Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:02 AM - Switch type//battery (BobsV35B@aol.com)
2. 06:03 AM - Re: APU versus battery (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 06:04 AM - Battery regulations. Was Switch type//battery (Eric Ruttan)
4. 06:20 AM - Re: Re: EFIS Backup Battery (Glaeser, Dennis A)
5. 06:25 AM - Re: wing strobe wire disconnects (Paul Pengilly)
6. 06:41 AM - Re: Battery regulations. Was Switch (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 06:42 AM - Re: Switch type//battery (Fred Fillinger)
8. 06:50 AM - Re: ProxAlert R5 (Jim Stone)
9. 07:24 AM - Battery regulations. Was Switch type//battery (Eric Ruttan)
10. 07:49 AM - Master alarm circuit (James Redmon)
11. 09:57 AM - Re: Master alarm circuit (D Wysong)
12. 10:09 AM - Re: Question about dimmer circuits and annunicators... (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
13. 11:45 AM - Re: Master alarm circuit (James Redmon)
14. 12:51 PM - Re: Master alarm circuit (Kenneth Melvin)
15. 12:52 PM - Re: Master alarm circuit (D Wysong)
16. 03:32 PM - WD-40 as Contact Cleaner (brucem@att.net)
17. 04:01 PM - Re: Switch type (Bill Schlatterer)
18. 05:05 PM - Re: WD-40 as Contact Cleaner (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
19. 11:12 PM - Re: WD-40 as Contact Cleaner (Paul Pengilly)
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: | Switch type//battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 3/3/2005 5:40:14 A.M. Central Standard Time,
gyoung@cs-sol.com writes:
Concord's ICA (Instructions for Continued Airworthiness) that were
included with my battery had a clause that it did not require load
testing until the 2nd year. I don't have the exact wording in front of
me so I don't know if you could tap dance and stretch it to a 3rd year
but, at minimum, if you're willing to replace it every 2 years, you
don't have to load test it.
Regards,
Greg Young - Houston (DWH)
Good Morning Greg,
That is undoubtedly true, but there are other possibilities depending on the
use to which the battery is being put.
A few questions if you don't mind.
Do you have the latest revision to your ICA?
Is the Battery a flooded cell or a Recombinant Gas unit?
Is the battery being used for "Essential Power" or as a standby unit?
What type engine is the battery expected to start?
All of the above and actual operating experience determine the time
intervals between required capacity checks.
The latest revision for the Flooded Lead-Acid Main Battery is Revision E
dated 10/27/04
For the Valve Regulated Lead Acid Main Battery it is Revision H dated
06/24/03.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
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: APU versus battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 07:43 PM 3/3/2005 +1300, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Frank & Dorothy <frankvdh@xtra.co.nz>
>
>Eric M. Jones wrote:
>
> >An interesting choice--and the APU will outlast your airplane.
> >
> >
>So, why bother with an alternator on your engine?
Because it is but one of several independent, engine
driven power sources that have acceptable power to weight
and volume ratios and manageable cost of ownership.
> Why not use just the
>little engine (eventually to be replaced by a fuel cell, I guess) to
>generate electricty, and just use the big engine (perhaps also to
>eventually be replaced by a fuel cell?) to propel you round the sky?
There are folks working exactly those issues. I'm aware of
several UAV programs where the aircraft is total electric
powered. They are small and, of course unmanned. In this
venue there are no imperatives for making the system safe
and inhabitable by humans . . . but others are watching
this technology and thinking . . .
If the power/weight ratios -AND- system reliability
requirements can be met, you can bet that it will happen.
A good friend of mine has spent half his life working
the problems on Stirling engines for motive power in
aircraft. This is an external combustion engine that
burns ANYTHING liquid having sufficient BTU/Pound to
be useful. The engine runs slow, turns very quiet
propellers, has very few moving parts and is totally
free of vibration. Do a google on "stirling engine".
Also see:
http://www.qrmc.com/
http://www.stirlingengine.com/
http://www.qrmc.com/animationtext.htm
for some introduction to the technology. So far,
lots of time and money have been spent and progress
has been disappointing. But the effort has not used
tax dollars. Further, it's been accomplished in
a true Skunk Works environment where one has the
freedom to fail inexpensively. I have no doubt that
at some time in the future, folks with the mindset
of my friends, Burt Rutan, John Ronz, Charles Kettering,
and Thomas Edison will produce products that will
stand current technologies on their heads.
In the mean time, we're FORCED to figure out
the best ways to paste SD-8s, SD-20s, ND and
John Deere alternators and 150 year-old lead-acid
technologies into our airplanes in useful and
practical combinations. But only because those
are the present Tinker Toys in our toy box.
But rest assured that as long as "anti-leadership"
does not intervene, times ahead are more exciting
than anything we've enjoyed in the past. (True
leaders are running ahead moving obstacles
to progress aside. Many who would call them selves
leaders are in fact, fabricators of obstacles.)
Stirlings have already been used to produce
totally quiet and vibration free ground power
units for RVs . . . VERY expensive and not the
most reliable. Still looking for a toehold in the
marketplace. "Build it and they will come".
Bob . . .
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: | Battery regulations. Was Switch type//battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric Ruttan" <ericruttan@chartermi.net>
Strictly on the topic of regulations, and specificaly exempting "what we
should do" from this post.
FAR 43.1 Applicability
(b) This part does not apply to any aircraft for which the FAA has issued
an experimental certificate, unless the FAA has previously issued a
different kind of airworthiness certificate for that aircraft.
So there are no battery regulations for experimentals, nor does any part of
43 apply to them.
This relives us of any regulatory burden and allows us to focus on best
practice.
Eric
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<b.nuckolls@cox.net>
> At 07:42 PM 3/1/2005 -0500, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fred Fillinger"
<n3eu@comcast.net>
> >"Paul Messinger" wrote:
> > > The FAA requires a battery capacity test as part of the annual,
> > > as specified by the battery manufacturer ...
> > >
> >
> >That may come as news to some of us. If you're referring to Part 43
> >and arguing that the language of FAR 43.13 requires strict adherehnce
> >to a manufacturer's service instructions (two long-time A&P/IAs I know
> >say it does not, though good judgment should control), the service
> >manual for my plane states only to "check specific gravity." My
> >battery mfr says, to determine if serviceable, to either check
> >specific gravity or do a capacity test without specifics on how to do
> >it, and they label both as "suggested methods."
>
> Yeah, there's been a lot of praying over the meanings of
> words in the various documents in an effort to deduce The Law.
> The FARS have had verbage like this for a some time:
>
> (h) In the event of a complete loss of the primary electrical power
> generating system, the battery must be capable of providing at least 30
> minutes of electrical power to those loads that are essential to continued
> safe flight and landing. The 30 minute time period includes the time
needed
> for the pilots to recognize loss of power and take appropriate
> load shedding action.
>
> Compliance with this rule has a ton of open ended questions
> as to what is essential? How big is the battery when new?
> How many a.h. of capacity does it take to meet the 30 minute
> requirement?
>
> It would be interesting to go through the dockets and amendments
> over the period of 1965 to 1996 and find out when those words
> were added. I know that in 1965 we had no factory recommended
> testing procedures or test intervals in the maintenance manuals
> at Cessna. I was writing those words from 1964 to 1969. The only
> thing we did was publish a specific gravity chart to aid in
> assessing state of charge. I'm not sure how s.g. varies with
> capacity if at all. I think the words we wrote suggested
> battery replacement if it couldn't be charged to 100% as
> indicated by the s.g. reading.
>
> I think it was because the words about 30-minute reserves
> were not present in the FAR that folks like Concord reached
> into a dark, warm place and pulled out an 80% number . . .
> it was as good as any other number.
>
> Nowadays, the official maintenance manual for the airframe
> trumps all others as the last word in battery maintenance and
> replacement criteria.
>
> Bob . . .
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: RE: EFIS Backup Battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Glaeser, Dennis A" <dennis.glaeser@eds.com>
If you are planning on an EIS - most (probably all) provide the capability
to monitor multiple battery voltages - and provide active notification when
they drop below a specified value (along with a myriad of other things like
oil pressure, oil and coolant temperatures, fuel level, . . .). So, your
after-startup preflight action is to be sure your EIS warning isn't blinking
(or yelling) at you :-)
Dennis Glaeser
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<b.nuckolls@cox.net
<mailto:b.nuckolls@cox.net?subject=RE:%20EFIS%20Backup%20Battery&replyto=200
503030346.j233kZg32060@matronics.com> >
At 08:25 PM 3/1/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Scott Winn (Matronics List)"
><swmat@cox.net
<mailto:swmat@cox.net?subject=RE:%20EFIS%20Backup%20Battery&replyto=20050303
0346.j233kZg32060@matronics.com> >
>
>Bob,
>
>What I'd really like to have is a 'charge fault' light. Is there a
>simple way to attach an LED that would light IF charge voltage is
>present on main bus AND the output of the relay has not been driven to
>ground (I.E. bad relay)?
>
>--Scott
The only way I can think to automate that is two LVW/ABMM. One
to control the relay and a second to monitor that the output
has come up to bus voltage and is now supporting the battery.
The most efficient way would be a rotary selector switch to
zip the voltmeter around to the various battery busses to
see that they are all elevated to main bus voltage as part
of a pre-flight test.
Bob . . .
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: wing strobe wire disconnects |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Pengilly <pengilly@southwest.com.au>
Bryan Hooks wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bryan Hooks" <bryanhooks@comcast.net>
>
>Snip
>
>
>>I'm planning to run my Whelan strobe lines (including shield)
>>through 4-pin
>>Molex mate-n-loc connectors at the wing roots. Does this seem
>>reasonable?
>>
>>Jay
>>
>>
>
>I just posed this question to Bill at Creative Air. Here is the answer
>I got for what it's worth:
>
>Bryan... The problem is that you can't do anything with the strobe
>leads...
>They need to be continuous and the shield grounded...
>
>However, I should have single strobe power paks soon, then you can put
>them
>in the wing tips and use connectors at the wing for power leads to
>them...
>
>Hope this helps...
>
>-Bill
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "BRYAN HOOKS" <bryanhooks@comcast.net>
>To: "CreativAir" <info@creativair.com>
>Subject: Enquiry from CreativAir
>
>
>I am going to buy your strobe light kit and led positions lights for a
>Vans
>RV-7A (I'll get the tail pos/strobe combo from vans). Can you please
>tell me
>if there is an elegant way to make a wiring conector at the wing root,
>so
>that I can wire the wings and fuselage seperately? I'm building in my
>garage
>and don't have room to put the wings on just yet, but I'd like to get
>the
>wiring runs done now.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay
>Brinkmeyer
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: wing strobe wire disconnects
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jay Brinkmeyer
><jaybrinkmeyer@yahoo.com>
>
>I'm planning to run my Whelan strobe lines (including shield) through
>4-pin
>Molex mate-n-loc connectors at the wing roots. Does this seem
>reasonable?
>
>Jay
>
>
>=====
>
>
>
>__________________________________
>http://baseball.fantasysports.yahoo.com/
>
>
>
>
That's strange I bought my strobe kit and if came with connectors all
ready on the lights and plugs for the cables and this was from the
manufacturer.
Regards
Paul P
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Battery regulations. Was Switch |
type//battery
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
type//battery
At 09:10 AM 3/3/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric Ruttan"
><ericruttan@chartermi.net>
>
>Strictly on the topic of regulations, and specificaly exempting "what we
>should do" from this post.
>
>FAR 43.1 Applicability
> (b) This part does not apply to any aircraft for which the FAA has issued
>an experimental certificate, unless the FAA has previously issued a
>different kind of airworthiness certificate for that aircraft.
>
>So there are no battery regulations for experimentals, nor does any part of
>43 apply to them.
>
>This relives us of any regulatory burden and allows us to focus on best
>practice.
>
>Eric
ABSOLUTELY! However it behooves us to understand the regulations
that are in place and deduce for ourselves whether they offer
insight for more comfortable operation of our airplanes.
I'm going to look into the details of recent revelations with
respect to who-trumps-who . . . but mostly to satisfy my own
curiosity and because it has a small influence on me in my day-job.
But make no mistake about it folks, your OBAM airplane's configuration
belongs to YOU and no one else. Take shelter in regulations if
that offers your comfort but I'll always suggest that the
greatest comfort comes from understanding.
Bob . . .
-------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
-------------------------------------------
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Switch type//battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fred Fillinger" <n3eu@comcast.net>
"Paul Messinger" wrote:
>
> The FAA has somewhere (as I misplaced the ref) requiring the battery
> manufacturers to publish the required annual testing. Concord has
done this
Gill has too very recently revised its service manual, but they
provide instructions if you don't have a load tester. Put a known
load on it (automotive headlamp or two I guess is OK), and time it to
"10V" -- note no decimals. Then refer to a simple chart they provide.
Apparently the chart is valid for their batteries of any size, so
FAA's approval of this was relaxed.
However, if I have the battery theory correct, it appears their
popular G-25 might fail the test, as it looks like its for G-35 at
least. Possibly their way of encouraging shops to buy a load tester
if they don't have one?
The 1st test is at one year from installation; subsequent checks every
6 months. This means that likely most small airplanes with a Gill
battery are technically unairworthy. Since they specify these
procedures under "airworthiness limitations," FAR 43.16 becomes the
applicable law, unless amateur-built. Odd also is an instruction that
the battery must be removed from the aircraft to perform the test.
What's really silly here is that if you have an antique airplane with
no electrical system, but an STC'd or 337'd battery/starter/etc. just
to start the engine, you must test the battery every 6 months, if a
Gill at least. Without such a mod, you can just hand-prop and go fly!
In fact, FAA's recent Special Airworthiness Bulletin for maintaining
old airplanes uses the phrase "capacity check" under Electrical.
Reg,
Fred F.
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: ProxAlert R5 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
I wonder if the Garmin 330 works better than the likes of ATD-3000. Anyone
have the Garmin?
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "rv-9a-online" <rv-9a-online@telus.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ProxAlert R5
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv-9a-online
> <rv-9a-online@telus.net>
>
> After a near mid-air collision, I purschased the Monroy ATD-300. I've
> been using it as a portable and plan on permanent install in my RV-9A.
> It comes with a panel mount kit as well.
>
> I treat the ATD-300 as an extra set of eyes. It does not replace the
> need for a visual scan, and it can miss things. It works better in busy
> airspace, which is what you want.
>
> The biggest downfall of these devices is that you have to be in radar
> surveillance for them to work. If you are in a 'radar shadow', or if
> the offending aircraft does not have a transponder, they do not work.
>
> Nevertheless, I now routinely leave my GPS in the bag, and plug my
> ATD-300 in for local flights (Vancouver VTA).
>
> Remember... it's like another set of eyes... it won't find everything,
> but it can sometimes see things the pilot doesn't.
>
> Vern Little
>
> Rob Housman wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob Housman"
>><robh@hyperion-ef.us>
>>
>>Here's what Aviation Consumer (a publication I highly recommend for
>>aircraft
>>owners, and homebuilders in particular- it's sort of a Consumer Reports
>>for
>>aviators) concluded in an article published in their April 2004 issue:
>>Recommendations
>>For the price-$800 to $1200 depending on which unit you select-the
>>portables
>>strike us as cheap insurance against a mid-air collision or near miss.
>>But you get what you pay for. Don't expect either unit to find all the
>>traffic. Both will miss lots of targets, especially those ahead and below
>>the aircraft. And once you start installing one of these in a panel using
>>an
>>external antenna, you could nearly double the cost.
>>In adding all these numbers up, refer to the chart on page 6 which
>>compares
>>prices on all the current offerings across all price ranges. With the
>>Garmin
>>Mode-S based TIS available for about $5000, owners will need to put a
>>sharp
>>pencil on the decision to go down market with a portable. But the $5000
>>applies only if you already have a GNS430 or 530 in the panel. And maybe
>>you
>>don't want to spend that much on traffic gear and the portable suits your
>>needs.
>>Which is best? Both are improved over previous models and we don't think
>>you'll go wrong with either, keeping in mind that this technology has
>>sharp
>>limitations. We give a razor-thin edge to the Monroy ATD-300. It's $400
>>cheaper than the SureCheck, has a lower profile on the panel and a
>>simpler,
>>easier-to-read display.
>>Our impression is that the ATD-300 more often saw traffic that the
>>SureCheck
>>missed but, to be fair, the performance of both units is strongly
>>influenced
>>by antenna position. For the extra $400, the SureCheck gives you the
>>ability
>>to run on batteries and has the onboard altitude sensor, neither of which
>>the Monroy has.
>>As noted, this allows the SureCheck to make relative altitude
>>determinations
>>when the host aircraft Mode-C isn't available, which appears to be the
>>case
>>about 20 percent of the time for reasons that aren't clear.
>>If that capability is important to you or you can't run on ship's power
>>alone, the SureCheck TrafficScope is the better choice, in our view. In
>>any
>>case, we think SureCheck deserves kudos for dramatically improving its
>>product over the previous iteration and we give the company high marks for
>>much improved customer and technical support.
>>
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>Rob Housman
>>
>>Europa XS Tri-Gear A070
>>Airframe complete
>>Irvine, CA
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
>>rd2@evenlink.com
>>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: AeroElectric-List: ProxAlert R5
>>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rd2@evenlink.com
>>
>>Hi all,
>>I am considering getting ProxAlert R5. Does anyone have any experience -
>>positive, negative, advice - to share, I'd appreciate it. Main use would
>>be
>>in the more congested NE, both in VFR and IFR.
>>The other known competitors are SureCheck and Monroy. ProxAlert seems to
>>be
>>the only one with built-in altitude measurement and ability to show 3
>>threats simultaneously.
>>Thanks for the feedback
>>Rumen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: | Battery regulations. Was Switch type//battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric Ruttan" <ericruttan@chartermi.net>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
type//battery
> At 09:10 AM 3/3/2005 -0500, you wrote:
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric Ruttan"
> >
> >Strictly on the topic of regulations, and specificaly exempting "what we
> >should do" from this post.
> >
> >FAR 43.1 Applicability
> > (b) This part does not apply to any aircraft for which the FAA has
issued
> >an experimental certificate, unless the FAA has previously issued a
> >different kind of airworthiness certificate for that aircraft.
> >
> >So there are no battery regulations for experimentals, nor does any part
of
> >43 apply to them.
> >
> >This relives us of any regulatory burden and allows us to focus on best
> >practice.
> >
> >Eric
>
> ABSOLUTELY! However it behooves us to understand the regulations
> that are in place and deduce for ourselves whether they offer
> insight for more comfortable operation of our airplanes.
>
> I'm going to look into the details of recent revelations with
> respect to who-trumps-who . . . but mostly to satisfy my own
> curiosity and because it has a small influence on me in my day-job.
> But make no mistake about it folks, your OBAM airplane's configuration
> belongs to YOU and no one else. Take shelter in regulations if
> that offers your comfort but I'll always suggest that the
> greatest comfort comes from understanding.
>
> Bob . . .
>
> -------------------------------------------
> ( Knowing about a thing is different than )
> ( understanding it. One can know a lot )
> ( and still understand nothing. )
> ( C.F. Kettering )
> -------------------------------------------
I suggest that with limited $time$ it behooves us to understand batteries,
so get to work, I/we are waiting... ;).
I may never get to a point where I am comfortable with my understanding of
electron hearding. If not I will be comfortable enough with implementing
the best ideas that evolve out of this forum, and others like it.
I understand regulations as the rules governing people that have been
given/taken power in their subjection of thoes who have less power. "For my
own protection" is a line designed to make subjection more palletable. No
amount of time examining regualtions will give me comfort operating my
plane.
It is my perception that regulations actually being relevant to a correct
understanding (of batteries in this case, anything at all in general) is
extremely improbable.
Do to the off topic nature of my response, i imagine a do not archive is in
order.
Eric
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: | Master alarm circuit |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James Redmon" <james@berkut13.com>
Anyone out there know of a warning alarm circuit diagram, kit, etc. that can
be used for an "aircraft master alarm". It would be based on grounded
trigger switches for things like canopy open/throttle advanced, gear not
down/throttle retarded, etc.
Ideally, it would have a master warning light and an audible alarm that can
be "muted" per event - for instance, to silence while taxiing with the
canopy open, but still want alert for T.O.
The aircraft in question (not mine) does not have provision for the nifty
integrated systems like the ACS2002, or Vision Micro Systems, etc. Just
need a stand alone circuit.
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
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: Master alarm circuit |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Wysong <hdwysong@gmail.com>
Hello James -
This isn't a schematic but perhaps it'll give you a top-level start
(see 'fail-safe design'):
http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/electricCircuits/Digital/DIGI_6.html
You should be able to do what you're after with a pile of digital 'OR'
gates. They're packaged nicely on IC's these days, so you're not
looking at much real estate. You'll need circuitry out at the end to
drive your buzzer, flash the lights, and time the duration of the
'mute' button function... but I'm sure I could dig up a schematic for
that part if you're interested.
Hope this helps!
D
(Beautiful airplane, by the way. I got to fly with Dave on a near IMC
day when he came into ADS for potential gov't work with a Berkut a few
years ago. Nice fellow.)
----------------------------------
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 09:48:39 -0600, James Redmon <james@berkut13.com> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James Redmon" <james@berkut13.com>
>
> Anyone out there know of a warning alarm circuit diagram, kit, etc. that can
> be used for an "aircraft master alarm". It would be based on grounded
> trigger switches for things like canopy open/throttle advanced, gear not
> down/throttle retarded, etc.
>
> Ideally, it would have a master warning light and an audible alarm that can
> be "muted" per event - for instance, to silence while taxiing with the
> canopy open, but still want alert for T.O.
>
> The aircraft in question (not mine) does not have provision for the nifty
> integrated systems like the ACS2002, or Vision Micro Systems, etc. Just
> need a stand alone circuit.
>
> James Redmon
> Berkut #013 N97TX
> http://www.berkut13.com
>
>
>
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: Question about dimmer circuits and annunicators... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 3/2/05 11:12:30 PM Central Standard Time,
mdella@cstone.com writes:
> Should I just leave it tied
> to power and not bother with worrying about the annunicators being too
> bright at night
>>>
Hi Marcos- IMHO you definately need BRT/DIM capability, especially if your
annunciator is mounted direct center of vision. I used zener diodes and a
BRT/DIM toggle switch on my 10 function LED annunciator and it works well- you
can
play with the zener diodes and LED resistor values to achieve the levels you
desire. If you can do AutoCAD (I'm R14) I can send you a copy of my circuits,
if you'd like...
Mark Phillips
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: Master alarm circuit |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James Redmon" <james@berkut13.com>
> This isn't a schematic but perhaps it'll give you a top-level start
> (see 'fail-safe design'):
>
> http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/electricCircuits/Digital/DIGI_6.html
Good theory page. However, being a coumputer systems engineer/architect
type - my usual work mode assumes that the "computer" is physically built
before it gets to me...so this kind of circuit theory is a little lost on
me. ;-)
> You should be able to do what you're after with a pile of digital 'OR'
> gates. They're packaged nicely on IC's these days, so you're not
> looking at much real estate. You'll need circuitry out at the end to
> drive your buzzer, flash the lights, and time the duration of the
> 'mute' button function.
Bingo! That's exactly what I'll need...but before re-inventing the wheel,
I'm sure someone out there has already done it. If not, sure seems like
something that alot of builders could use and take advantage of if not using
glass panel works.
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
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: | Master alarm circuit |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kenneth Melvin <melvinke@direcway.com>
Try <tcs@eguardsystems.com>.
Kenneth Melvin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of James
Redmon
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Master alarm circuit
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James Redmon"
--> <james@berkut13.com>
Anyone out there know of a warning alarm circuit diagram, kit, etc. that can
be used for an "aircraft master alarm". It would be based on grounded
trigger switches for things like canopy open/throttle advanced, gear not
down/throttle retarded, etc.
Ideally, it would have a master warning light and an audible alarm that can
be "muted" per event - for instance, to silence while taxiing with the
canopy open, but still want alert for T.O.
The aircraft in question (not mine) does not have provision for the nifty
integrated systems like the ACS2002, or Vision Micro Systems, etc. Just
need a stand alone circuit.
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
advertising on the Matronics Forums.
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: Master alarm circuit |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Wysong <hdwysong@gmail.com>
> my usual work mode assumes that the "computer" is physically built
> before it gets to me...
Understood, although some days I'd still prefer an old HeathKit. :-) I
hope I didn't insult you with the cartoons.
Theory aside, perhaps you'd be willing to specify a few things for a
potential developer?
-- how many 'contact closures' do you want to monitor?
-- how many of those need to be compared (canopy latch vs. throttle fwd,
gear up vs. throttle aft, etc.)?
-- single 'master alarm' for everything? Perhaps a master (that grabs
your attention) with a separate caution/advisory panel that IDs the
specific trigger??
D
---------------
do not archive
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: | WD-40 as Contact Cleaner |
0.01 RCVD_DOUBLE_IP_LOOSE Received: by and from look like IP addresses
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: brucem@att.net
I moved to central Florida several months ago. Due to the humid summers
here, local avionics techs swear by WD-40 to clean contacts. They believe
that its residual film protects against subsequent corrosion while
conventional contact cleaners leave the metal exposed to the wet air.
On the other hand, I recall reading that some avionics manufacturers regard use
of anti-corrosives, such as WD-40 and Corrosion X, as voiding their
warranties.
Comments?
TIA, Bruce McGregor
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
I asked them about it and the price was something on the order of $1,800 to
2,000 or more if I remember right. Looks good but way up there for an
experimental. They think its a Bonanza part not budget exp.
Bill S
7a Ark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of D
Fritz
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Switch type
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Fritz <dfritzj@yahoo.com>
Has anyone got any experience with this alternator:
http://www.gami.com/frames.htm
It may be a solution for the folks with dual electronic ignitions and EFISs
(EFII?) who want endurance busses that can handle all their endurance loads
in a Z-13 arrangement.
Dan Fritz
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: WD-40 as Contact Cleaner |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:30 PM 3/3/2005 +0000, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: brucem@att.net
>
>I moved to central Florida several months ago. Due to the humid summers
>here, local avionics techs swear by WD-40 to clean contacts. They believe
>that its residual film protects against subsequent corrosion while
>conventional contact cleaners leave the metal exposed to the wet air.
>
>On the other hand, I recall reading that some avionics manufacturers
>regard use of anti-corrosives, such as WD-40 and Corrosion X, as voiding their
>warranties.
WD-40 and close cousins are often used to displace moisture
and add some degree of corrosion proofing to metals exposed
to less than ideal atmospheres. Ag airplane owners have been
known to spray down the insides of an aluminum airplane to
provide some resistance to corrosive chemicals that find
their way into the airplane's spray hopper.
I've used WD-40 in a pinch but don't recommend it. It
ultimately leaves a film that can be rather tough. I sprayed
down a bunch of brand new Jacobs chucks and wrapped them
in foil for long storage. After several years, the chucks
were seized up so tight that it took soaking in acetone
to free them up. WD-40's magic happens only while it's
fresh. Repeated use of SD-40 on electronics is likely to
build a film that is, to some degree, hygroscopic and
dust trapping.
There are commercial contact cleaner/lubricant concoctions
crafted for use on switches. You need to select a product
that is both cleaner and lubricant and use it periodically.
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: | Re: WD-40 as Contact Cleaner |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Pengilly <pengilly@southwest.com.au>
Warning I have a warning regarding the use of contact cleaners if you
have to use these check and make sure that you are not using a flammable
type CRC make both types and one of my techs was court out a few years
back when cleaning some electric's with the flammable type unknowingly,
and once power was applied there was quite a large bang and a few
missing eye brow hairs caused by using the flammable type.
Regards
Paul P
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
>At 11:30 PM 3/3/2005 +0000, you wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: brucem@att.net
>>
>>I moved to central Florida several months ago. Due to the humid summers
>>here, local avionics techs swear by WD-40 to clean contacts. They believe
>>that its residual film protects against subsequent corrosion while
>>conventional contact cleaners leave the metal exposed to the wet air.
>>
>>On the other hand, I recall reading that some avionics manufacturers
>>regard use of anti-corrosives, such as WD-40 and Corrosion X, as voiding their
>>warranties.
>>
>>
>
> WD-40 and close cousins are often used to displace moisture
> and add some degree of corrosion proofing to metals exposed
> to less than ideal atmospheres. Ag airplane owners have been
> known to spray down the insides of an aluminum airplane to
> provide some resistance to corrosive chemicals that find
> their way into the airplane's spray hopper.
>
> I've used WD-40 in a pinch but don't recommend it. It
> ultimately leaves a film that can be rather tough. I sprayed
> down a bunch of brand new Jacobs chucks and wrapped them
> in foil for long storage. After several years, the chucks
> were seized up so tight that it took soaking in acetone
> to free them up. WD-40's magic happens only while it's
> fresh. Repeated use of SD-40 on electronics is likely to
> build a film that is, to some degree, hygroscopic and
> dust trapping.
>
> There are commercial contact cleaner/lubricant concoctions
> crafted for use on switches. You need to select a product
> that is both cleaner and lubricant and use it periodically.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|