance. Now suppose that lighting conditions,
>> glare, or visibility are such that the only thing you see of a plane is
>> the flash of the strobe. With a single flash it's moved before you can
>> zero in on the location. With "multiflash" you get to adjust your vision
>> on the second, third, or fourth part of the flash, thus being able to
>> locate the aircraft before it's moved to a new location until the next
>> flash sequence. MUCH easier and less stressfu, especially in marginal
>> conditions. Now don't you want your pride ands joy to be the one easy to
>> distinguish and pick out of the sky instead of the one where the other
>> guy is saying to himself " I know I saw something out there somewhere"?
>>
>> Bob McC
>>
>> lucky wrote:
>>
>> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>> >
>> >Has anyone looked into the single vs. double flash AEROFLASH
>> NAV/STROBE/POSITION LIGHT KITS and determined if the "intensity" is
>> measurably
>> less than the single flash? Just observing these lights in single flash
>> form vs
>> whelens in formation flight leaves my to personally believe that the
>> whelens
>> aren't worth any the extra $ for them but still people seem to pass up
>> these
>> kits often enough to go for the Whelens that I keep asking why...
>> >
>> >http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/aerofllightkits.php
>> >
>> >Lucky
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Hi,
> I agree which is why I am interested in the doubleflashers to begin with.
>
> Since the Aeroflash is a weaker flash "on paper" (which I can'f find on
> the internet anymore), I am wondering if someone has found any info on the
> double flash version's lumens/joules/subjective viewing/whatever to do
> some kind of rough compare to see if it was much weaker "on paper" than
> the single flash version. The problem is I can't find the detailed info on
> their 152-0007 or their 152-0011 power supplys. I used to be able to. It
> doesn't appear to be on their web site anymore. Maybe someone who bought
> them has the info.
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> -- AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum
> <ROBERT.MCCALLUM2@SYMPATICO.CA>
>
> The question isn't so much one of "how intense is the flash" but one of
> human biometrics. The human eye and brain react extremely well to
> motion or suddenness (if that's a word) of an event. The single flash
> strobe gets your attention that something is there. But where?? By the
> time your brain has recognized the existence of the flash it's gone.
> This is the reason companies like whelan have developed the multiflash
> units. The first part of the flash gets your attention the subsequent
> flash or flashes gives your brain time to home in on where it is. It's
> much easier to see a moving aircraft than one that' s stationary against
> it's backg
> round for instance. Now suppose that lighting conditions,
> glare, or visibility are such that the only thing you see of a plane is
> the flash of the strobe. With a single flash it's moved before you can
> zero in on the location. With "multiflash" you get to adjust your vision
> on the second, third, or fourth part of the flash, thus being able to
> locate the aircraft before it's moved to a new location until the next
> flash sequence. MUCH easier and less stressfu, especially in marginal
> conditions. Now don't you want your pride ands joy to be the one easy to
> distinguish and pick out of the sky instead of the one where the other
> guy is saying to himself " I know I saw something out there somewhere"?
>
> Bob McC
>
> lucky wrote:
>
> -- AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>
> Has anyone looked into the
> single vs. double flash AEROFLASH
> NAV/STROBE/POSITION LIGHT KITS and determined if the "intensity" is
> measurably
> less than the single flash? Just observing these lights in single flash
> form vs
> whelens in formation flight leaves my to personally believe that the
> whelens
> aren't worth any the extra $ for them but still people seem to pass up
> these
> kits often enough to go for the Whelens that I keep asking why...
>
> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/aerofllightkits.php
>
> Lucky
>
>
> =============================================================
> ==================================================
>
>
>
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | FW: Z13A - Basic question ? Help anyone? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
Using the Z13A diagram for use with a Vans 60 amp int reg. Ordered the
contactors, etc. from B&C and Todd sent me a S811-1 ID starter contactor
which apparently does not have provisions for a starter engaged light. It
has the two large terminals and one small switch terminal. It also costs $40
as opposed to $26 for a S702-1 which does allow for the starter engaged
light.
Some confusion on my part. I think that on the Z13A:
The starter contactor would be a S702-1
The Battery contactor would be a S701-1
and the OV disconnect is shown as a S701-1
Does this look correct?
Wonder what/why they would have shipped me a S811-1? More costly and fewer
features? I must be missing something here, what would it be?
Experience level: first plane, read the book, read it again, still only
know enough to keep tongue off positive terminal :o)
Thanks Bill S
7a fuse/panel
Maumelle, Arkansas
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
Even experimental aircraft must meet the far requirements appropriate to
flight.
I went around and around with FAA and Aero Flash years ago as well as my Ins
agent.
If strobes are required for your flight then they must meet the Fars for
angle of visibility and intensity. At the time Aero Flash did not. I have no
info that Aero Flash ever increased the output to meet the requirements.
The FAA position is its up to the pilot (not even the owner) to verify that
all required equipment for the flight meets the Fars. Thus its not the DAR's
responsibility when the acft is inspected to verify lighting that is proper
its the builder. Later its who ever is flying the aircraft.
The insurance CO position is if the accident was in any way related to sub
standard strobes your insurance is void. Also at that time the FAA will take
action against you and your pilots license.
But there are lots of stories around about what I am saying is not correct
as well as the one that says carrying a co pilot for part of the flight test
is OK during the first 25-40 hours. Ask the right FAA person and you will
find out there are no cases where passengers of any type are allowed. Dittos
for the strobe intensity.
If you can find a commercial strobe with the right power output its fine for
experimental use.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Black" <black@usa.sh>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob Black" <black@usa.sh>
>
> Like some other builders (see http://www.rv7.us/daily040908%20w.htm - this
> site has a sequence of strobes and position lights) I'm using emergency
> vehicle systems that put out just as much brightness and allow you to
tailor
> the flash sequence to what you want. You need to build or buy separate
> position lights if you want to do that. I have priced these systems and
> they seem to cost less than half of what the aviation stuff costs. What
are
> the downsides?
>
> Bob
> Rv7 wings
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of lucky
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>
> Has anyone looked into the single vs. double flash AEROFLASH
> NAV/STROBE/POSITION LIGHT KITS and determined if the "intensity" is
> measurably less than the single flash? Just observing these lights in
> single flash form vs whelens in formation flight leaves my to personally
> believe that the whelens aren't worth any the extra $ for them but still
> people seem to pass up these kits often enough to go for the Whelens that
I
> keep asking why...
>
> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/aerofllightkits.php
>
> Lucky
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: j1j2h3@juno.com
> >
> >
> > In looking at strobe power supplies, all of those at Strobesnmore.com
are
> > rated in watts. However, the requirements for strobe lights are usually
> > given in joules. How does one make the calculation to determine whether
> > the output is sufficient? I know that one joule is equal to one
> > watt-second, but I don't know how to handle the time factor. I suspect
> > it has to do with flash duration and flashes per minute, but I haven't
> > seen these numbers published for the equipment I've looked at.
> >
> >
> > Jim Hasper - RV-7
> > Franklin, TN
> >
> > Do not archive
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Has anyone looked into the single vs. double flash AEROFLASH
> NAV/STROBE/POSITION LIGHT KITS and determined if the "intensity" is
> measurably less than the single flash? Just observing these lights in
single
> flash form vs whelens in formation flight leaves my to personally believe
> that the whelens aren't worth any the extra $ for them but still people
seem
> to pass up these kits often enough to go for the Whelens that I keep
asking
> why...
>
> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/aerofllightkits.php
>
> Lucky
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> -- AeroElectric-List message posted by: j1j2h3@juno.com
>
>
> In looking at strobe power supplies, all of those at Strobesnmore.com are
> rated in watts. However, the requirements for strobe lights are usually
> given in joules. How does one make the calculation to determine whether
> the output is sufficient? I know that one joule is equal to one
> watt-second, but I don't know how to handle the time factor. I suspect
> it has to do with flash duration and flashes per minute, but I haven't
> seen these numbers published for the equipment I've looked at.
>
>
> Jim Hasper - RV-7
> Franklin, TN
>
> Do not archive
>
>
> The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
> /www.matronics.com/aeroelectric-list
>
>
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Load dump comments clamav-milter version |
0.80j on juliet.albedo.net
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
The huge current loop during a shorting crowbar event generates a large
magnetic field that can magnetize steel and mess up your compass
calibration.
I got 400 amps with longer that likely wires. When I simulated my aircraft
wiring I got over 700 amps.
Measurements were made with calibrated equipment. as well as being
repeatable.
If this does not bother you, be my guest.
Paul
> Sure that sounds scary but I'll wait for the report before getting
> concerned. With 6 feet of 18awg wire in series with a C/B, an SCR, and
> several connections it may be possible to get a couple of hundred amps
> of instantaneous current flowing but so what? It is drawing down the
> voltage which is what we want.
>
> The interesting thing to me is a nuisance trip. It sounds like it is
> possible to ramp up the alternator output during the delay (40 ms?)
> waiting for the OV contactor to open. However I haven't seen any reason
> to be concerned about that yet and I will await the report.
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LOAD dump comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
The use of a dead short crowbar is an application I, nor any of my
associates, ever came across during our careers. Lots of shorting crow bars
but NEVER across a battery.
They were used widely across electrical power supplies where the energy
being shorted was small compared to a modern battery. The power supply was
designed to have a crow bar included and thus never produces huge currents
in the process of shutting down.
ALL inductors have load dumps when they are unloaded.
The contactors we all use have enough stored energy to fire a spark plug
when they are disconnected. This is contained with the diode across the
coil. It increases the internal load dump from a couple of ms to around 40
ms. The dump current in this case is one amp.
Both internal and external regulators generate load dumps that must be
suppressed.
Eric has one part of the solution which is his non shorting OVP. This
gracefully disconnects if there is a long term OV vs a load dump.
The load dump transorb across the alternator only protects the alternator,
not the rest of the system and then only from alternator load dumps.
We still need protection from buss spikes from where ever. Bob has said they
are like snipe hunting, never to be found. Well my forth coming report has
scope pix of these spikes I went on a snipe hunt and bagged a few!
Another of Eric's transorb units on the bus will work but also consider a
few transorbs in the non packages form across each bus.
The end of the report will include our recommendation for better transient /
load dump design.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "D Fritz" <dfritzj@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: LOAD dump comments
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Fritz <dfritzj@yahoo.com>
>
> "Thus the Crowbar OVP action not only shorts the buss it creates a load
dump,
> neither action is desirable or necessary. OVP protection does not
need to be
> crowbar in nature and surely not a unlimited current short."
>
> In reading the above, it sounds like we should be looking at another
method of overvoltage protection, am I understanding this correctly? Does
anyone have suggested architectures? Is this load dump only an issue with
internally regulated alternators, or do externally regulated alternators
just have protection already built in? In another thread, Gary raises the
question of why we don't just attach the alternator directly to the battery
(vice through the main contactor) to mitigate the load dump issue, any
comments out there on why we should or should not do this?
>
> Dan Fritz
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
Where/when/by who was the data collected that demonstrated that?
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Scott Jackson"
>
>
> Has Aeroflash changed their power supplies? The reason I didn't install
> Aeroflash-although the price was attractive-was the surging that its power
> supply would induce in the electrical system, according to " The Electric
> Connection" manual.
> Scott in VAncouver
> 165 hrs on RV-6
> police-car strobe power supply, Whelen heads
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "lucky"
> To:
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
> >
> > Hi,
> > I agree which is why I am interested in the doubleflashers to begin with.
> >
> > Since the Aeroflash is a weaker flash "on paper" (which I can'f find on
> > the internet anymore), I am wondering if someone has found any info on the
> > double flash version's lumens/joules/subjective viewing/whatever to do
> > some kind of rough compare to see if it was much weaker "on paper" than
> > the single flash version. The problem is I can't find the detailed info
> > on their 152-0007 or their 152-0011 power supplys. I used to be able to.
> > It doesn't appear to be on their web site anymore. Maybe someone who
> > bought them has the info.
> >
> > -------------- Original message --------------
> >
> >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum
> >>
> >>
> >> The question isn't so much one of "how intense is the flash" but one of
> >> human biometrics. The human eye and brain react extremely well to
> >> motion or suddenness (if that's a word) of an event. The single flash
> >> strobe gets your attention that something is there. But where?? By the
> >> time your brain has recognized the existence of the flash it's gone.
> >> This is the reason companies like whelan have developed the multiflash
> >> units. The first part of the flash gets your attention the subsequent
> >> flash or flashes gives your brain time to home in on where it is. It's
> >> much easier to see a moving aircraft than one that' s stationary against
> >> it's background for instance. Now suppose that lighting conditions,
> >> glare, or visibility are such that the only thing you see of a plane is
> >> the flash of the strobe. With a single flash it's moved before you can
> >> zero in on the location. With "multiflash" you get to adjust your vision
> >> on the second, third, or fourth part of the flash, thus being able to
> >> locate the aircraft before it's moved to a new location until the next
> >> flash sequence. MUCH easier and less stressfu, especially in marginal
> >> conditions. Now don't you want your pride ands joy to be the one easy to
> >> distinguish and pick out of the sky instead of the one where the other
> >> guy is saying to himself " I know I saw something out there somewhere"?
> >>
> >> Bob McC
> >>
> >> lucky wrote:
> >>
> >> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
> >> >
> >> >Has anyone looked into the single vs. double flash AEROFLASH
> >> NAV/STROBE/POSITION LIGHT KITS and determined if the "intensity" is
> >> measurably
> >> less than the single flash? Just observing these lights in single flash
> >> form vs
> >> whelens in formation flight leaves my to personally believe that the
> >> whelens
> >> aren't worth any the extra $ for them but still people seem to pass up
> >> these
> >> kits often enough to go for the Whelens that I keep asking why...
> >> >
> >> >http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/aerofllightkits.php
> >> >
> >> >Lucky
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Hi,
> > I agree which is why I am interested in the doubleflashers to begin with.
> >
> > Since the Aeroflash is a weaker flash "on paper" (which I can'f find on
> > the internet anymore), I am wondering if someone has found any info on the
> > double flash version's lumens/joules/subjective viewing/whatever to do
> > some kind of rough compare to see if it was much weaker "on paper" than
> > the single flash version. The problem is I can't find the detailed info on
> > their 152-0007 or their 152-0011 power supplys. I used to be able to. It
> > doesn't appear to be on their web site anymore. Maybe someone who bought
> > them has the info.
> >
> > -------------- Original message --------------
> >
> > -- AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum
> >
> >
> > The question isn't so much one of "how intense is the flash" but one of
> > human biometrics. The human eye and brain react extremely well to
> > motion or suddenness (if that's a word) of an event. The single flash
> > strobe gets your attention that something is there. But where?? By the
> > time your brain has recognized the existence of the flash it's gone.
> > This is the reason companies like whelan have developed the multiflash
> > units. The first part of the flash gets your attention the subsequent
> > flash or flashes gives your brain time to home in on where it is. It's
> > much easier to see a moving aircraft than one that' s stationary against
> > it's backg
> > round for instance. Now suppose that lighting conditions,
> > glare, or visibility are such that the only thing you see of a plane is
> > the flash of the strobe. With a single flash it's moved before you can
> > zero in on the location. With "multiflash" you get to adjust your vision
> > on the second, third, or fourth part of the flash, thus being able to
> > locate the aircraft before it's moved to a new location until the next
> > flash sequence. MUCH easier and less stressfu, especially in marginal
> > conditions. Now don't you want your pride ands joy to be the one easy to
> > distinguish and pick out of the sky instead of the one where the other
> > guy is saying to himself " I know I saw something out there somewhere"?
> >
> > Bob McC
> >
> > lucky wrote:
> >
> > -- AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
> >
> > Has anyone looked into the
> > single vs. double flash AEROFLASH
> > NAV/STROBE/POSITION LIGHT KITS and determined if the "intensity" is
> > measurably
> > less than the single flash? Just observing these lights in single flash
> > form vs
> > whelens in formation flight leaves my to personally believe that the
> > whelens
> > aren't worth any the extra $ for them but still people seem to pass up
> > these
> > kits often enough to go for the Whelens that I keep asking why...
> >
> > http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/aerofllightkits.php
> >
> > Lucky
> >
> >
> > =============================================================
> > ==================================================
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Where/when/by who was the data collected that demonstrated that?
-------------- Original message --------------
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Scott Jackson"
<JAYEANDSCOTT@TELUS.NET>
Has Aeroflash changed their power supplies? The reason I didn't install
Aeroflash-although the price was attractive-was the surging that its power
supply would induce in the electrical system, according to " The Electric
Connection" manual.
Scott in VAncouver
165 hrs on RV-6
police-car strobe power supply, Whelen heads
----- Original Message -----
From: "lucky" <LUCKYMACY@COMCAST.NET>
To: <AEROELECTRIC-LIST@MATRONICS.COM>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
Hi,
>
; I agree which is why I am interested in the doubleflashers to begin with.
Since the Aeroflash is a weaker flash "on paper" (which I can'f find on
the internet anymore), I am wondering if someone has found any info on the
double flash version's lumens/joules/subjective viewing/whatever to do
some kind of rough compare to see if it was much weaker "on paper" than
the single flash version. The problem is I can't find the detailed info
on their 152-0007 or their 152-0011 power supplys. I used to be able to.
It doesn't appear to be on their web site anymore. Maybe someone who
bought them has the info.
-------------- Original message --------------
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum
The question isn't so much one of "h
ow intense is the flash" but one of
human biometrics. The human eye and brain react extremely well to
motion or suddenness (if that's a word) of an event. The single flash
strobe gets your attention that something is there. But where?? By the
time your brain has recognized the existence of the flash it's gone.
This is the reason companies like whelan have developed the multiflash
units. The first part of the flash gets your attention the subsequent
flash or flashes gives your brain time to home in on where it is. It's
much easier to see a moving aircraft than one that' s stationary against
it's background for instance. Now suppose that lighting conditions,
glare, or visibility are such that the only thing you see of a plane is
the flash of the strobe. With a single flash it's move
d before you can
zero in on the location. With "multiflash" you get to adjust your vision
on the second, third, or fourth part of the flash, thus being able to
locate the aircraft before it's moved to a new location until the next
flash sequence. MUCH easier and less stressfu, especially in marginal
conditions. Now don't you want your pride ands joy to be the one easy to
distinguish and pick out of the sky instead of the one where the other
guy is saying to himself " I know I saw something out there somewhere"?
Bob McC
lucky wrote:
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
Has anyone looked into the single vs. double flash AEROFLASH
NAV/STROBE/POSI
TION LIGHT KITS and determined if the "intensity" is
measurably
less than the single flash? Just observing these lights in single flash
form vs
whelens in formation flight leaves my to personally believe that the
whelens
aren't worth any the extra $ for them but still people seem to pass up
these
kits often enough to go for the Whelens that I keep asking why...
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/aerofllightkits.php
Lucky
Hi,
I agree which is why I am interested in the doubleflashers to begin with.
Since the Aerofla
sh is a weaker flash "on paper" (which I can'f find on
the internet anymore), I am wondering if someone has found any info on the
double flash version's lumens/joules/subjective viewing/whatever to do
some kind of rough compare to see if it was much weaker "on paper" than
the single flash version. The problem is I can't find the detailed info on
their 152-0007 or their 152-0011 power supplys. I used to be able to. It
doesn't appear to be on their web site anymore. Maybe someone who bought
them has the info.
-------------- Original message --------------
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: Robert McCallum
<ROBERT.MCCALLUM2@SYMPATICO.CA>
The question isn't so much one of "how intense is the flash" but one of
human biometrics. The human eye and brain react extremely we
ll to
motion or suddenness (if that's a word) of an event. The single flash
strobe gets your attention that something is there. But where?? By the
time your brain has recognized the existence of the flash it's gone.
This is the reason companies like whelan have developed the multiflash
units. The first part of the flash gets your attention the subsequent
flash or flashes gives your brain time to home in on where it is. It's
much easier to see a moving aircraft than one that' s stationary against
it's backg
round for instance. Now suppose that lighting conditions,
glare, or visibility are such that the only thing you see of a plane is
the flash of the strobe. With a single flash it's moved before you can
zero in on the location. With "multiflash" you get to adjust your vision
on the second, third,
or fourth part of the flash, thus being able to
locate the aircraft before it's moved to a new location until the next
flash sequence. MUCH easier and less stressfu, especially in marginal
conditions. Now don't you want your pride ands joy to be the one easy to
distinguish and pick out of the sky instead of the one where the other
guy is saying to himself " I know I saw something out there somewhere"?
Bob McC
lucky wrote:
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
Has anyone looked into the
single vs. double flash AEROFLASH
NAV/STROBE/POSITION LIGHT KITS and determined if the "intensity" is
measurably
less than the single flash? Just observing these lights in single flash
form vs
whelen
s in formation flight leaves my to personally believe that the
whelens
aren't worth any the extra $ for them but still people seem to pass up
these
kits often enough to go for the Whelens that I keep asking why...
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/aerofllightkits.php
Lucky
=============================================================
==================================================
==========================================================
===============================================
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Load dump and shutdown procedures |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
With all the discussion on load dump ever wondered why now and not 50 years
ago?
One reason is then (and now) I have learned and then taught that the
alternator was turned on only after the engine was started and both the
battery and the alternator was only turned off AFTER the engine was
completely stopped.
Recently I have seem and observed first hand cases where the ammeter was
checked during runup by turning the alternator off. Also the alternator and
master were turned off before shutting down the engine.
The latter procedure assures load dump and the former prevents load dump.
Any one know when the latter procedure became popular in some circles???
The above does not include emergency or failure conditions.
Paul
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Load dump comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
NOT true exactly.
ANY inductor carrying current, rotating or not, power generating or power
using, will try to continue the circulating current if the load or power
source is disconnected.
The magnitude of the load dump is related to the current being reduced.
Clearly in the case of the alternator where 10-50 amps are being
disconnected the effect is different when compared to the coil of a
contactor where the current is one amp.
Everyone knows that relay coils need suppression diodes. Well the same goes
for alternators just much bigger diodes for the higher current. Also in the
case of alternators or other power producing components the cure is
different.
Relay coils need the diode connected so its out of the circuit except when
needed to continue the circulation current.
Alternators need a voltage clamp to prevent excessive voltage during a
sudden current reduction. We ignore load dumps from alternators in the
normal electrical system as the battery acts like a current absorber and
stabilizes the voltage.
But if the battery is off line then the voltage increases until the
remaining load can accept the current transient.
If you disconnect an internally regulated alternator when it is producing
output current the current has no where to go and the result is a voltage
spike internal to the alternator. MOST internally regulated alternators have
a load dump diode built in that will protect the alternator regulator under
worst case conditions.
Some have suggested that the rebuilt alternators sold by Vans are not
properly protected. While this is an easy finger to point I have not seen
any real investigation to prove this.
Then there is the case of externally regulated alternators. The load dump is
the same but in this case the system bus is still connected so it will see
an overvoltage that may or may not damage equipment. If the alternator "B"
lead is disconnected in this externally regulated alternator the internal
load dump can produce a very hi voltage as there is nothing to clamp it
other than the rectifier diodes in the alternator and they usually are heavy
enough to prevent failure and they break down around 200V.
> Load dump is an issue with any source of power that uses a rotating
> conductor in a magnetic field. By the way, overvoltage and load dump are
> related in that they both have associated overvoltages. Load dump is a
> strictly transient OV condition caused by disconnecting a load, but an
> overvoltage condition can be caused by a failed regulator or other causes
> and may be long term.
>Both need to be addressed.
TRUE
Paul
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Load dump comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
I'm interested as to which two items the crowbar was shorting when
these large currents were measured. I'm assuming this is a different
application than the crowbar OV protection that Bod espouses, where
the crowbar shorts out the field circuit, popping a 5A CB. I can't
imagine how 400 to 700 amps could be generated in the field circuit
before the 5A CB popped. Are CBs that slow to trip? Or, was this a
different application of a crowbar?
Kevin Horton
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
>
>The huge current loop during a shorting crowbar event generates a large
>magnetic field that can magnetize steel and mess up your compass
>calibration.
>
>I got 400 amps with longer that likely wires. When I simulated my aircraft
>wiring I got over 700 amps.
>
>Measurements were made with calibrated equipment. as well as being
>repeatable.
>
>If this does not bother you, be my guest.
>
>Paul
>
>
>> Sure that sounds scary but I'll wait for the report before getting
>> concerned. With 6 feet of 18awg wire in series with a C/B, an SCR, and
>> several connections it may be possible to get a couple of hundred amps
>> of instantaneous current flowing but so what? It is drawing down the
>> voltage which is what we want.
>>
>> The interesting thing to me is a nuisance trip. It sounds like it is
>> possible to ramp up the alternator output during the delay (40 ms?)
>> waiting for the OV contactor to open. However I haven't seen any reason
> > to be concerned about that yet and I will await the report.
Message 33
| 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: Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
You must have gotten snookered and didn't do your homework or something because
the 152-0007 and 152-0011 power supplies have been approved and are used on certified
aircraft. Visit Their web site for more info on their FAA approval list.
do not archive
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger"
>
> Even experimental aircraft must meet the far requirements appropriate to
> flight.
>
> I went around and around with FAA and Aero Flash years ago as well as my Ins
> agent.
>
> If strobes are required for your flight then they must meet the Fars for
> angle of visibility and intensity. At the time Aero Flash did not. I have no
> info that Aero Flash ever increased the output to meet the requirements.
>
> The FAA position is its up to the pilot (not even the owner) to verify that
> all required equipment for the flight meets the Fars. Thus its not the DAR's
> responsibility when the acft is inspected to verify lighting that is proper
> its the builder. Later its who ever is flying the aircraft.
>
> The insurance CO position is if the accident was in any way related to sub
> standard strobes your insurance is void. Also at that time the FAA will take
> action against you and your pilots license.
>
> But there are lots of stories around about what I am saying is not correct
> as well as the one that says carrying a co pilot for part of the flight test
> is OK during the first 25-40 hours. Ask the right FAA person and you will
> find out there are no cases where passengers of any type are allowed. Dittos
> for the strobe intensity.
>
> If you can find a commercial strobe with the right power output its fine for
> experimental use.
>
> Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bob Black"
> To:
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob Black"
> >
> > Like some other builders (see http://www.rv7.us/daily040908%20w.htm - this
> > site has a sequence of strobes and position lights) I'm using emergency
> > vehicle systems that put out just as much brightness and allow you to
> tailor
> > the flash sequence to what you want. You need to build or buy separate
> > position lights if you want to do that. I have priced these systems and
> > they seem to cost less than half of what the aviation stuff costs. What
> are
> > the downsides?
> >
> > Bob
> > Rv7 wings
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of lucky
> > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens
> >
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
> >
> > Has anyone looked into the single vs. double flash AEROFLASH
> > NAV/STROBE/POSITION LIGHT KITS and determined if the "intensity" is
> > measurably less than the single flash? Just observing these lights in
> > single flash form vs whelens in formation flight leaves my to personally
> > believe that the whelens aren't worth any the extra $ for them but still
> > people seem to pass up these kits often enough to go for the Whelens that
> I
> > keep asking why...
> >
> > http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/aerofllightkits.php
> >
> > Lucky
> > -------------- Original message --------------
> >
> > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: j1j2h3@juno.com
> > >
> > >
> > > In looking at strobe power supplies, all of those at Strobesnmore.com
> are
> > > rated in watts. However, the requirements for strobe lights are usually
> > > given in joules. How does one make the calculation to determine whether
> > > the output is sufficient? I know that one joule is equal to one
> > > watt-second, but I don't know how to handle the time factor. I suspect
> > > it has to do with flash duration and flashes per minute, but I haven't
> > > seen these numbers published for the equipment I've looked at.
> > >
> > >
> > > Jim Hasper - RV-7
> > > Franklin, TN
> > >
> > > Do not archive
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Has anyone looked into the single vs. double flash AEROFLASH
> > NAV/STROBE/POSITION LIGHT KITS and determined if the "intensity" is
> > measurably less than the single flash? Just observing these lights in
> single
> > flash form vs whelens in formation flight leaves my to personally believe
> > that the whelens aren't worth any the extra $ for them but still people
> seem
> > to pass up these kits often enough to go for the Whelens that I keep
> asking
> > why...
> >
> > http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/aerofllightkits.php
> >
> > Lucky
> > -------------- Original message --------------
> >
> > -- AeroElectric-List message posted by: j1j2h3@juno.com
> >
> >
> > In looking at strobe power supplies, all of those at Strobesnmore.com are
> > rated in watts. However, the requirements for strobe lights are usually
> > given in joules. How does one make the calculation to determine whether
> > the output is sufficient? I know that one joule is equal to one
> > watt-second, but I don't know how to handle the time factor. I suspect
> > it has to do with flash duration and flashes per minute, but I haven't
> > seen these numbers published for the equipment I've looked at.
> >
> >
> > Jim Hasper - RV-7
> > Franklin, TN
> >
> > Do not archive
> >
> >
> > The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
> > /www.matronics.com/aeroelectric-list
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
You must have gotten snookered and didn't do your homework or something because
the 152-0007 and 152-0011 power supplies have been approved and are used on certified
aircraft. Visit Their web site for more info on their FAA approval list.
do not archive
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <PAULM@OLYPEN.COM>
Even experimental aircraft must meet the far requirements appropriate to
flight.
I went around and around with FAA and Aero Flash years ago as well as my Ins
agent.
If strobes are required for your flight then they must meet the Fars for
angle of visibility and intensity. At the time Aero Flash did not. I have no
info that Aero Flash ever increased the output to meet the requirements.
The FAA position is its up to the pilot (not even the owner) to verify that
all required equipment for the flight meets the Fars. Thus its not the DAR's
responsibility when the acft is inspected to verify lighting that is proper
its the bui
lder. Later its who ever is flying the aircraft.
The insurance CO position is if the accident was in any way related to sub
standard strobes your insurance is void. Also at that time the FAA will take
action against you and your pilots license.
But there are lots of stories around about what I am saying is not correct
as well as the one that says carrying a co pilot for part of the flight test
is OK during the first 25-40 hours. Ask the right FAA person and you will
find out there are no cases where passengers of any type are allowed. Dittos
for the strobe intensity.
If you can find a commercial strobe with the right power output its fine for
experimental use.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Black" <BLACK@USA.SH>
To: <AEROELECTRIC-LIST@MATRONICS.COM>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Aerof
lash double flash vs. Whelens
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bob Black" <BLACK@USA.SH>
Like some other builders (see http://www.rv7.us/daily040908%20w.htm - this
site has a sequence of strobes and position lights) I'm using emergency
vehicle systems that put out just as much brightness and allow you to
tailor
the flash sequence to what you want. You need to build or buy separate
position lights if you want to do that. I have priced these systems and
they seem to cost less than half of what the aviation stuff costs. What
are
the downsides?
Bob
Rv7 wings
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf O
f lucky
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Aeroflash double flash vs. Whelens
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
Has anyone looked into the single vs. double flash AEROFLASH
NAV/STROBE/POSITION LIGHT KITS and determined if the "intensity" is
measurably less than the single flash? Just observing these lights in
single flash form vs whelens in formation flight leaves my to personally
believe that the whelens aren't worth any the extra $ for them but still
people seem to pass up these kits often enough to go for the Whelens that
I
keep asking why...
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/aerofllightkits.php
Lucky
-------------- Original message -------------- <B
R>
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: j1j2h3@juno.com
In looking at strobe power supplies, all of those at Strobesnmore.com
are
rated in watts. However, the requirements for strobe lights are usually
given in joules. How does one make the calculation to determine whether
the output is sufficient? I know that one joule is equal to one
watt-second, but I don't know how to handle the time factor. I suspect
it has to do with flash duration and flashes per minute, but I haven't
seen these numbers published for the equipment I've looked at.
Jim Hasper - RV-7
Franklin, TN
Do not archive
Has anyone looked into the single vs. double flash AEROFLASH
NAV/STROBE/POSITION LIGHT KITS and determined if the "intensity" is
measurably less than the single flash? Just observing these lights in
single
flash form vs whelens in formation flight leaves my to personally believe
that the whelens aren't worth any the extra $ for them but still people
seem
to pass up these kits often enough to go for the Whelens that I keep
asking
why...
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/aerofllightkits.php
Lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: j1j2h3@juno.com
In looking at strobe power supplies, all of those at
Strobesnmore.com are
rated in watts. However, the requirements for strobe lights are usually
given in joules. How does one make the calculation to determine whether
the output is sufficient? I know that one joule is equal to one
watt-second, but I don't know how to handle the time factor. I suspect
it has to do with flash duration and flashes per minute, but I haven't
seen these numbers published for the equipment I've looked at.
Jim Hasper - RV-7
Franklin, TN
Do not archive
The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
/www.matronics.com/aeroelectric-list
red entirely through the Contributions
/www.matronics.com/emaillists
Message 34
| 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: Load dump comments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
Its wired exactly as Bob shows.
The power path is thru the CB that powers the relay (in the case of a "B"
lead the contactor) and the crow bar shorts the CB to ground and the 400
amps is thru the wiring and thru the CB and OVP SCR. There is no HI current
thru the field.
Draw a wire from the load side of the CB to ground (thats the OVP). The
resulting circuit is the battery to the CB to the OVP to ground. The OVP
tripps and its scr shorts the OVP to ground. Net result is the CB is
directly across the battery plus wiring. The modern battery will provide
more than 1000 amps (some closer to 2000 amps) across the CB with very short
leads. One solution is a 1/8 to 1/2 ohm resistor in the OVP shorting path to
limit current and still blow the CB.
I got 730 amps with shorter but realistic leads and the Powersonic 12v18ah
battery that Bob promotes. Far cry from a Gill flooded cell acft battery.
I tried 3 different popular 5 amp CB brands and all showed at least 50 ms to
open. (and that is when they are warmed up). After a couple of hours at rest
the CB can take more than 80MS to trip. Yes they are that slow.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Horton" <khorton01@rogers.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Load dump comments
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton
<khorton01@rogers.com>
>
> I'm interested as to which two items the crowbar was shorting when
> these large currents were measured. I'm assuming this is a different
> application than the crowbar OV protection that Bod espouses, where
> the crowbar shorts out the field circuit, popping a 5A CB. I can't
> imagine how 400 to 700 amps could be generated in the field circuit
> before the 5A CB popped. Are CBs that slow to trip? Or, was this a
> different application of a crowbar?
>
> Kevin Horton
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger"
<paulm@olypen.com>
> >
> >The huge current loop during a shorting crowbar event generates a large
> >magnetic field that can magnetize steel and mess up your compass
> >calibration.
> >
> >I got 400 amps with longer that likely wires. When I simulated my
aircraft
> >wiring I got over 700 amps.
> >
> >Measurements were made with calibrated equipment. as well as being
> >repeatable.
> >
> >If this does not bother you, be my guest.
> >
> >Paul
> >
> >
> >> Sure that sounds scary but I'll wait for the report before getting
> >> concerned. With 6 feet of 18awg wire in series with a C/B, an SCR, and
> >> several connections it may be possible to get a couple of hundred amps
> >> of instantaneous current flowing but so what? It is drawing down the
> >> voltage which is what we want.
> >>
> >> The interesting thing to me is a nuisance trip. It sounds like it is
> >> possible to ramp up the alternator output during the delay (40 ms?)
> >> waiting for the OV contactor to open. However I haven't seen any
reason
> > > to be concerned about that yet and I will await the report.
>
>
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! --
|