Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:57 AM - Re: Open letter to the list THE END (Matt Jurotich)
2. 06:19 AM - Re: Open letter to the list THE END (Chuck Jensen)
3. 06:56 AM - Re: Open letter to the list THE END (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
4. 07:35 AM - Re: Open letter to the list: THE END (Dan O'Brien)
5. 11:49 AM - Re: Dual Electronic Starting Issues (Duane Zavadil)
6. 12:19 PM - Re: THE END (Eric M. Jones)
7. 01:38 PM - Cold Cathode and Electroluminescent Lighting ()
8. 02:09 PM - Re: Open letter to the list THE END (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 02:31 PM - Re: Dual Electronic Starting Issues (TimRhod@aol.com)
10. 02:38 PM - Dual Electronic Starting Issues (Charlie Brame)
11. 04:17 PM - Dual Electronics Starting Issue (Frank Smith)
12. 06:03 PM - Re: Cold Cathode and Electroluminescent Lighting (Lonnie Benson)
13. 06:09 PM - Re: Open letter to the list THE END (Greg Young)
14. 07:12 PM - Re: Open letter to the list THE END (Charlie England)
15. 08:55 PM - Re: Dual Electronic Starting Issues (Duane Zavadil)
16. 09:18 PM - Re: Open letter to the list (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
17. 09:35 PM - Measuring Current & Resistance (Tinne maha)
18. 09:35 PM - Re: Cold Cathode and Electroluminescent (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
19. 10:32 PM - Re: Open letter to the list (James E. Clark)
20. 10:32 PM - Re: Measuring Current & Resistance (Joel Jacobs)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Open letter to the list THE END |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Jurotich <mjurotich@hst.nasa.gov>
Paul
I personally regret your decision to leave the Aeroelectric list. However,
I am TRULY interested in reading your report when it is finished. Please
provide a list of other forums to which you post. Or email me a
copy. Thanks for your insight. I ask a lot of dumb questions at work
(JWST infrared telescope for the L2 point) and these questions are my
greatest contribution to the project even though only about 10% are
relevant. Frequently my question is "Why would you want to do that?"
Matthew M. Jurotich
NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center
JWST ISIM Systems Engineer
m/c : 443
e-mail mailto: mjurotich@hst.nasa.gov
phone : 301-286-5919
fax : 301-286-7021
JWST URL: <http://ngst1.gsfc.nasa.gov>
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: | Open letter to the list THE END |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
I have no intention of attempting to provide a defense of Bob--he needs none.
While the value of a persons advice and philosophy is measured by the breadth
and depth of the knowledge and the clarity with which it is conveyed, the value
of a person is how (s)he accepts critique, even criticism. In this regard,
it's my observation and personal opinion that Bob is "pedestal material". I do
not genuflect before him, but I certainly pay attention when he speaks.
Some may mistake straightforward answers from Bob as unnecessarily blunt, even
dismissive. No such thing. If every time a responder disagrees with an idea
that's floated on this site, and he has to spend the first three paragraphs explaining
that its not personal, and with all due respect, et al, then the volume
of the site will go up and the content down.
Overall, when ideas are offered, we first weigh and assess the idea, then consider
the idea-giver and his past history. It is these criteria that causes the
vast majority of listers to be receptive to Bob's ideas as "probably being right
and probably being the best (if not the only solution)", all while not closing
the door to contrarian ideas.
Paul may well have bombshell information. And if he does, all, including Bob,
I'm sure, will be most interested. But know this, before the results are accepted,
or even seriously considered, the test design, test methods and data analysis
will be scrutinized with wariness and skepticism, as all new ideas that
go against conventional wisdom and historical experience should be. But the cart
before the horse does not travel well. When one has his data together and
facts straight, then, and only then, should ideas that turn convention on its
head, be presented as fact.
Chuck
Minds are like parachutes--not much good if they're not open.
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: | Open letter to the list THE END |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
personally, the more i occasionally read what paul says, or DOESN'T say, the less
I believe him.
I'm from Missouri on this one...
lucky
do not archive
-------------- Original message --------------
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen"
>
> I have no intention of attempting to provide a defense of Bob--he needs none.
> While the value of a persons advice and philosophy is measured by the breadth
> and depth of the knowledge and the clarity with which it is conveyed, the value
> of a person is how (s)he accepts critique, even criticism. In this regard, it's
> my observation and personal opinion that Bob is "pedestal material". I do not
> genuflect before him, but I certainly pay attention when he speaks.
>
> Some may mistake straightforward answers from Bob as unnecessarily blunt, even
> dismissive. No such thing. If every time a responder disagrees with an idea
> that's floated on this site, and he has to spend the first three paragraphs
> explaining that its not personal, and with all due respect, et al, then the
> volume of the site will go up and the content down.
>
> Overall, when ideas are offered, we first weigh and assess the idea, then
> consider the idea-giver and his past history. It is these criteria that causes
> the vast majority of listers to be receptive to Bob's ideas as "probably being
> right and probably being the best (if not the only solution)", all while not
> closing the door to contrarian ideas.
>
> Paul may well have bombshell information. And if he does, all, including Bob,
> I'm sure, will be most interested. But know this, before the results are
> accepted, or even seriously considered, the test design, test methods and data
> analysis will be scrutinized with wariness and skepticism, as all new ideas that
> go against conventional wisdom and historical experience should be. But the cart
> before the horse does not travel well. When one has his data together and facts
> straight, then, and only then, should ideas that turn convention on its head,
be
> presented as fact.
>
> Chuck
>
> Minds are like parachutes--not much good if they're not open.
>
>
>
>
>
>
personally, the more i occasionally read what paul says, or DOESN'T say, the less
I believe him.
I'm from Missouri on this one...
lucky
do not archive
-------------- Original message --------------
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <CJENSEN@DTS9000.COM>
I have no intention of attempting to provide a defense of Bob--he needs none.
While the value of a persons advice and philosophy is measured by the breadth
and depth of the knowledge and the clarity with which it is conveyed, the value
of a person is how (s)he accepts critique, even criticism. In this regard, it's
my observation and personal opinion that Bob is "pedestal material". I do not
genuflect before him, but I certainly pay attention when he speaks.
Some may mistake straightforward answers from Bob as unnecessarily blunt, even
dismissive. No such thing. If every time a responder disagrees with an idea
that's floated on this site, and he has to spe
nd the first three paragraphs
explaining that its not personal, and with all due respect, et al, then the
volume of the site will go up and the content down.
Overall, when ideas are offered, we first weigh and assess the idea, then
consider the idea-giver and his past history. It is these criteria that causes
the vast majority of listers to be receptive to Bob's ideas as "probably being
right and probably being the best (if not the only solution)", all while not
closing the door to contrarian ideas.
Paul may well have bombshell information. And if he does, all, including Bob,
I'm sure, will be most interested. But know this, before the results are
accepted, or even seriously considered, the test design, test methods and data
analysis will be scrutinized with wariness and skepticism, as all new ideas that
go against conventional wisdom and historical e
xperience should be. But the cart
before the horse does not travel well. When one has his data together and facts
straight, then, and only then, should ideas that turn convention on its head,
be
presented as fact.
Chuck
Minds are like parachutes--not much good if they're not open.
.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Open letter to the list: THE END |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan O'Brien" <danobrien@cox.net>
Paul,
It would be tragic if you stopped sharing ideas, data, analysis, etc. on
the list. Part of why this list works is because people like Bob,
yourself, Eric, and many others spend time probing, questioning, analyzing,
and offering suggestions as to how to make things better, using science as
the foundation. There aren't many lists that do this sort of thing as
well. As in my field (economics), we can't rely on scholarly journals to
answer many, many questions of practical significance, like how to wire an
airplane. This list is one of the best sources of practical information on
airplane wiring around. Participation by guys like you is the reason why.
I am very much looking forward to your report, in whatever form it comes,
on whatever schedule you choose.
Dan
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: | Dual Electronic Starting Issues |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Duane Zavadil" <dzavadil@hometownaccess.net>
I lied, it is an Odessy 925, not a 725. Since it fit in the box for the old lead
acid, weighed about the same as the old lead acid, and given the dual electronic
setup, I thought it prudent. The plane has Sensinich fixed metal prop and
is always preheated for anything less than 35 degrees.
After digesting these and the responses on the RV-list, I think I'll try the second
battery approach and as suggested, supply one ignition system from each battery.
I can leave the ignition powered by the main battery off for starting.
I feel that second battery is useful from a safety standpoint on a dual electronic
plane.
But that being said, I can't wait to get something like a B&C or that new inline
starter on the plane. I've missed a few flights due to starter issues and never
had any other mechanical issue with the plane. Plane foolishness to leave
the boat anchor on there.
I'll let all know what happens....
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
>
>TWO different responses.
>
>Warning: includes some anecdote and opinion ... not a clear answer.
>
>#1.
>
>I don't remember if it is in the archives or not but my friend had a similar
>problem with another popular Electronic Ignition. Specifically, there were
>times when his plane would start only AFTER he released the starter
>switch/button.
>
>We surmised that the voltage was at a certain level and this was not
>adequate for the electronic ignition. Our theory was not agreed with by the
>manufacturer but we held fast, did some tests and proved to ourselves that
>it was true. (While he was cranking the engine, I monitored the voltage ....
>with long probes ... that was provided to the electronic ignition.) The
>voltage was dropping to say 8 volts and lower (but above the theoretically
>required 4 volts or so) and this was not enough for the electronic ignition
>to fire. His plane REQUIRES the electronic ignition to fire. (My partner and
>I have the Rose system plus a mag that will fire on our 6.)
>
>The first solution that was tried was a large capacitor across the the
>ignition (I think with a diode to keep it from being drained on cranking or
>something like that). This seemed to work but in fact did not.
>
>As I recall the end solution was in fact a small battery that is kept
>charged by the charging system and is "protected" from drainage during
>cranking. Problem fixed.
>
>#2.
>
>My partner and I have a single Electroair system O-320 with an old, heavy
>start and wood prop up front and I seem to have witnessed what you mention
>as well (a few times at least).
>
>You mention that you have the 725 ... I am not familiar with that model
>number but we and a lot of people use the PC 680. I assume they are similar
>capacity. We will be changing out our battery for a new one in a few months
>at annual but in the meantime, I have put one of the little trickle
>charger/maintainers on the battery during the cold weather *and* have added
>an oil sump heater. This seems to help immensely and further adds to the
>theory of low voltage when the battery is weak, the starter is less
>efficient and its cold to boot to make it all worse.
>
>James
>
>
>| -----Original Message-----
>| From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-
>| aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Duane Zavadil
>| Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 7:18 PM
>| To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>| Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual Electronic Starting Issues
>|
>| --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Duane Zavadil"
>| <dzavadil@hometownaccess.net>
>|
>| I'd like to relate an experience and ask some questions.
>|
>| I've got a 6A with an 0-320 with dual Electoair ignition. I had lot of
>| problems with kickback on starting that I attributed to low cranking
>| speed. Upon rebuilding the old Remy starter, the nature of the problem
>| changed. Higher cranking speed and less kickback but often when
>| starting, particularly when cold, I can crank away for up to 10 seconds
>| with no luck but immediately upon releasing the starter button, it often
>| kicks off (and sometimes kicks back!). The bus voltage drops into the 7-
>| 8 volt range when cranking. My guess is that the Electroair ignition
>| system is recieving inadequate voltage when cranking but when the bus
>| volatege jumps back up upon disengaging the starter, it resume
>| operation(sometimes with some odd transient that causes the kickback). By
>| the way,I found maintenance records of replacement of ring gear so this
>| has probably been going on for some time.
>|
>| I'm inclined to add a second small battery such as one of small, 2-3 amp
>| hour Yuasa absorbed gel batterys that would be used for starting and
>| backup. I would like to take complexity out of the starting process and
>| eliminate the potenial for flying off with only the backup battery
>| engaged by placing a normally closed relay that is energized and opened
>| by the starter relay primary circuit. I would add a switch in series in
>| this circuit to isolate the backup battery from the rest of the systerm
>| in the event that I needed to use it as a true backup battery for the
>| ignition system.
>|
>| The plane is set up for night VFR, (vacuum system) and is sometimes flown
>| that way. It has an internally regulated alternator with Bob's crowbar
>| OVP. I use an Oddessy PC 725 and replace it annually (the old batterys
>| work great in all kinds
>| of equipment around the place!).
>|
>| Questions: Is there an easier way to fix the kickback such as a modern
>| starter( though I thought they drew higher current)?
>|
>| Is it possible that the old Remy starter is somehow defective and drawing
>| excess current - causing the problem?
>|
>| Is there a fatal flaw in the proposed backup scheme?
>|
>| Thanks
>|
>|
>| Sent via the WebMail system at hometownaccess.net
>|
>|
>|
>|
>|
>|
>|
>|
>
>
Sent via the WebMail system at hometownaccess.net
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: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
Early on in my experience with the aeroelectric-list, I expressed some
opinion or other, and Bob N. responded in a way that seemed a bit
overbearing. So I picked up the telephone and called him and inquired,
"Bob...are you pissed at me or what?"
He really wasn't and that was the beginning of a congenial relationship, I
hope. Bob N. has a done a volume of good works which must be defended to
some extent. Although one might want to say that everything is open to
debate, we all understand why this simply cannot be true. Still I think Bob
does a great, if not perfect, job as technical referee and guru. And yes, I
think Bob could stoop to see some things Paul's way or my way--but all this
is open to debate.
Many people who have accomplished much, and have achieved a large reputation
in their professional lives have a hard time coming to terms with the give
and take of technical debate in an email forum. When one posts some sage and
well-considered technical pronunciamento, it can be unsettling to have some
unknown and upstart lightweight comment poorly upon it.
Paul Messinger's technical credentials induced me to ask--upon first
exchanging emails--"Are you THE Paul Messinger?" I had read some of his
resume' in various places and knew he was certainly a man among men in
technical circles. But he would never suffer fools gladly....
However, I do suffer fools gladly--and my list of people I hope die like
pigs in Hell is really quite short.... We will all turn to bleached bones in
the end---and hardly anyone deserves THAT. No pilots anyway!
Yes, I was Paul's silent partner in the much anticipated report. He was
doing all the testing and reporting and I offered to provide editorial help,
any small technical assistance, and miscellaneous support. I also had a spot
reserved for the report on my website. Paul and I agree on many esoteric
corners of avionics design, and disagree on some.
I encourage Paul to re-engage in this discourse. It really does create
better things in the world.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in
- - Leonard Cohen
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: | Cold Cathode and Electroluminescent Lighting |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
1/30/2005
Hello Fellow Builders, I provide the below URL for your inspection and
comment.
http://www.elwirecheap.com/glowingstuff/index.html
I am not affiliated with this company in any way.
OC
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: Open letter to the list THE END |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 12:57 PM 1/29/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
>
>"DO NOT ARCHIVE"
<snip>
>Sorry, so many think Bob is never wrong and or his way is the only way but
>it is basically his group and you all seem to be willing to have its his way
>and only his way. So be it!
>
>I do have lots of data but a 200 page report with dozens and dozens of
>photos, graphs etc, takes time and then there is the issue of one problem
>leads to another etc.
>
>SORRY I HAVE FAILED TO PROVIDE A ATTA BOY TO BOB AND DONE (the report) IN
>YOUR TIME SCHEDULE. but then you get what you pay for
>
>I at least for now I am going into the listen only mode. (FORGET ANY REPORT
>at least here).
<snip>
Paul my friend, I know exactly what you're going through. Been there,
done that, several times over. I was sorely tempted to bail on a couple
of Compuserve forums 12 years ago and one or two Matronics List forums
in years hence.
There was a very wise philosopher of millennia long past who was asked
what one should to gain favor of all the people. The teacher responded
that this is a foolhardy effort for there will always be individuals
with unclear vision or dishonorable missions. To achieve favor of
everyone it is necessary to compromise. When the best is compromised
with the worst, only the worst wins. Please keep in mind that in addition
to the few dozens of active participants on this List, there are hundreds
who get the postings. I presume they find value in them else they would
"un-subscribe". Since these folks don't post to the list it's a reasonable
assumption that they are on honorable missions and seeking clarity of vision.
That is the job of true teachers. We are all teachers when we participate
in the task of distilling the inventions down to simple ideas and making
sure the invention works as intended and then explaining those
concepts to folks who want to understand.
Please be assured that I and many others on the list are
striving to be worthy of the title "teacher". Your willingness
and ability to dissect problems down to their simplest
components is appreciated and sought after. Some folks may
not have a full understanding of this effort and will from
time to time wander off into the weeds. So that some may
find their way back, we can collectively attempt to
illuminate the path but know also that some may never find it.
I understand full well how duties can get in the way of things
we really enjoy. My father just got out of the hospital after 9
weeks, my step-mother is in the hospital and will never get out.
They live in Medicine Lodge (90 miles away). My wife just got
out of the jousting list with her doctors in a short hospital
stay and is now recovering. I am thankful that my mom (who lives
50 miles the other way) is in good health and doing well but
needs regular chunks of my time as well.
The AeroElectric-List and projects I'm working for publication
and production are my rocks of stability and sanity when everything
else seems to be turning to @#$@!!. Please know that I (and
I'm sure many others on the List) value your participation
in refinement of the art and science of this discipline. If
it's too much to ask right now, by all means, take a breather.
Let us know how we might help but please don't stay away too long.
Bob . . .
P.S. since I don't have the ready access to alternator test
equipment I once had, I was standing by waiting to see the
results of your efforts. Over the holidays, I became aware
of an alternator test stand that I can have for the trucking.
As soon as I've got some junk thrown out of the garage to
make room for this venerable ol' beast, I plan to educate
myself with first-hand experimentation. I'm looking forward
to comparing notes. Viva-la-repeatable-experiment!
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: Dual Electronic Starting Issues |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TimRhod@aol.com
Does it make any sense in a duel battery duel electronic ignition setup to
run two wires from each battery to each electronic ignition.?
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 |
|
Duane Zavadil <dzavadil@hometownaccess.net>
| Subject: | Dual Electronic Starting Issues |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie Brame <chasb@satx.rr.com>
When I bought my Electoair Ignition System, Jeff Rose mentioned this
sort of problem was possible with a low battery situation and/or a high
amperage drawing starter (in particular, he mentioned the SkyTec
starter.) Basically, the voltage drop caused by the starter prevents the
electronic ignition from firing until the start button was released.
Upon release, the ignition would fire, frequently causing a kickback.
Jeff Rose recommended individual ignition switches, a separate push
button start switch, and the following starting procedure:
(1)Begin cranking with BOTH ignitions OFF.
(2)After a couple of blades, then turn one electronic ignition on.
(3)If no start, turn the ignition off before releasing the start
switch.
Needless to say, if you have a typical Spam Can ignition switch, (Off,
L, R, Both, Start) this procedure won't work.
Charlie
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
------------------------------------------------------
> Time: 04:08:06 PM PST US
> From: "Duane Zavadil"
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual Electronic Starting Issues
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Duane Zavadil"
>
>
> I'd like to relate an experience and ask some questions.
>
> I've got a 6A with an 0-320 with dual Electoair ignition. I had lot of problems
>
> with kickback on starting that I attributed to low cranking speed. Upon rebuilding
>
> the old Remy starter, the nature of the problem changed. Higher cranking speed
and
>
> less kickback but often when starting, particularly when cold, I can crank
>
> away for up to 10 seconds with no luck but immediately upon releasing the starter
>
> button, it often kicks off (and sometimes kicks back!). The bus voltage drops
into
>
> the 7-8 volt range when cranking. My guess is that the Electroair ignition system
>
> is recieving inadequate voltage when cranking but when the bus volatege jumps
back
>
> up upon disengaging the starter, it resumes operation(sometimes with some odd
>
> transient that causes the kickback). By the way,I found maintenance records of
>
> replacement of ring gear so this has probably been going on for some time.
>
> I'm inclined to add a second small battery such as one of small, 2-3 amp hour
> Yuasa absorbed gel batterys that would be used for starting and backup. I would
> like to take complexity out of the starting process and eliminate the potenial
> for flying off with only the backup battery engaged by placing a normally
> closed relay that is energized and opened by the starter relay primary circuit.
> I would add a switch in series in this circuit to isolate the backup battery
> from the rest of the systerm in the event that I needed to use it as a true
> backup battery for the ignition system.
>
> The plane is set up for night VFR, (vacuum system) and is sometimes flown that
> way. It has an internally regulated alternator with Bob's crowbar OVP. I use
an
> Oddessy PC 725 and replace it annually (the old batterys work great in all
> kinds of equipment around the place!).
>
> Questions: Is there an easier way to fix the kickback such as a modern starter
> (though I thought they drew higher current)?
>
> Is it possible that the old Remy starter is somehow defective and drawing
> excess current - causing the problem?
>
> Is there a fatal flaw in the proposed backup scheme?
>
> Thanks
>
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: | Dual Electronics Starting Issue |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Frank Smith" <franksmit@nc.rr.com>
I have a similar setup in an RV-4. It has an io360 (180 HP) with dual electroair
systems.. Started out with 2 mags, went to one mag, and finally to two Electroair
systems. Never had the particular start when the start button is released
problem. Probably because when I went to the two electronic systems, I added
another small battery, like you are proposing, for redundacy. The second
battery is a small 7Amphr, I think, one that supplies power to only one of the
electronic ignitions, and nothing else, In fact it is connected directly to
the battery, with no fluses, CB., or whatever. The switch is the only failure
point. The other battery is a Concorde, 25 amphr, that supplies everything
else. In this case when you are cranking, one set of plugs has the full 12 or
13 volts, and is providing maximum spark. The second electronic system is also
connected directly to the main battery with a switch, no fuses, cb, or master
relay. The only problem with this is that you always have to be sure to turn
off the master, as well as the two ignition systems, so I put a red light in
each system. The starter is a B&C, and it really spins the engine up. The
voltage drops to maybe 8 or 9 while cranking, on the main abattery. The voltmeter
is switchable between the two batteries. The charging from the alternator
is split to the two batteries with a couple of 30 amp diodes, so tlhey both
stay charged up ok, and one failing will not affect the other. Been working
good for about 6 years. Hope this will help you. Good luck . FWIW Frak
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: Cold Cathode and Electroluminescent Lighting |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Lonnie Benson" <lonben@erols.com>
OC,
Did you see the article by Jim Weir in the March 2005 issue of Kitplanes on
this subject?
Lonnie
----- Original Message -----
From: <bakerocb@cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Cold Cathode and Electroluminescent Lighting
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
>
> 1/30/2005
>
> Hello Fellow Builders, I provide the below URL for your inspection and
> comment.
>
> http://www.elwirecheap.com/glowingstuff/index.html
>
> I am not affiliated with this company in any way.
>
> OC
>
>
>
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: | Open letter to the list THE END |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
> everyone it is necessary to compromise. When the best is compromised
> with the worst, only the worst wins. Please keep in mind that in
addition
> to the few dozens of active participants on this List, there are
hundreds
> who get the postings. I presume they find value in them else they would
> "un-subscribe". Since these folks don't post to the list it's a
reasonable
> assumption that they are on honorable missions and seeking clarity of
vision.
> That is the job of true teachers. We are all teachers when we
participate
> in the task of distilling the inventions down to simple ideas and making
> sure the invention works as intended and then explaining those
> concepts to folks who want to understand.
I believe one of the reasons this list has only a handful of active
participants is because opinions (and observations and anecdotal evidence)
are generally not welcomed. Anyone with the temerity post an opinion gets
met with a barrage of responses asking for supporting data, reasoning, FMEA
and a detailed analysis of why they hold such an opinion. Few are willing to
examine why they have reached an opinion and fewer still are willing to
actively debate it. So if you aren't prepared for a Socratic bludgeoning you
just don't post. Socratic teaching can be intimidating and I suspect most
will avoid it if given the choice.
I think it's a bit quixotic to believe that the non-posters are all on some
quest for knowledge and "clarity of vision." I'll bet most just want to wire
their airplane and are hoping someone else will ask their question before
they have to. They just want to know what parts to use rather than how to
design the ultimate system. Like Freud said "sometimes a cigar is just a
cigar." The final stages of completing an RV (or other kit plane) are
difficult because you're thrust into unknown territory where suddenly
nothing is designed or spec'd. Van doesn't (or didn't) even provide a
starting point. Bob's book is often offered to fill that void. It's great on
education but short on any practical advice. If every homebuilder had to go
through the same level of design effort on the airframe as is suggested for
the electrical system, there wouldn't be any kit planes and darn few
homebuilts at all.
Don't get me wrong, I've taken away some valuable ideas but at a cost far
greater than I think necessary. Take the e-bus idea. To implement it you
need a diode. What diode? Well any xx amp or a Scholtzky (isn't that a
sandwich shop?) or a bridge rectifier or some such, or just get any old
diode at Radio Shack. No sample part numbers. Can you conceive how
un-helpful that is to the electron-challenged, like me? OK, I bought a part
that looks like one I saw in a picture but I still don't really know if it's
right. Then how do I wire it? Get out the VOM and test all four legs till I
find a path that works. I bet that chamfered corner would give me a clue for
the hook-up but there's no description of it in the "book" and 30 yrs after
EE101 I can't decipher the schematic. All told, probably 3 hours messing
with a 5 minute task and no net knowledge gained.
I believe the pedantic style of this list does a disservice to the broader
OBAM community by not offering practical, how-to advise. The glowing
exceptions are Bob's picture books, but even those are hard to find. Why
aren't they in the "book"? I would have killed for some of them when I wired
my first RV but if they existed then I was not aware of them. I think
there's a real need for an OBAM version of AC43.13, i.e. 21st century
acceptable methods and practices, not theory. As much as I view Greg Richter
as a snake oil salesman, I think he offered a valuable <> to the
needs of a large segment of the OBAM world. Every airplane's electrical
system does not have to be custom designed. There are >4000 RV's flying -
surely they all don't have to be different. It should really be OK to do
something less than optimal as long as it's still within the bounds of safe
and acceptable solutions. Bob's response to Richter's paper was an eloquent
restatement of Bob's philosophy but really just came down to an antithetical
preference, custom design everything vs one-size-fits-all. Are there only
the extremes? Or is there a middle ground? To really advance the state of
the OBAM fleet is going to require getting a high percentage of new aircraft
to embrace a higher standard. And that's going to require making that
standard both convenient and accessible. The folks buying Van's electrical
system kit aren't consciously choosing a 1940's system, it's just all there
is that's convenient. Except for maybe the EXPbus;-) Most want something
better but their only other choice is design it themselves. Surely we can
offer something better, maybe not perfect, maybe not customized. Yeah,
that's compromise so I guess it's a terrible thing to do. Worst wins. But
doesn't worst win too if there are only a handful of "perfect" examples and
thousands of obsolete ones?
Opinions offered with the utmost respect to all who contribute.
Regards,
Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
RV-6 N6GY ...project Phoenix
Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A
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: Open letter to the list THE END |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Greg Young wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>
>
>
>
>> everyone it is necessary to compromise. When the best is compromised
>> with the worst, only the worst wins. Please keep in mind that in
>>
>>
>addition
>
>
>> to the few dozens of active participants on this List, there are
>>
>>
>hundreds
>
>
>> who get the postings. I presume they find value in them else they would
>> "un-subscribe". Since these folks don't post to the list it's a
>>
>>
>reasonable
>
>
>> assumption that they are on honorable missions and seeking clarity of
>>
>>
>vision.
>
>
>> That is the job of true teachers. We are all teachers when we
>>
>>
>participate
>
>
>> in the task of distilling the inventions down to simple ideas and making
>> sure the invention works as intended and then explaining those
>> concepts to folks who want to understand.
>>
>>
>
>I believe one of the reasons this list has only a handful of active
>participants is because opinions (and observations and anecdotal evidence)
>are generally not welcomed. Anyone with the temerity post an opinion gets
>met with a barrage of responses asking for supporting data, reasoning, FMEA
>and a detailed analysis of why they hold such an opinion. Few are willing to
>examine why they have reached an opinion and fewer still are willing to
>actively debate it. So if you aren't prepared for a Socratic bludgeoning you
>just don't post. Socratic teaching can be intimidating and I suspect most
>will avoid it if given the choice.
>
>I think it's a bit quixotic to believe that the non-posters are all on some
>quest for knowledge and "clarity of vision." I'll bet most just want to wire
>their airplane and are hoping someone else will ask their question before
>they have to. They just want to know what parts to use rather than how to
>design the ultimate system. Like Freud said "sometimes a cigar is just a
>cigar." The final stages of completing an RV (or other kit plane) are
>difficult because you're thrust into unknown territory where suddenly
>nothing is designed or spec'd. Van doesn't (or didn't) even provide a
>starting point. Bob's book is often offered to fill that void. It's great on
>education but short on any practical advice. If every homebuilder had to go
>through the same level of design effort on the airframe as is suggested for
>the electrical system, there wouldn't be any kit planes and darn few
>homebuilts at all.
>
>Don't get me wrong, I've taken away some valuable ideas but at a cost far
>greater than I think necessary. Take the e-bus idea. To implement it you
>need a diode. What diode? Well any xx amp or a Scholtzky (isn't that a
>sandwich shop?) or a bridge rectifier or some such, or just get any old
>diode at Radio Shack. No sample part numbers. Can you conceive how
>un-helpful that is to the electron-challenged, like me? OK, I bought a part
>that looks like one I saw in a picture but I still don't really know if it's
>right. Then how do I wire it? Get out the VOM and test all four legs till I
>find a path that works. I bet that chamfered corner would give me a clue for
>the hook-up but there's no description of it in the "book" and 30 yrs after
>EE101 I can't decipher the schematic. All told, probably 3 hours messing
>with a 5 minute task and no net knowledge gained.
>
>I believe the pedantic style of this list does a disservice to the broader
>OBAM community by not offering practical, how-to advise. The glowing
>exceptions are Bob's picture books, but even those are hard to find. Why
>aren't they in the "book"? I would have killed for some of them when I wired
>my first RV but if they existed then I was not aware of them. I think
>there's a real need for an OBAM version of AC43.13, i.e. 21st century
>acceptable methods and practices, not theory. As much as I view Greg Richter
>as a snake oil salesman, I think he offered a valuable <> to the
>needs of a large segment of the OBAM world. Every airplane's electrical
>system does not have to be custom designed. There are >4000 RV's flying -
>surely they all don't have to be different. It should really be OK to do
>something less than optimal as long as it's still within the bounds of safe
>and acceptable solutions. Bob's response to Richter's paper was an eloquent
>restatement of Bob's philosophy but really just came down to an antithetical
>preference, custom design everything vs one-size-fits-all. Are there only
>the extremes? Or is there a middle ground? To really advance the state of
>the OBAM fleet is going to require getting a high percentage of new aircraft
>to embrace a higher standard. And that's going to require making that
>standard both convenient and accessible. The folks buying Van's electrical
>system kit aren't consciously choosing a 1940's system, it's just all there
>is that's convenient. Except for maybe the EXPbus;-) Most want something
>better but their only other choice is design it themselves. Surely we can
>offer something better, maybe not perfect, maybe not customized. Yeah,
>that's compromise so I guess it's a terrible thing to do. Worst wins. But
>doesn't worst win too if there are only a handful of "perfect" examples and
>thousands of obsolete ones?
>
>Opinions offered with the utmost respect to all who contribute.
>
>
>Regards,
>Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
>RV-6 N6GY ...project Phoenix
>Navion N5221K - just an XXL RV-6A
>
Maybe the problems you see are due to (to use a computer buzz word) the
'open source' nature of the effort. Using a computer analogy, you can
pay now & get MS Windows, go find a 'geek' to install a proper operating
system like Linux (developed by a worldwide network of volunteer
programmers), or wait until the open source community advances Linux to
the point that anyone can install it. Rumor has it that some versions of
Linux have reached that level & I've got a copy waiting to try on my
backup computer now.
Aircraft wiring ain't there yet, but there are a few geeks here that can
help with details. Not many will have all the answers but using lists
like this you can gather info from many sources. The alternative is to
by 'Windows' from your local avionics shop. :-) If you ask for info in
specific small cookbook oriented bites, someone will usually come
through. If you think verbal consultation might help, gamble & post your
phone # (if you are like me, it's in the phone book anyway). I've
helped several folks with audio & DC power related questions both by
email & phone. In turn, I've been helped in other areas by many others.
I haven't bought 'the book' yet because I have an electronics
background, I'm a long way from pulling wire & figure I'll wait for the
most current version when I start the process. If it's missing something
like a representative image of a bridge rectifier with lead ID, mention
it to Bob or the list in general & I'll bet someone will come up with a
page of images, usable part #'s, etc. A problem with almost *any* tech
document is that the author(s) are too close to their work and are
victims what I call 'center of the universe' syndrome. They
subconsciously assume that the reader has the same background info they
have as they write the document. If enough people mention the need,
I'll bet pages with part #'s/pictures will be in future revisions of
'the book.'
Charlie
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: | Re: Dual Electronic Starting Issues |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Duane Zavadil" <dzavadil@hometownaccess.net>
That is interesting - maybe with diodes to prevent backfeeding. Probably just
one more part to break though. When diodes go bad, they go open!
I like Frank's idea of a switchable voltmeter to check the backup battery and Georges
point about nothing between the battterys and the unit other than a switch.
I think that is the way it is now. I'll take a look at the schematics that
George forwarded. Thanks for all the help!
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: TimRhod@aol.com
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TimRhod@aol.com
>
>Does it make any sense in a duel battery duel electronic ignition setup to
>run two wires from each battery to each electronic ignition.?
>
>
Sent via the WebMail system at hometownaccess.net
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: | Open letter to the list |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>I believe one of the reasons this list has only a handful of active
>participants is because opinions (and observations and anecdotal evidence)
>are generally not welcomed. Anyone with the temerity post an opinion gets
>met with a barrage of responses asking for supporting data, reasoning, FMEA
>and a detailed analysis of why they hold such an opinion. Few are willing to
>examine why they have reached an opinion and fewer still are willing to
>actively debate it.
Would you have it any different? Suppose I offered:
"In my opinion, you should hand carve your prop from
Tasmanian snagroot". I would hope that any OPINION
can be supported by a discussion of simple-ideas that
hold it up even if so simple as data showing hundreds
of airplanes are flying with snagroot props. But wouldn't
you be curious for more detail? Suppose all the airplanes were
powered by big ol' rotaries that run 1000 RPM wide open?
Would snagroot be suited for a prop that turns 2700 rpm?
No matter how attractive the opinion might be to you, would
it not be important to understand everything there is to
know about it?
So, if one is loath to offer an opinion because they're
unable to support it, so be it. We as a society are
immersed in unfounded opinion that comes at us from all
directions. If someone is seeking to have an opinion
validated or debunked, then offer it to the List as
a question or hypothesis . . . then let the IDEA be
attacked to see if it stands or falls. This isn't about
preying on people's timidity or fears, it's about validating
ideas. One can choose to be either participant or observer.
However, nobody benefits from the question never asked or
hypothesis never offered.
>So if you aren't prepared for a Socratic bludgeoning you
>just don't post. Socratic teaching can be intimidating and I suspect most
>will avoid it if given the choice.
It would be a very sad condition if that were the reason
that over 1300 people don't post their own words to the
List. I will suggest that this simply cannot be the case.
Are they voyeurs who enjoy watching other people conducting
technical dog-fights? I have to believe that most perceive
value in observing some if not all of the discussions in
progress. If one is looking for gladiators to champion,
there are far more exciting fights over unfounded opinions
to watch on TV - in full color with special effects and
home theater surround-sound.
>I think it's a bit quixotic to believe that the non-posters are all on some
>quest for knowledge and "clarity of vision." I'll bet most just want to wire
>their airplane and are hoping someone else will ask their question before
>they have to. They just want to know what parts to use rather than how to
>design the ultimate system. Like Freud said "sometimes a cigar is just a
>cigar." The final stages of completing an RV (or other kit plane) are
>difficult because you're thrust into unknown territory where suddenly
>nothing is designed or spec'd. Van doesn't (or didn't) even provide a
>starting point. Bob's book is often offered to fill that void. It's great on
>education but short on any practical advice. If every homebuilder had to go
>through the same level of design effort on the airframe as is suggested for
>the electrical system, there wouldn't be any kit planes and darn few
>homebuilts at all.
An EXCELLENT point . . . I've made multiple offers every
year at OSH to every kit supplier I could find in the tents
to craft a factory wire book for a Z-11 like system. They
could recoup their costs in the first dozen kits of parts
they could sell. After ten years of trying, I gave up
and concentrated on the 'Connection, aeroelectric.com
and ultimately the AeroElectric-List.
That's exactly why the AeroElectric-List was started . . .
to fill the gap between simple ideas (the book) and practical
solutions (buying parts and bolting them to your airplane).
When a list participant asks how to solve a particular
problem with installation and fabrication, I expect that
there may be multiple solutions . . . these are not opinions
but manifestations of experience and common sense. If the
solution works on someone's project, then that success is
a simple fact - not an opinion to be debated. In case of
multiple solutions there is perhaps room for debate
but one can always ignore the debate and choose from the
most attractive of the demonstrated solutions.
>Don't get me wrong, I've taken away some valuable ideas but at a cost far
>greater than I think necessary. Take the e-bus idea. To implement it you
>need a diode. What diode? Well any xx amp or a Scholtzky (isn't that a
>sandwich shop?) or a bridge rectifier or some such, or just get any old
>diode at Radio Shack. No sample part numbers. Can you conceive how
>un-helpful that is to the electron-challenged, like me? OK, I bought a part
>that looks like one I saw in a picture but I still don't really know if it's
>right. Then how do I wire it? Get out the VOM and test all four legs till I
>find a path that works. I bet that chamfered corner would give me a clue for
>the hook-up but there's no description of it in the "book" and 30 yrs after
>EE101 I can't decipher the schematic. All told, probably 3 hours messing
>with a 5 minute task and no net knowledge gained.
Why didn't you post a question on the List? Have you looked
over B&C's offerings of a suitable diode on their website?
Have you seen note 12 of appendix Z of the 'Connection where
a Radio Shack 276-1185 is suggested? There's some discussion
of the diode bridge rectifier on page 1-9 of the 'Connection.
You could have e-mailed me directly and received a specific
suggestion sans tributes to Socrates where I would have
referred you to a picture at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/s401-25.jpg
and suggested the Radio Shack p/n.
>I believe the pedantic style of this list does a disservice to the broader
>OBAM community by not offering practical, how-to advise. The glowing
>exceptions are Bob's picture books, but even those are hard to find. Why
>aren't they in the "book"?
If I were to put everything "in the book" as multiple figure,
full color pictures, it would be three times as thick and sell
for 5x the price. The website servers offer a way to put huge
amounts of visual data up at ZERO cost to the reader. If I
operated as you suggest, very few people would buy the book.
Hard to find? Just ask . . . or download the free website image
from http://www.aeroelectric.com/CD/AEC8_0.zip and browse the
articles and images at your leisure.
>I would have killed for some of them when I wired
>my first RV but if they existed then I was not aware of them. I think
>there's a real need for an OBAM version of AC43.13, i.e. 21st century
>acceptable methods and practices, not theory. As much as I view Greg Richter
>as a snake oil salesman, I think he offered a valuable <> to the
>needs of a large segment of the OBAM world. Every airplane's electrical
>system does not have to be custom designed. There are >4000 RV's flying -
>surely they all don't have to be different. It should really be OK to do
>something less than optimal as long as it's still within the bounds of safe
>and acceptable solutions. Bob's response to Richter's paper was an eloquent
>restatement of Bob's philosophy but really just came down to an antithetical
>preference, custom design everything vs one-size-fits-all.
Absolutely not so. Had someone handed me a box full of parts and his
document . . . I could not tell how those parts go together and
exactly how they served as alternatives to "atrocious work" driven
by the 'Connection.
His document contained no data nor a rational explanation behind
the philosophy of the proposed architecture. I studied his drawings
in detail and could not deduce what he was suggesting. Unlike
discussions here on the List, he refused to answer a single one of dozens
of specific questions aimed at clarifying his suggestions.
You want a one size fits all? Figure Z-11 is it. This fits the needs
of perhaps 90-plus percent of all builders. The fact that options
beyond this configuration are offered doesn't mean they need to
be agonized over. I thought chapter 17 offered food-for-thought
and options to consider should a builder want more. The
reason for crafting Z-11 and placing it first in the
architectures is because it's probably going to do the job
for the vast majority of builders.
> Are there only the extremes? Or is there a middle ground?
Yup, figures Z-12, and Z-13 are all middle grounds between
Z-11 and Z-14. Then there are some very simple cases wherein
alternators supplied on Rotax and LOM engines drive you to
something simpler yet than Z-11.
>To really advance the state of
>the OBAM fleet is going to require getting a high percentage of new aircraft
>to embrace a higher standard.
Not sure what you mean by "standard" . . . to my way of thinking,
the OBAM aircraft community is going to thrive because
there are NO STANDARDS. New ideas can be tried and retained or
discarded on a whim. Folks who are adventuresome and/or have
larger missions are free to expand their project's capabilities
beyond anything offered by BePipCesMo without disturbing the
majority of folks who will be happy with a Vans or Bengelis
approach.
>And that's going to require making that
>standard both convenient and accessible. The folks buying Van's electrical
>system kit aren't consciously choosing a 1940's system, it's just all there
>is that's convenient. Except for maybe the EXPbus;-) Most want something
>better but their only other choice is design it themselves. Surely we can
>offer something better, maybe not perfect, maybe not customized. Yeah,
>that's compromise so I guess it's a terrible thing to do. Worst wins. But
>doesn't worst win too if there are only a handful of "perfect" examples and
>thousands of obsolete ones?
You missed the point I was making concerning compromise . . .
The ranges of features offered in the Z-figures are not compromises
of each other but choices by which one may OPTIMIZE a system to
fit a mission. To install figure Z-11 in a full-up, long-legged
cross-country IFR machine like a Glasair or Lancair is not
a compromise of electrical system but a compromise of the
airplane's potential for conducting certain missions. You don't
get those kinds of choices when you buy a nice ol' used C-210, it's
wired just like a C-150. But if you want a day-vfr/occasional night
fun-machine . . . Z-11 is a carefully considered solution flying in
hundreds of airplanes. It's easy to morph into Z-13 if your
mission grows and/or you get tired of stroking vacuum driven
components.
The words "standard" and "want something better" are diametrically
opposed to each other in purpose and result. The FAA has given us
standards and they've brought new development to its knees.
On the other hand, those who truly want something better are getting
it done in their basements and garages and leaving certified aviation
trailing in the dust. Want OBAM aviation to fail? Set up any kind
of standards for design and fabrication and an organization to
oversee those standards. It doesn't have to be the FAA but it's
a sure bet that a few decades hence, the FAA and any new
organization set up to standardize OBAM aviation would be
indistinguishable from each other.
>Opinions offered with the utmost respect to all who contribute.
I'm not sure I understand your difficulty with the List. If you like
the EXP-Bus, you're certainly free to install one. Hundreds are flying
and as far as I know, owners are happy with them. If you encouraged
Greg to build you one of his one-size-fits-all boards for your project,
he might be quite accommodating. The vast majority of OBAM aircraft
builders are doing a clone of contemporary spam can architecture
with Van's installation kit. They're going to be just fine.
I don't expect them to perform any worse than the airplanes I
MUST rent every time I want to fly somewhere.
The PRIMARY function of the List is to address exactly the
issues you've raised. I'm sorry if you're cautious of getting
splashed with blood from somebody else's dog-fight. However, I've
noted multiple threads on the List discussing a variety of topics
that seem to move ahead oblivious to conversations about
herding electrons.
Sounds like what you're needing has nothing to do with sorting
opinions but simply dipping into the pool of experience and
common sense possessed by many folks here on the List. We are
all at your service sir. How may we assist you?
Bob . . .
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Measuring Current & Resistance |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha@hotmail.com>
Hello List,
I would like to measure the current flow & resistance of my taxi/landing
light while in use so I can propery size the wires. As my plane isn't yet
complete, I'm hoping to be able to run some leads from my 12 V truck battery
(with the truck running) to the light & take the measurements right at the
light with a multi-meter.
Can it be that simple or am I missing something?
Will this procedure give me an accurate indication (of course assuming that
my meter & reading ability are both accurate)
Thanks,
Grant
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: | Re: Cold Cathode and Electroluminescent |
Lighting
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
Lighting
At 04:36 PM 1/30/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
>
>1/30/2005
>
>Hello Fellow Builders, I provide the below URL for your inspection and
>comment.
>
>http://www.elwirecheap.com/glowingstuff/index.html
I purchased a little widget in the bargain basket
at WallyMart a few months ago. A small inverter about
1 x 1 x 1.5" driving a 36" segment of EL wire. It runs
from 12-16 volts DC and the entire length of wire lights
up. Could chunks of this stuff make nice ring lights
for steam gages? Maybe so. The EL tape might work for
under-the-glareshield flood lighting. Interesting stuff.
If somebody has the time/energy to explore this, I'd
be interested in putting an article about it up on
the website.
Bob . . .
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: | Open letter to the list |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
Interesting dialogue.
I intentionally left it all in so my short(well at least they were supposed
to be) comments will be in context.
-----------------------------------------
I see both points being made here and from this I see what I think is an
opportunity for us to help each other further. The only problem is how do we
get it done if it is a decent idea.
I have Bob's Book. Have had many versions. Have read it and got a lot of
value from it. I am build a plane with Z-14 (RV6A) and am flying one with
the EXP-Bus (RV6). Different mission profiles, so different choices.
In both cases, **AFTER** I had read and digested the material (theory and
practice), what I really WISHED FOR was a "here's how to make it work in
your RV" "booklet/application note".
Now this is NOT something I would expect from Bob ... no way, he's not in
"the business". I would have liked to have gotten that from CV and I wish
there was available *clear examples* of IMPLEMENTING Z-14 in an RV so I
could have saved some time in both planes. (Yes, this would be limited to an
RV in value but the process could be repeated for other types.)
Sooooo... how do we get to the next step? Well it seems that if each of us
could make a simple drawing or a picture available of our implementations in
some common place, that would be really valuable to those coming along
later. In other words, knowing that you can have two batteries is cool and
knowing how they are logically connected is great, but seeing how someone
did it saves a lot of time in the ACTUAL construction/implementation. And
some of us need a lot of time saving! {:-) The time saved is that of the
"repeat offenders" (repeat builders) who have been there before. They
understand the theory and it application.
[Small example ... I mounted the two PC680's on the firewall of an RV6 using
the mounting gear from Van's and mounted the "Ford Regulators" each on the
metal battery box. No big deal but seeing it *after the fact*, it was oh so
simple but before the fact it required some head scratching to be sure all
worked OK. Maybe this isn't a good example after all, but I think you get
the point. :-) ]
Comments????
James
| -----Original Message-----
| From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-
| aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls,
| III
| Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 12:18 AM
| To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
| Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Open letter to the list
|
| --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
| <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
|
|
| >
| >I believe one of the reasons this list has only a handful of active
| >participants is because opinions (and observations and anecdotal
| evidence)
| >are generally not welcomed. Anyone with the temerity post an opinion
| gets
| >met with a barrage of responses asking for supporting data, reasoning,
| FMEA
| >and a detailed analysis of why they hold such an opinion. Few are
| willing to
| >examine why they have reached an opinion and fewer still are willing to
| >actively debate it.
|
|
| Would you have it any different? Suppose I offered:
| "In my opinion, you should hand carve your prop from
| Tasmanian snagroot". I would hope that any OPINION
| can be supported by a discussion of simple-ideas that
| hold it up even if so simple as data showing hundreds
| of airplanes are flying with snagroot props. But wouldn't
| you be curious for more detail? Suppose all the airplanes were
| powered by big ol' rotaries that run 1000 RPM wide open?
| Would snagroot be suited for a prop that turns 2700 rpm?
| No matter how attractive the opinion might be to you, would
| it not be important to understand everything there is to
| know about it?
|
| So, if one is loath to offer an opinion because they're
| unable to support it, so be it. We as a society are
| immersed in unfounded opinion that comes at us from all
| directions. If someone is seeking to have an opinion
| validated or debunked, then offer it to the List as
| a question or hypothesis . . . then let the IDEA be
| attacked to see if it stands or falls. This isn't about
| preying on people's timidity or fears, it's about validating
| ideas. One can choose to be either participant or observer.
| However, nobody benefits from the question never asked or
| hypothesis never offered.
|
| >So if you aren't prepared for a Socratic bludgeoning you
| >just don't post. Socratic teaching can be intimidating and I suspect
| most
| >will avoid it if given the choice.
|
| It would be a very sad condition if that were the reason
| that over 1300 people don't post their own words to the
| Are they voyeurs who enjoy watching other people conducting
| technical dog-fights? I have to believe that most perceive
| value in observing some if not all of the discussions in
| progress. If one is looking for gladiators to champion,
| there are far more exciting fights over unfounded opinions
| to watch on TV - in full color with special effects and
| home theater surround-sound.
|
|
| >I think it's a bit quixotic to believe that the non-posters are all on
| some
| >quest for knowledge and "clarity of vision." I'll bet most just want to
| wire
| >their airplane and are hoping someone else will ask their question
| before
| >they have to. They just want to know what parts to use rather than how
| to
| >design the ultimate system. Like Freud said "sometimes a cigar is just a
| >cigar." The final stages of completing an RV (or other kit plane) are
| >difficult because you're thrust into unknown territory where suddenly
| >nothing is designed or spec'd. Van doesn't (or didn't) even provide a
| >starting point. Bob's book is often offered to fill that void. It's
| great on
| >education but short on any practical advice. If every homebuilder had to
| go
| >through the same level of design effort on the airframe as is suggested
| for
| >the electrical system, there wouldn't be any kit planes and darn few
| >homebuilts at all.
|
|
| An EXCELLENT point . . . I've made multiple offers every
| year at OSH to every kit supplier I could find in the tents
| to craft a factory wire book for a Z-11 like system. They
| could recoup their costs in the first dozen kits of parts
| they could sell. After ten years of trying, I gave up
| and concentrated on the 'Connection, aeroelectric.com
| and ultimately the AeroElectric-List.
|
| That's exactly why the AeroElectric-List was started . . .
| to fill the gap between simple ideas (the book) and practical
| solutions (buying parts and bolting them to your airplane).
| When a list participant asks how to solve a particular
| problem with installation and fabrication, I expect that
| there may be multiple solutions . . . these are not opinions
| but manifestations of experience and common sense. If the
| solution works on someone's project, then that success is
| a simple fact - not an opinion to be debated. In case of
| multiple solutions there is perhaps room for debate
| but one can always ignore the debate and choose from the
| most attractive of the demonstrated solutions.
|
|
| >Don't get me wrong, I've taken away some valuable ideas but at a cost
| far
| >greater than I think necessary. Take the e-bus idea. To implement it you
| >need a diode. What diode? Well any xx amp or a Scholtzky (isn't that a
| >sandwich shop?) or a bridge rectifier or some such, or just get any old
| >diode at Radio Shack. No sample part numbers. Can you conceive how
| >un-helpful that is to the electron-challenged, like me? OK, I bought a
| part
| >that looks like one I saw in a picture but I still don't really know if
| it's
| >right. Then how do I wire it? Get out the VOM and test all four legs
| till I
| >find a path that works. I bet that chamfered corner would give me a clue
| for
| >the hook-up but there's no description of it in the "book" and 30 yrs
| after
| >EE101 I can't decipher the schematic. All told, probably 3 hours messing
| >with a 5 minute task and no net knowledge gained.
|
| Why didn't you post a question on the List? Have you looked
| over B&C's offerings of a suitable diode on their website?
| Have you seen note 12 of appendix Z of the 'Connection where
| a Radio Shack 276-1185 is suggested? There's some discussion
| of the diode bridge rectifier on page 1-9 of the 'Connection.
| You could have e-mailed me directly and received a specific
| suggestion sans tributes to Socrates where I would have
| referred you to a picture at:
|
| http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/s401-25.jpg
|
| and suggested the Radio Shack p/n.
|
|
| >I believe the pedantic style of this list does a disservice to the
| broader
| >OBAM community by not offering practical, how-to advise. The glowing
| >exceptions are Bob's picture books, but even those are hard to find. Why
| >aren't they in the "book"?
|
| If I were to put everything "in the book" as multiple figure,
| full color pictures, it would be three times as thick and sell
| for 5x the price. The website servers offer a way to put huge
| amounts of visual data up at ZERO cost to the reader. If I
| operated as you suggest, very few people would buy the book.
| Hard to find? Just ask . . . or download the free website image
| from http://www.aeroelectric.com/CD/AEC8_0.zip and browse the
| articles and images at your leisure.
|
| >I would have killed for some of them when I wired
| >my first RV but if they existed then I was not aware of them. I think
| >there's a real need for an OBAM version of AC43.13, i.e. 21st century
| >acceptable methods and practices, not theory. As much as I view Greg
| Richter
| >as a snake oil salesman, I think he offered a valuable <> to the
| >needs of a large segment of the OBAM world. Every airplane's electrical
| >system does not have to be custom designed. There are >4000 RV's flying
| -
| >surely they all don't have to be different. It should really be OK to do
| >something less than optimal as long as it's still within the bounds of
| safe
| >and acceptable solutions. Bob's response to Richter's paper was an
| eloquent
| >restatement of Bob's philosophy but really just came down to an
| antithetical
| >preference, custom design everything vs one-size-fits-all.
|
| Absolutely not so. Had someone handed me a box full of parts and his
| document . . . I could not tell how those parts go together and
| exactly how they served as alternatives to "atrocious work" driven
| by the 'Connection.
|
| His document contained no data nor a rational explanation behind
| the philosophy of the proposed architecture. I studied his drawings
| in detail and could not deduce what he was suggesting. Unlike
| discussions here on the List, he refused to answer a single one of
| dozens
| of specific questions aimed at clarifying his suggestions.
|
| You want a one size fits all? Figure Z-11 is it. This fits the needs
| of perhaps 90-plus percent of all builders. The fact that options
| beyond this configuration are offered doesn't mean they need to
| be agonized over. I thought chapter 17 offered food-for-thought
| and options to consider should a builder want more. The
| reason for crafting Z-11 and placing it first in the
| architectures is because it's probably going to do the job
| for the vast majority of builders.
|
| > Are there only the extremes? Or is there a middle ground?
|
| Yup, figures Z-12, and Z-13 are all middle grounds between
| Z-11 and Z-14. Then there are some very simple cases wherein
| alternators supplied on Rotax and LOM engines drive you to
| something simpler yet than Z-11.
|
| >To really advance the state of
| >the OBAM fleet is going to require getting a high percentage of new
| aircraft
| >to embrace a higher standard.
|
| Not sure what you mean by "standard" . . . to my way of thinking,
| the OBAM aircraft community is going to thrive because
| there are NO STANDARDS. New ideas can be tried and retained or
| discarded on a whim. Folks who are adventuresome and/or have
| larger missions are free to expand their project's capabilities
| beyond anything offered by BePipCesMo without disturbing the
| majority of folks who will be happy with a Vans or Bengelis
| approach.
|
|
| >And that's going to require making that
| >standard both convenient and accessible. The folks buying Van's
| electrical
| >system kit aren't consciously choosing a 1940's system, it's just all
| there
| >is that's convenient. Except for maybe the EXPbus;-) Most want something
| >better but their only other choice is design it themselves. Surely we
| can
| >offer something better, maybe not perfect, maybe not customized. Yeah,
| >that's compromise so I guess it's a terrible thing to do. Worst wins.
| But
| >doesn't worst win too if there are only a handful of "perfect" examples
| and
| >thousands of obsolete ones?
|
| You missed the point I was making concerning compromise . . .
| The ranges of features offered in the Z-figures are not compromises
| of each other but choices by which one may OPTIMIZE a system to
| fit a mission. To install figure Z-11 in a full-up, long-legged
| cross-country IFR machine like a Glasair or Lancair is not
| a compromise of electrical system but a compromise of the
| airplane's potential for conducting certain missions. You don't
| get those kinds of choices when you buy a nice ol' used C-210, it's
| wired just like a C-150. But if you want a day-vfr/occasional night
| fun-machine . . . Z-11 is a carefully considered solution flying in
| hundreds of airplanes. It's easy to morph into Z-13 if your
| mission grows and/or you get tired of stroking vacuum driven
| components.
|
| The words "standard" and "want something better" are diametrically
| opposed to each other in purpose and result. The FAA has given us
| standards and they've brought new development to its knees.
| On the other hand, those who truly want something better are getting
| it done in their basements and garages and leaving certified aviation
| trailing in the dust. Want OBAM aviation to fail? Set up any kind
| of standards for design and fabrication and an organization to
| oversee those standards. It doesn't have to be the FAA but it's
| a sure bet that a few decades hence, the FAA and any new
| organization set up to standardize OBAM aviation would be
| indistinguishable from each other.
|
|
| >Opinions offered with the utmost respect to all who contribute.
|
| I'm not sure I understand your difficulty with the List. If you like
| the EXP-Bus, you're certainly free to install one. Hundreds are flying
| and as far as I know, owners are happy with them. If you encouraged
| Greg to build you one of his one-size-fits-all boards for your
| project,
| he might be quite accommodating. The vast majority of OBAM aircraft
| builders are doing a clone of contemporary spam can architecture
| with Van's installation kit. They're going to be just fine.
| I don't expect them to perform any worse than the airplanes I
| MUST rent every time I want to fly somewhere.
|
| The PRIMARY function of the List is to address exactly the
| issues you've raised. I'm sorry if you're cautious of getting
| splashed with blood from somebody else's dog-fight. However, I've
| noted multiple threads on the List discussing a variety of topics
| that seem to move ahead oblivious to conversations about
| herding electrons.
|
| Sounds like what you're needing has nothing to do with sorting
| opinions but simply dipping into the pool of experience and
| common sense possessed by many folks here on the List. We are
| all at your service sir. How may we assist you?
|
| Bob . . .
|
|
|
|
|
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Measuring Current & Resistance |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Joel Jacobs" <jj@sdf.lonestar.org>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha@hotmail.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Measuring Current & Resistance
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tinne maha"
<tinnemaha@hotmail.com>
>
> Hello List,
>
> I would like to measure the current flow & resistance of my taxi/landing
> light while in use so I can propery size the wires. As my plane isn't yet
> complete, I'm hoping to be able to run some leads from my 12 V truck
battery
> (with the truck running) to the light & take the measurements right at the
> light with a multi-meter.
>
> Can it be that simple or am I missing something?
Could be simpler! It does not matter where you measure the current.
(Kirchoffs's 1st Law) You can measure it at the battery and you'll get the
same reading as at the light - or anywhere in between.
You cannot measure the resistance of the light. You have to calculate it.
The reason is that the filiment resistance is much higher when it's hot
(operating). You should only need to know the current to choose wire but if
you want to know the resistance measure the voltage - this time at the
light - and divide by the current.
>
> Will this procedure give me an accurate indication (of course assuming
that
> my meter & reading ability are both accurate)
>
Yup!
Joel
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! --
|