Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:25 AM - LED logo lights (chad-c_sip@stanfordalumni.org)
2. 01:48 AM - Re: B&C toggle switches (Chris Byrne)
3. 05:36 AM - Re: LED logo lights (Ken)
4. 06:42 AM - Stripping RG400 coax (Bill Call)
5. 06:44 AM - Re: 22 ga too small? (Joseph P. Larson)
6. 07:06 AM - Re: LED logo lights (Eric M. Jones)
7. 07:08 AM - Re: LED logo lights (Dave Morris \)
8. 07:31 AM - Re: Stripping RG400 coax (Bobby Hester)
9. 09:23 AM - Re: Radio Noise Redux (William Yamokoski)
10. 09:38 AM - Re: B&C toggle switches (John Schroeder)
11. 09:38 AM - Re: B&C toggle switches (John Schroeder)
12. 10:56 AM - Re: Stripping RG400 coax (John Schroeder)
13. 11:04 AM - Re: 22 ga too small? ()
14. 12:17 PM - Re: Re: 22 ga too small? (John Schroeder)
15. 12:20 PM - Wanted-Narco Transponder Tray ()
16. 01:06 PM - Re: Radio Noise Redux (Ken)
17. 06:25 PM - Re: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh cells (J. Mcculley)
18. 07:38 PM - Re: Re: 22 ga too small? (Dave Morris \)
19. 08:21 PM - Tefzel bundles (chad-c_sip@stanfordalumni.org)
20. 08:24 PM - Subject: battery charger/maintainers (Emrath)
21. 08:38 PM - Re: Tefzel bundles (TSaccio@aol.com)
22. 09:22 PM - Re: Tefzel bundles (Stein Bruch)
23. 10:10 PM - Re: Tefzel bundles (D Wysong)
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 |
|
Z-USANET-MsgId: XID232JFeHZR0206X38
1.25 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP address used for HELO
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: chad-c_sip@stanfordalumni.org
I accidentally posted this to the avionics list instead of here. Apologies to
those receiving it twice.
------------------------------------------------------
My family is currently building a Lancair IVP-turbine and I'm tasked with
doing all of the electronics and lighting. My father (the primary pilot)
wants
"logo" lights - lights that shine on the vertical stab. to improve visibility
at night. The only place I really have to mount such lights is in on the
inside surface of the winglets which aren't themsleves very thick. Given
that,
I've been thinking that an array of white LED's might be a good way to get
the
amount of light I'm looking for while keeping the form factor very flat to
fit
inside the winglet.
I'm considering using Lumex's SSP-LX6144A9UC high-intensity LEDs as the
lights
of choice (a PDF of their characteristics can be found at
http://www.lumex.com/product.asp?id=1006182 - short version: 10 deg. double
angle, 2 lumens total flux, 12 candella axial intensity, ~400mW). I can buy
these at $22 ea. at Allied Electronics. I'm not 100% sure how many I'll need
but I suspect I'll want more than 8 on a side. Ideally, I'd want a light with
a double angle of 9 degrees.
First, can anyone else suggest a white LED that has a higher intentisty in
the
angle I'm looking for at less money total? If we decide to paint the tail
something like red I'll simply use a red LED as the logo light.
Secondly, I've got a question about wiring up such devices. Usually when
wiring an LED you put a current-limiting resistor in series with the LED and
then put a bunch of such pairs in parallel. This helps to overcome the
temperature/current correlation common in diodes (and bipolar transistors)
that allows a single element in a parallel array to hog current and burn out
first. However, I've got a 28v supply native to the aircraft and each LED is
happiest with 3.4V. Could I simply put 7 of these in series with a small
resistor to fix the desired current at 100-120 mA? That would give me 14
lumens per side on a surface a few feet high and wide. Would that be bright
enough to make the tail visible to other planes from far enough away to
matter?
Thanks for the input.
Chad
Chad Sipperley
Lancair IVP-turbine (under construction)
Phoenix, AZ
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: B&C toggle switches |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris Byrne" <jack.byrne@bigpond.com>
Chad
Just received an order from B & C today.
They are not all the same width.
S700-1-3 are 1/2 in wide.
S700-2-3 are 3/4 inch wide
S700-2-10 are 3/4 inch wide.
This is eyeball, didn't put a ruler on them, but there is a definite dif in
size.
All the same size round mounting hole though.
Chris Byrne
Sydney
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LED logo lights |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
$22. ea does not sound cost effective.
You can series them but I'd suggest only 5 or maybe 6.
The more you put in series the more that normal voltage variations will
cause large current (and brightness) changes. For a worst case example
(7 in series) with the alternator off they might not even light and a
slight overvoltage might burn them all out. For a 12 volt system that
will run similar LED's anywhere from 12 to 15 volts I settled on two in
series as a reasonable compromise. In fact though I wired two off the
shelf fixtures in series with one resistor but each fixture has 3 LED's
in parallel. Those LED's were cheap (well under $1.).
Ken
chad-c_sip@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: chad-c_sip@stanfordalumni.org
>
>My family is currently building a Lancair IVP-turbine and I'm tasked with
>doing all of the electronics and lighting. My father (the primary pilot)
>wants
>"logo" lights - lights that shine on the vertical stab. to improve visibility
>at night. The only place I really have to mount such lights is in on the
>inside surface of the winglets which aren't themsleves very thick. Given
>that,
>I've been thinking that an array of white LED's might be a good way to get
>the
>amount of light I'm looking for while keeping the form factor very flat to
>fit
>inside the winglet.
>
>I'm considering using Lumex's SSP-LX6144A9UC high-intensity LEDs as the
>lights
>of choice (a PDF of their characteristics can be found at
>http://www.lumex.com/product.asp?id=1006182 - short version: 10 deg. double
>angle, 2 lumens total flux, 12 candella axial intensity, ~400mW). I can buy
>these at $22 ea. at Allied Electronics. I'm not 100% sure how many I'll need
>but I suspect I'll want more than 8 on a side. Ideally, I'd want a light with
>a double angle of 9 degrees.
>
>First, can anyone else suggest a white LED that has a higher intentisty in
>the
>angle I'm looking for at less money total? If we decide to paint the tail
>something like red I'll simply use a red LED as the logo light.
>
>Secondly, I've got a question about wiring up such devices. Usually when
>wiring an LED you put a current-limiting resistor in series with the LED and
>then put a bunch of such pairs in parallel. This helps to overcome the
>temperature/current correlation common in diodes (and bipolar transistors)
>that allows a single element in a parallel array to hog current and burn out
>first. However, I've got a 28v supply native to the aircraft and each LED is
>happiest with 3.4V. Could I simply put 7 of these in series with a small
>resistor to fix the desired current at 100-120 mA? That would give me 14
>lumens per side on a surface a few feet high and wide. Would that be bright
>enough to make the tail visible to other planes from far enough away to
>matter?
>
>Thanks for the input.
>
>Chad
>
>
>Chad Sipperley
>Lancair IVP-turbine (under construction)
>Phoenix, AZ
>
>
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: | Stripping RG400 coax |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Call" <billcall@sbcglobal.net>
Bob,
I read your shop note on stripping coax with a 3-blade stripper. I
understand you can adjust the blades for depth of cut for the RG400.
My question is: There are 3-blade strippers with different lengths of cut.
Some are .25 & .25, others are different. What are the required strip
dimensions for the male and female BNC connectors I purchased from B&C?
BTW, they did not come with any instructions.
Thanks,
Bill Call
Lancair Super ES ~80% complete and for sale.
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: 22 ga too small? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Joseph P. Larson" <jpl@showpage.org>
Soldering wire moves the stress point to wherever the solder ends. I've seen a
lot of electronics
with fatigued wire connections at the end of a solder joint. The solder wicks
up the wire a certain
distance, making that section of wire very stiff. Where the solder stops, the
wire becomes suddenly
much less stiff, so that becomes your stress/fatigue point. This is no different
than other aspects
of airplane design, where you need to be careful about strengthening one area,
as that will
frequently cause a fatigue point somewhere else.
If you are going to solder at all, I strongly recommend you avoid creating this
stress point. One
of the other posters said "a dab of solder at the other end" -- the trimmed end
of the connection
where the wire noses just barely poke out from beneath the crimp. Thus, you would
still use crimp
connectors.
Also make sure you are using a good heat shrink material and that you shrink it
down nicely. This
provides support to avoid a stress point at the edge of the crimp.
And of course, make sure your wires aren't wiggling around. If they can wiggle
and vibrate, I would
think eventually something is going to fatigue and break.
-Joe
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 22 ga too small?
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
>
> It's been my experience that the wire breaks at the crimp point so I solder
> everything connection possible. I suspect that most companies crimp because
> it's cost not longevity.
> Wayne
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jerb" <ulflyer@verizon.net>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 22 ga too small?
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: jerb <ulflyer@verizon.net>
> >
> > TI/Raytheon built lots of military stuff, they don't solder terminals -
> > reason the wire will break at the solder point after a period of time. I
> > figure their a lot smarter about this than most of us. You know you don't
> > use solid center connector antenna wire in aircraft for the same reason.
> > jerb
> >
> >
> > At 08:49 AM 5/27/05 -0500, you wrote:
> >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> >><nuckollsr@cox.net>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >I haven't had luck finding the specific thread in the archive that I was
> >> >thinking of - referenced a 2 stroke engine installation with wires
> >> >leading
> >> >to controls/instrumentation. Had vibration induced failures. I did
> >> >find
> >> >a different thread that discussed a similar scenario:
> >> >
> >> >http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=15989953?KEYS>>
crimping_vs._soldering?LISTNAME=AeroElectric?HITNUMBER=5?SERIAL=15200432715?SHOWBUTTONS=YES
> >> >
> >> >Message number: #10218
> >> >
> >> >I guess this goes back to 'good practice' - provide strain relief,
> >> >damping, and support to all structures so that vibrational mode
> >> >frequencies are high above any normal excitation frequency. Then strain
> >> >relief becomes a much less interesting issue.
> >> >
> >> >Thanks for the discussion.
> >>
> >> Hmmmm . . . there's that term "good practice" again. Let's consider
> >> the posting cited:
> >>
> >>We have had a series of planes having problems with wires breaking because
> >>the solder flowing back into the wire 3/8 to 1/2" and making a solid to
> >>flexible junction a little ways back from the terminal. The wire will
> >>break
> >>at this
> >>junction after a while. If it is the wrong wire things get very Quite.
> >>Charles Dunn Flint Hills Technical School
> >>
> >> 3/8 to 1/2" . . . sheesh! perhaps he should try to get the whole
> >> roll of solder flowed into those joints. Many technicians fall
> >> prey to a lack of observation for the deduction of cause and
> >> effect. When you're soldering a terminal to a wire, the FIRST
> >> signs of solder appearing at the wire end of the joint is the
> >> sign to STOP . . . any more solder will not add useful features
> >> to the joint.
> >>
> >>I heard someone say don't solder wires as the vibrations will crack at
> >>some
> >>point?
> >>
> >> Yup, one of those decades old mantras that have been circulated
> >> and observed with reverence . . .
> >>
> >>I installed a battery cable last night and after crimping it I soldered
> >>it.
> >>Now if the solder cracks, it's still been crimped - so wouldn't that be
> >>the
> >>best of both worlds?
> >>
> >> No, unless he also observes the need for wire support outside
> >> EITHER a soldered or crimped joint. When you take a stranded wire
> >> and crimp it into a terminal, the stranding in the wire becomes
> >> just as solid as if it were soldered. See:
> >>
> >>http://aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
> >>
> >>and in particular . .
> >>
> >>http://aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/GL.jpg
> >>
> >> . . . here we see how the metal of the terminal and metal
> >> of the wire strands have become a single entity. This is
> >> NECESSARY for achievement of a gas-tight joint that will
> >> withstand the worst the environment can throw at it.
> >>
> >> If you review . . .
> >>
> >>http://aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf
> >>
> >> . . . you will see where I've described the importance
> >> of SUPPORT beyond the gas-tight joint . . . this applies
> >> whether the joint is soldered or crimped.
> >>
> >> There are practical exceptions. See:
> >>
> >>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/bndstrpl.jpg
> >>
> >> Here we see a finely stranded grounding jumper that
> >> has been soldered into terminals. The strands are
> >> so small and the flow of solder beyond the back of
> >> the joint is so limited as to pose no great risk to
> >> wire breakage when extra support is not provided.
> >>
> >> Some battery jumpers offered by B&C are assembled
> >> like this:
> >>
> >>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/sbl.jpg
> >>
> >> Here too the joints are soldered and the terminals
> >> fitted with rigid heat-shrink covers. This makes
> >> for a nicer looking assembly but the covers add
> >> little if any improvement in resistance to breaking
> >> for the very fine strands in the welding cable.
> >>
> >> I've considered this conversation some more last night
> >> and recalled that someone was concerned about "stress
> >> risers" in the wire. This is EXACTLY the point that
> >> makes the wire last . . . LACK of stress risers. The
> >> stranding is small so as to reduce stresses due to
> >> flexing (consider flexibility of 1/4" glass rod compared
> >> to Fiberglas strands in insulation). Review
> >> text and supporting figure 8-1 in the 'Connection.
> >>
> >> The Tefzel is a tough plastic . . . the term "plastic"
> >> implies flexibility while minimizing stress. The
> >> evolution of wire insulation materials from cotton
> >> covered rubber up through the present family of
> >> plastics has stepped to ever higher degrees of
> >> robustness and resistance to mechanical and
> >> chemical stresses.
> >>
> >> I was initially challenged by your request for the description
> >> of a repeatable experiment and after some consideration
> >> I came to realize that the supporting experiments in the
> >> case of wire have been carried out in the plastics laboratories
> >> for decades. Flexibility of the wire has not been an issue
> >> for 100+ years. Make the strands sufficiently fine and
> >> lost of strands due to flexing/vibration goes to zero.
> >> This leaves only the insulation which has taken quantum
> >> jumps about every 20 years to a level that makes the
> >> selection a VERY comfortable choice between materials
> >> that will in all likelihood outlast the airplane's
> >> service life by factors of 2-10 . . .
> >>
> >> This explains the relatively simple qualification
> >> requirements in Mil-W-22759. One wastes a lot of
> >> $time$ repeating tests that have no fallout. If there
> >> is no risk of a particular failure important to the
> >> design and application of a product, then there is
> >> no value in testing for that failure.
> >>
> >>
> >> Bob . . .
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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: LED logo lights |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: chad-c_sip@stanfordalumni.org
Chad
>My family is currently building a Lancair IVP-turbine and I'm tasked with
>doing all of the electronics and lighting. My father (the primary pilot)
>wants "logo" lights - lights that shine on the vertical stab. to improve
visibility
>at night.
Now, why couldn't I get a father like that!
>I'm considering using Lumex's SSP-LX6144A9UC high-intensity LEDs as the
>lights of choice (a PDF of their characteristics can be found at
>http://www.lumex.com/product.asp?id=1006182 - short version:
Allied is charging too much for these.
>First, can anyone else suggest a white LED that has a higher intentisty in
>the angle I'm looking for at less money total? If we decide to paint the
tail
>something like red I'll simply use a red LED as the logo light.
These things are changing by the minute. I would guess Lumileds Luxeon IIIs
would be better. Check Kingbright also. I think you should get some kind of
commitment for the tail paint before proceeding. Then look at lux (surface
brightness) per dollar. Any way you go--it's money well spent.
Remember too, that you'll do better with wide angle LEDs in the tail instead
of reflected off the tail. But maybe it won't look like the big birds.
>Secondly, I've got a question about wiring up such devices. Usually when
>wiring an LED you put a current-limiting resistor in series with the LED
and
>then put a bunch of such pairs in parallel. ..........Would that be bright
>enough to make the tail visible to other planes from far enough away to
>matter?
You've got it about right. Many people just put one current limiting
resistor before the parallel strings but I prefer to put a small ballast
resistor in each string. I theorize that this matters only when the LEDs get
old--then their original balance can get strange and whole strings will fail
"cascade". If you have 28V and the LEDs are each 3.4Vf, then seven LEDs in a
parallel string (ignoring the resistor) will not produce light below about 7
X 3.4V=24V.
So you have to trade-off using strings of LEDs with slightly fancier systems
that employ current control. For example, an LM317 and one resistor and one
(optional) capacitor is a great current controller and costs maybe 40 cents.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
"I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my father did....
Not screaming in terror like the passengers in his airplane."
--anonymous
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: LED logo lights |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
Yes, you can wire them in series to get the desired voltage drop. Be aware
that they are typically mounted on a heat sink, so you must consider what
surface you are mounting them on and make sure it can handle the heat. See
http://www.lumileds.com/pdfs/AB05.PDF for the thermal details.
Lumileds are cheaper per Watt than the ones you've described. Check these
out http://www.lumileds.com/products/family.cfm?familyId=10
Dave Morris
At 02:24 AM 6/5/2005, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: chad-c_sip@stanfordalumni.org
>
>I accidentally posted this to the avionics list instead of here. Apologies to
>those receiving it twice.
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>
>My family is currently building a Lancair IVP-turbine and I'm tasked with
>doing all of the electronics and lighting. My father (the primary pilot)
>wants
>"logo" lights - lights that shine on the vertical stab. to improve visibility
>at night. The only place I really have to mount such lights is in on the
>inside surface of the winglets which aren't themsleves very thick. Given
>that,
>I've been thinking that an array of white LED's might be a good way to get
>the
>amount of light I'm looking for while keeping the form factor very flat to
>fit
>inside the winglet.
>
>I'm considering using Lumex's SSP-LX6144A9UC high-intensity LEDs as the
>lights
>of choice (a PDF of their characteristics can be found at
>http://www.lumex.com/product.asp?id=1006182 - short version: 10 deg. double
>angle, 2 lumens total flux, 12 candella axial intensity, ~400mW). I can buy
>these at $22 ea. at Allied Electronics. I'm not 100% sure how many I'll need
>but I suspect I'll want more than 8 on a side. Ideally, I'd want a light with
>a double angle of 9 degrees.
>
>First, can anyone else suggest a white LED that has a higher intentisty in
>the
>angle I'm looking for at less money total? If we decide to paint the tail
>something like red I'll simply use a red LED as the logo light.
>
>Secondly, I've got a question about wiring up such devices. Usually when
>wiring an LED you put a current-limiting resistor in series with the LED and
>then put a bunch of such pairs in parallel. This helps to overcome the
>temperature/current correlation common in diodes (and bipolar transistors)
>that allows a single element in a parallel array to hog current and burn out
>first. However, I've got a 28v supply native to the aircraft and each LED is
>happiest with 3.4V. Could I simply put 7 of these in series with a small
>resistor to fix the desired current at 100-120 mA? That would give me 14
>lumens per side on a surface a few feet high and wide. Would that be bright
>enough to make the tail visible to other planes from far enough away to
>matter?
>
>Thanks for the input.
>
>Chad
>
>
>Chad Sipperley
>Lancair IVP-turbine (under construction)
>Phoenix, AZ
>
>
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: Stripping RG400 coax |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bobby Hester <bhester@hopkinsville.net>
Bill Call wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Call" <billcall@sbcglobal.net>
>
>Bob,
>
>I read your shop note on stripping coax with a 3-blade stripper. I
>understand you can adjust the blades for depth of cut for the RG400.
>
>My question is: There are 3-blade strippers with different lengths of cut.
>Some are .25 & .25, others are different. What are the required strip
>dimensions for the male and female BNC connectors I purchased from B&C?
>BTW, they did not come with any instructions.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Bill Call
>Lancair Super ES ~80% complete and for sale.
>
>
>
Directions: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/bnccrimp.pdf
I used my 3 blade stripper right out of the package and it worked great!
Here is a link from Dan Checkoway's site about the stripper:
http://www.rvproject.com/20041005.html
--
Surfing the Web from Hopkinsville, KY
Visit my web site at: http://www.geocities.com/hester-hoptown/RVSite/
RV7A Slowbuild wings-QB Fuse :-)
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Radio Noise Redux |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Yamokoski" <yamokosk@lakemichigancollege.edu>
<Bill, if running the radio on a separate battery made the noise
go away, then a 14v supply filter as suggested earlier is in order.
The noise abatement process can be tedious but the technique
is always the same. Isolate one potential propagation path
and explore its characteristics. All of the ideas/solutions
suggested have merit on some level but the vast majority
of noise issues involve conducted (+14v input), ground loop
(mic/headsets grounded in two or more places) and radiated
(noise comes in through antenna). Until you have eliminated
all of these as potential solutions, exploring all the
long-shots is likely to be fruitless. Each experiment takes
about the same amount of time to conduct so I'd make real
sure that you've covered the big-dogs first.
Bob . . .>
While waiting for the return of my fried radios (got em back now...just
a fuse needed replacing) I fabricated one of Bob's d-sub avionics ground
collection gizmos. Used a female solder cup type and connected all of
the wells as per Bob's article. Using crimp pins on the male side.
Works fine. I now have one ground wire coming out of the female side,
8 (as of now) on the male side. Question is, can I run that single
ground to the forest of tabs on the firewall, or should it have its own
termination point somewhere, e.g., somewhere on the cage? Thanks for
any input.
Bill Yamokoski
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: B&C toggle switches |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Chad -
I goofed. Memory is not a substitute from checking the items. Chris is
right-on.
John
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chris Byrne"
> <jack.byrne@bigpond.com>
>
> Chad
>
> Just received an order from B & C today.
> They are not all the same width.
> S700-1-3 are 1/2 in wide.
> S700-2-3 are 3/4 inch wide
> S700-2-10 are 3/4 inch wide.
>
> This is eyeball, didn't put a ruler on them, but there is a definite dif
> in
> size.
>
> All the same size round mounting hole though.
>
> Chris Byrne
> Sydney
>
>
--
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: B&C toggle switches |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Chad -
We got 2-10, 2-50, 2-3 & 1-3. They are all the same size and form factor.
I believe that all of the switches are of the same line made by Carling.
John
Lancair ES - 80%
>
> Are the switches sold by B&C all the same size regardless of how many
> poles?
> The only drawing I see has their width at 0.750".
>
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: Stripping RG400 coax |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Bill -
We used the BNC's from B&C almost exclusively because of the quality. The
cheaper ones seemed to be harder to crimp - especially the last crimp on
the ferrule - hard to get it fully down over the braid.
Am sending a .pdf of the assembly instructions for the B&C item to you on
the ES mail list. Can't do it on this list. I believe they are Amphenols.
We bought the same stripper and it is hard to get the exact dimensions set
forth in the assembly instructions, but they are close enough to get good
seating of the center pin and good crimps on the RG-400.
Try this website if you buy a different model of Amphenols:
http://www.amphenolrf.com/sitetools/assembly.asp
Put the part number in the blank and search for the right page. We bought
a TNC and a couple of angle connectors and they have their own pages of
assembly instructions.
Cheers,
John
On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 06:41:26 -0700, Bill Call <billcall@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Call"
> <billcall@sbcglobal.net>
> My question is: There are 3-blade strippers with different lengths of
> cut. Some are .25 & .25, others are different. What are the required
> strip
> dimensions for the male and female BNC connectors I purchased from B&C?
> BTW, they did not come with any instructions.
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: 22 ga too small? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
There is nothing wrong with 22 gage, they make it for a reason. Mostly in large
aircraft with lots of wires, you save (a lot of) weight. However in a small
airplane you are not going to save much weight. There is also nothing wrong with
just making 20 gage or even 18 gage the min gage for your project. Depending
on how much wire you have you can easily determine the weight penalty for over
sizing wire runs.
***** The biggest problem with a 22 gage wire is handling it and the crimp connector
itself. With a smaller 22-gage wire, the crimp connector size is important.
Any connector you use, the 22-gage wire is going to be on the small end of
the crimp connectors range which is usually from 18-22 gage. The smaller 22-gage
wire does not fill the crimp terminal as well a 18 gage and therefore good
crimp operations; technique, connector quality/size and good quality tool are
more critical. ******
There are work-arounds, but make sure you have the proper sized crimp terminal.
Also some just feel that 22 gage is harder to stip and handle, that is a good
reason also to use a bigger wire (smaller gage).
Strength wise the bigger wires are going to be slightly physically stronger and
likely to take more abuse and vibration. However this is not always factor, so
the 22 gage gets the job done and can be just as durable. Why add the weight.
Again for the small amount of wires in a small plane it does not make too much
difference. In a B747 all the wire together, stretched out would go around
the world or to the moon or some crazy trivia like that.
As far as soldering, I don't want to make this a debate because there has been
so much definitive things written about it, but you can solder very carefully
and strain relief to get a good quality joint. However in most cases a good crimp
joint is best (if done properly) and is well suited for large commercial production.
As an individual we can take our time to make "watch work" joints with
carefully applied dabs of solder and heat shrink and get a good joint, but
it takes more time and skill. Soldered wires where they want to flex is bad,
as we know. If they don't flex or you keep solder away from those areas, it is
not a problem. Makes sense.
Cheers George
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: 22 ga too small? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
George -
A couple of comments on your excellent discussion of wire sizing.
One, is that a lot of avionics plugs are mini d-sub and the largest wire
(I was informed by an avionics installer) for these is 22 AWG. For doing
avionics, especially the audio panels, doing it all in 20 would really
make for rather large and stiff wire bundles in a cramped space aft of,
and to the sides of the stack. Machined pins (B&C, Stein Air, ...) and the
right crimper makes 22 AWG very easy to work with on avionics wiring in
d-subs and AMP CPC Type 2 plugs & receptacles.
Cheers,
John
On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 11:03:28 -0700 (PDT), <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>
>
> There is nothing wrong with 22 gage, they make it for a reason. Mostly
> in large aircraft with lots of wires, you save (a lot of) weight.
> However in a small airplane you are not going to save much weight. There
> is also nothing wrong with just making 20 gage or even 18 gage the min
> gage for your project. Depending on how much wire you have you can
> easily determine the weight penalty for over sizing wire runs.
>
>
> ***** The biggest problem with a 22 gage wire is handling it and the
> crimp connector itself. With a smaller 22-gage wire, the crimp
> connector size is important. Any connector you use, the 22-gage wire is
> going to be on the small end of the crimp connectors range which is
> usually from 18-22 gage. The smaller 22-gage wire does not fill the
> crimp terminal as well a 18 gage and therefore good crimp operations;
> technique, connector quality/size and good quality tool are more
> critical. ******
>
>
> There are work-arounds, but make sure you have the proper sized crimp
> terminal. Also some just feel that 22 gage is harder to stip and handle,
> that is a good reason also to use a bigger wire (smaller gage).
>
>
> Strength wise the bigger wires are going to be slightly physically
> stronger and likely to take more abuse and vibration. However this is
> not always factor, so the 22 gage gets the job done and can be just as
> durable. Why add the weight. Again for the small amount of wires in a
> small plane it does not make too much difference. In a B747 all the wire
> together, stretched out would go around the world or to the moon or some
> crazy trivia like that.
>
>
> As far as soldering, I don't want to make this a debate because there
> has been so much definitive things written about it, but you can solder
> very carefully and strain relief to get a good quality joint. However in
> most cases a good crimp joint is best (if done properly) and is well
> suited for large commercial production. As an individual we can take our
> time to make "watch work" joints with carefully applied dabs of solder
> and heat shrink and get a good joint, but it takes more time and skill.
> Soldered wires where they want to flex is bad, as we know. If they
> don't flex or you keep solder away from those areas, it is not a
> problem. Makes sense.
>
>
> Cheers George
>
>
--
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: | Wanted-Narco Transponder Tray |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <jlundberg@cox.net>
Does anyone have a Narco Transponer tray to sell??
John
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Radio Noise Redux |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Hi Bill
Yes I'm pretty sure your best bet is to run it to your forrest of tabs.
Ken
William Yamokoski wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Yamokoski" <yamokosk@lakemichigancollege.edu>
>
><Bill, if running the radio on a separate battery made the noise
> go away, then a 14v supply filter as suggested earlier is in order.
>
> The noise abatement process can be tedious but the technique
> is always the same. Isolate one potential propagation path
> and explore its characteristics. All of the ideas/solutions
> suggested have merit on some level but the vast majority
> of noise issues involve conducted (+14v input), ground loop
> (mic/headsets grounded in two or more places) and radiated
> (noise comes in through antenna). Until you have eliminated
> all of these as potential solutions, exploring all the
> long-shots is likely to be fruitless. Each experiment takes
> about the same amount of time to conduct so I'd make real
> sure that you've covered the big-dogs first.
>
> Bob . . .>
>
>While waiting for the return of my fried radios (got em back now...just
>a fuse needed replacing) I fabricated one of Bob's d-sub avionics ground
>collection gizmos. Used a female solder cup type and connected all of
>the wells as per Bob's article. Using crimp pins on the male side.
>Works fine. I now have one ground wire coming out of the female side,
>8 (as of now) on the male side. Question is, can I run that single
>ground to the forest of tabs on the firewall, or should it have its own
>termination point somewhere, e.g., somewhere on the cage? Thanks for
>any input.
>Bill Yamokoski
>
>
>
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: CBA-II battery tester and $low$ NiMh cells |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja@starpower.net>
Thanks Ken. That certainly makes sense, but I'm also glad to know that
the LM 317 family will work in parallel, if desired for other purposes.
Jim
Ken wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>
> Hi Jim
> Yes LM317's work fine in parallel but the voltage range of interest is
> so small that I think a resistor is just fine. Once the battery voltage
> drops about 2 volts it is for all practical purposes fully discharged
> and items will begin dropping offline. I think the number is 95%
> discharged at 10.5 volts but it is in the archives a number of times.
> The current through a resistor won't change that much over this voltage
> range.
> Ken
>
> J. Mcculley wrote:
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja@starpower.net>
>>
>>Maybe I missed it but I don't believe anyone responded to my 4/26/05
>>comment and question as repeated below. My assumption is that for
>>confirming that the installed battery has adequate capacity to support
>>some known endurance-buss load, a battery capacity-test should duplicate
>>the constant current load that the buss must support for a
>>pre-determined time. OR is it that most buss loads operate on
>>proportionally less current as buss voltage drops, similar to the way a
>>typical resistive load responds, and therefore a resistive test-load is
>>adequate, rather than a constant-current load?
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: 22 ga too small? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
I just finished doing some DB-9 connectors for a Rocky Mountain Instruments
MicroEncoder and a Grand Rapids Technologies EIS. I had a mix of 22 and 20
gauge wires that worked just fine with my standard crimp style pins. I did
some .093 Molex pins recently too, and had everything from 22 to 10 gauge.
I understand all the theory about crimping being better than
soldering. But I know for a fact that it's a lot easier (for me anyway) to
make a poor crimp connection that pulls apart, than it is to make a poor
solder connection. I have to do a lot more closer inspection of the
finished product on a crimp connector.
And there is a HUGE difference between the $40 crimp tool at B&C than the
cheaper "generic" crimp tools that just basically mangle the connector. If
you're going to crimp, be sure to get the best possible crimp tool FOR THAT
CONNECTOR, because if you try to "wing it" with the wrong tool or with
pliers, your connectors will be worse than soldered.
Dave Morris
At 02:15 PM 6/5/2005, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder"
><jschroeder@perigee.net>
>
>George -
>
>A couple of comments on your excellent discussion of wire sizing.
>
>One, is that a lot of avionics plugs are mini d-sub and the largest wire
>(I was informed by an avionics installer) for these is 22 AWG. For doing
>avionics, especially the audio panels, doing it all in 20 would really
>make for rather large and stiff wire bundles in a cramped space aft of,
>and to the sides of the stack. Machined pins (B&C, Stein Air, ...) and the
>right crimper makes 22 AWG very easy to work with on avionics wiring in
>d-subs and AMP CPC Type 2 plugs & receptacles.
>
>Cheers,
>
>John
>
>
>On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 11:03:28 -0700 (PDT), <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
> >
> >
> > There is nothing wrong with 22 gage, they make it for a reason. Mostly
> > in large aircraft with lots of wires, you save (a lot of) weight.
> > However in a small airplane you are not going to save much weight. There
> > is also nothing wrong with just making 20 gage or even 18 gage the min
> > gage for your project. Depending on how much wire you have you can
> > easily determine the weight penalty for over sizing wire runs.
> >
> >
> > ***** The biggest problem with a 22 gage wire is handling it and the
> > crimp connector itself. With a smaller 22-gage wire, the crimp
> > connector size is important. Any connector you use, the 22-gage wire is
> > going to be on the small end of the crimp connectors range which is
> > usually from 18-22 gage. The smaller 22-gage wire does not fill the
> > crimp terminal as well a 18 gage and therefore good crimp operations;
> > technique, connector quality/size and good quality tool are more
> > critical. ******
> >
> >
> > There are work-arounds, but make sure you have the proper sized crimp
> > terminal. Also some just feel that 22 gage is harder to stip and handle,
> > that is a good reason also to use a bigger wire (smaller gage).
> >
> >
> > Strength wise the bigger wires are going to be slightly physically
> > stronger and likely to take more abuse and vibration. However this is
> > not always factor, so the 22 gage gets the job done and can be just as
> > durable. Why add the weight. Again for the small amount of wires in a
> > small plane it does not make too much difference. In a B747 all the wire
> > together, stretched out would go around the world or to the moon or some
> > crazy trivia like that.
> >
> >
> > As far as soldering, I don't want to make this a debate because there
> > has been so much definitive things written about it, but you can solder
> > very carefully and strain relief to get a good quality joint. However in
> > most cases a good crimp joint is best (if done properly) and is well
> > suited for large commercial production. As an individual we can take our
> > time to make "watch work" joints with carefully applied dabs of solder
> > and heat shrink and get a good joint, but it takes more time and skill.
> > Soldered wires where they want to flex is bad, as we know. If they
> > don't flex or you keep solder away from those areas, it is not a
> > problem. Makes sense.
> >
> >
> > Cheers George
> >
> >
>
>
>--
>
>
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 |
|
Z-USANET-MsgId: XID937JFFDuR0046X31
1.25 RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO Received: contains an IP address used for HELO
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: chad-c_sip@stanfordalumni.org
Bob mentions bundles of wires in his book. I'm sure I could find all sorts of
wire bundles at my local Radio Shack or Fry's Electronics, but there's no
telling what kind of wire that is. Does anyone have a good source of Tefzel
wire bundles? Shielded or unshielded is fine by me.
Thanks folks.
Chad
Chad Sipperley
Lancair IVP-turbine (under construction)
Phoenix, AZ
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: | Subject: battery charger/maintainers |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Emrath" <emrath@comcast.net>
Bob, I stopped at my local Wall Mart today and they didn't have this model,
but said they had been upgraded to model WM600A. The man at the store said
it was the same but now "you can mount it on the wall". Price was $25.86
here in Nashville TN. Also, I could not find either of these on the Wall
Mart web site.
Marty in Brentwood TN
Subject: battery charger/maintainers
I've finished testing the Schumacher WM-1562A charger/maintainer
and find it to be a very satisfactory product and good value at
$18 from Wallmart.
The Harbor Freight 38895 charger doesn't kick
into the CHARGE mode unless the battery being serviced is below
4 volts. I DO NOT recommend this product.
Bob . . .
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tefzel bundles |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TSaccio@aol.com
_Click here: WireMasters, Inc @ 800-635-5342 -[or]- EMail wminfo @
wiremasters.net_ (http://www.wiremasters.net/)
Try this company. Tom Saccio
_tsaccio@aol.com_ (mailto:tsaccio@aol.com)
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein@steinair.com>
Typically, most places carry the "M27500" (That's the mil spec for shielded
multi-conductor tefzel) which is the shielded multi-conductor wire.
Unshielded multi-conductor cables are not commonly stocked by many retailers
or distributors, due to the cost, and frankly if you don't need it shielded
it's just not worth the much higher cost for multi-conductor cable IMHO.
B&C (http://www.bandc.biz) has a lot of wire in stock, and we stock 2,3&4
conductor AWG22 shielded wire. Above 4 conductors gets REALLY expensive and
pretty difficult to find - I know I can buy it up to 20 conductors, but then
I'd have a bunch of it sitting here and never sell it. I think Van's and
ACS also stock some multi-conductor cable as well. Wiremasters is a good
outfit, but they're more of a distributor than retailer, and usually want
you to buy hundreds of feet at a time (although I know people have gotten
smaller amounts occasionally) - for someone like us who buy 10's of
thousands of feet, those are ok places to shop, but for a few foot chunks
they usually aren't too excited..though it can't hurt to try.
Cheers,
Stein.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
chad-c_sip@stanfordalumni.org
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Tefzel bundles
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: chad-c_sip@stanfordalumni.org
Bob mentions bundles of wires in his book. I'm sure I could find all sorts
of
wire bundles at my local Radio Shack or Fry's Electronics, but there's no
telling what kind of wire that is. Does anyone have a good source of Tefzel
wire bundles? Shielded or unshielded is fine by me.
Thanks folks.
Chad
Chad Sipperley
Lancair IVP-turbine (under construction)
Phoenix, AZ
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tefzel bundles |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Wysong <hdwysong@gmail.com>
Chad -
Stein's a humble chap so I'll throw in a shameless plug on his behalf:
steinair.com
We've ordered plenty of tefzel wire from his shop and have been
pleased with the prompt service. I'd also recommend making your own
multiconductor bundles because (1) costs to do otherwise are plain
silly, and (2) there's no magic to it. Buy the wire gauge you want
and bundle away. If you're feeling really ambitious add a protective
overbraid to your harness.
D Wysong
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! --
|