Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:08 AM - Re: Paul Messinger (Tim Olson)
2. 05:32 AM - Re: Paul Messinger (Vern W.)
3. 05:56 AM - OVM trips on Alt Restart (Mike Holland)
4. 05:56 AM - Re: I've got a secret (Dave Morris \)
5. 06:36 AM - Re: So where's my award? (Eric M. Jones)
6. 06:36 AM - Re: So where's my award? (Chuck Jensen)
7. 07:08 AM - Re: Noise from strobe PS (Matt Jurotich)
8. 07:08 AM - Re: So where's my award? (Harold Kovac)
9. 07:20 AM - Re: So where's my award? (Way Off Topic) (Guy Buchanan)
10. 07:29 AM - Re: "So where's my award?"--A New & Bigger Mess(inger) (Mark & Lisa)
11. 07:43 AM - Re: I've got a secret (Pat Hatch)
12. 07:47 AM - Message for Messinger (Fergus Kyle)
13. 07:54 AM - Re: Re: So where's my award? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 08:12 AM - Re: OVM trips on Alt Restart (Ken)
15. 08:52 AM - real data on OVP/etc (Paul Messinger)
16. 09:26 AM - Re: real data on OVP/etc (Gerry Holland)
17. 10:46 AM - Re: Suzuki G13 engine with BRS (Traveling Man)
18. 12:04 PM - Re: OVM trips on Alt Restart (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
19. 12:48 PM - Re: OVM trips on Alt Restart (Joseph Larson)
20. 01:19 PM - Re: OVM trips on Alt Restart (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
21. 01:53 PM - Re: I've got a secret (John Schroeder)
22. 06:39 PM - Tranpsonder Coax Connection (Tinne maha)
23. 06:55 PM - Help locating a 7-10 Amp, 12 V Diodes (Mark Banus)
24. 07:25 PM - Re: Tranpsonder Coax Connection (John Swartout)
25. 07:32 PM - Re: Tranpsonder Coax Connection (Wayne Sweet)
26. 07:34 PM - Re: Tranpsonder Coax Connection (Wayne Sweet)
27. 07:59 PM - Re: Help locating a 7-10 Amp, 12 V Diodes (chad-c_sip@stanfordalumni.org)
28. 08:22 PM - Re: I've got a secret (Richard Riley)
29. 08:26 PM - Re: Help locating a 7-10 Amp, 12 V Diodes (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
30. 09:40 PM - Fw: Eric and the epoxy (Rob W M Shipley)
31. 10:43 PM - OVM trips on Alt restart (Mike Holland)
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: Paul Messinger |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Man, all I want is to actually see a circuit, similar to a Z-diagram,
that shows exactly what Paul is talking about. I *REALLY* don't want
to have to shell out a couple thousand bucks for a good pair of
alternators and regulators if it can be done better and more
realiably with new technology. In fact, at OSH yesterday I
finally ran into something that I'm going to look into a bit
more, but it's based on crowbar technology as well...but could
at least save some good cash.
I think that Paul & Bob should take the personal garbage offline,
but post only technical stuff. Bob seems to be at worst, an honorable
intentioned guy. Paul, I'd absolutely LOVE to see your circut,
and if it was posted and explained, I think you'd get a good
following of your own, but when all we get is these finger-pointing
exchanges between you and Bob, it *really* doesn't make you
look good. Wouldn't it be cool if your circuit was starter
as a whole series, like Y-12, Y-13, Y14, and was all part
of the book, with full credit given, and you were turned into
the revolutionary new mind in the homebuilt electrical system
world? From what I see of Bob, he'd be happy to share the
spotlight if you could just put out something to us all that
would actually help our community. Even if you won't post it
to the list, I'd *LOVE* to see your circuit. I'm running
out of time before I need to wire mine in....and today all I
can do is use a customized Z-12 thru 14 mish-mash. I'm just
praying that at worst, I have a system that works, but cost
me way too much money. With your help, if you're true to your
preaching, I could have a system that works *better* and spend
way less money....in my book, having that ability would raise
your image a lot....but, without jumping in to help the community,
you make yourself look worse with every new email.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #40170
Engine at AeroSport booth, Panel at SteinAir
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Gerry Holland wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gerry Holland <gholland@gemini-resourcing.com>
>
> I apologise up front to the group for being long winded.
>
> Paul Messinger
>
> Why have YOU not lived up to your commitment to the rest of the Group as
> quoted below from your dramatically delivered e-mail of April 23rd 2005.
>
> I Quote:
> I apologize to the group and I do not expect to ever post here again and I
> will ask that no one else forwards a press release of mine to this group.
>
> Why have you not taken your own advice as stated in YOUR e-mail of July 15th
> 2005.
>
> I quote:
> NO this not mean a return to posting but I will respond to what I feel are
> misstatements of my words.
>
> NO one has misstated your words. In this case you just jump on a bandwagon
> after Eric Jones e-mail regarding an award and snipe away and pontificate.
>
> Eric's comments although sometimes on the edge of rudeness for me are
> normally scattered with some respectful comments and his product knowledge
> has been turned into a product range that is always a good consideration or
> use. He is one of life's character and long may he remain.
>
> Whether you intend it or not, and allowing for the smallest mitigation of
> misinterpretation due to e-mail syntax your input to this group is nothing
> short of a whinging tirade of self importance.
>
> Quoting you again from 23rd April 2005 and using your verbal dexterity to
> amend words:
>
> I quote: What part of private do you not understand??
>
> What part of committing to leave the Group do YOU not understand!
>
> Please give us your technical solution, turn it into a product and then
> expose it to the vagaries of use by hundreds of Home builders around the
> world with their own particular and varied levels of expertise. Eric is
> doing it, Bob is doing it and both know they are open to criticism and
> product failure. The vast amount of criticism and comment on this group is
> balanced and valid. Products do get modified to remove or improve points of
> failure.
>
> Yours is a tirade based on I dont agree because it isn't what I want or
> believe.
>
> You have a right to object, should be able to object but not as a series of
> guerrilla attacks on this Forum as and when you feel like hearing your own
> voice.
>
> Do me a favour at least please. Give us 24 hours email notice that you are
> building up for a sanctimonious outburst and I can adjust my spam filter to
> remove the inevitable following tirade from you.
>
> Paul. Either keep quiet as you keep threatening or build us this perfect
> product you have in your mind based on the often quoted experience you have
> and put in on the market.
>
> Again. My apologies to the rest of the group for my obvious irritated
> outburst.
>
> Regards
>
> Gerry
>
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: Paul Messinger |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vern W." <vernw@ev1.net>
I'd like to avoid going through a tedious search, but I "seem" to recall
that Paul Messinger had some kind of perfect architecture but he couldn't
release it because he was using it on some kind of proprietary project.
Fine. But until Paul is willing to be as open about his designs as Bob
N. is, it just makes him look a bit childish in that all he has to do is to
criticise others but doesn't feel he has to follow up with his own
"expertise". It appears that Bob has done a LOT of proprietary design for
commercial ventures, but he doesn't appear to have a problem with sharing
all the relevant stuff with others.
Paul, if you got something, publish it.
Vern
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Olson" <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Paul Messinger
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
> Man, all I want is to actually see a circuit, similar to a Z-diagram,
> that shows exactly what Paul is talking about. I *REALLY* don't want
> to have to shell out a couple thousand bucks for a good pair of
> alternators and regulators if it can be done better and more
> realiably with new technology. In fact, at OSH yesterday I
> finally ran into something that I'm going to look into a bit
> more, but it's based on crowbar technology as well...but could
> at least save some good cash.
>
> I think that Paul & Bob should take the personal garbage offline,
> but post only technical stuff. Bob seems to be at worst, an honorable
> intentioned guy. Paul, I'd absolutely LOVE to see your circut,
> and if it was posted and explained, I think you'd get a good
> following of your own, but when all we get is these finger-pointing
> exchanges between you and Bob, it *really* doesn't make you
> look good. Wouldn't it be cool if your circuit was starter
> as a whole series, like Y-12, Y-13, Y14, and was all part
> of the book, with full credit given, and you were turned into
> the revolutionary new mind in the homebuilt electrical system
> world? From what I see of Bob, he'd be happy to share the
> spotlight if you could just put out something to us all that
> would actually help our community. Even if you won't post it
> to the list, I'd *LOVE* to see your circuit. I'm running
> out of time before I need to wire mine in....and today all I
> can do is use a customized Z-12 thru 14 mish-mash. I'm just
> praying that at worst, I have a system that works, but cost
> me way too much money. With your help, if you're true to your
> preaching, I could have a system that works *better* and spend
> way less money....in my book, having that ability would raise
> your image a lot....but, without jumping in to help the community,
> you make yourself look worse with every new email.
>
> Tim Olson -- RV-10 #40170
> Engine at AeroSport booth, Panel at SteinAir
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
>
> Gerry Holland wrote:
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gerry Holland
<gholland@gemini-resourcing.com>
> >
> > I apologise up front to the group for being long winded.
> >
> > Paul Messinger
> >
> > Why have YOU not lived up to your commitment to the rest of the Group as
> > quoted below from your dramatically delivered e-mail of April 23rd 2005.
> >
> > I Quote:
> > I apologize to the group and I do not expect to ever post here again and
I
> > will ask that no one else forwards a press release of mine to this
group.
> >
> > Why have you not taken your own advice as stated in YOUR e-mail of July
15th
> > 2005.
> >
> > I quote:
> > NO this not mean a return to posting but I will respond to what I feel
are
> > misstatements of my words.
> >
> > NO one has misstated your words. In this case you just jump on a
bandwagon
> > after Eric Jones e-mail regarding an award and snipe away and
pontificate.
> >
> > Eric's comments although sometimes on the edge of rudeness for me are
> > normally scattered with some respectful comments and his product
knowledge
> > has been turned into a product range that is always a good consideration
or
> > use. He is one of life's character and long may he remain.
> >
> > Whether you intend it or not, and allowing for the smallest mitigation
of
> > misinterpretation due to e-mail syntax your input to this group is
nothing
> > short of a whinging tirade of self importance.
> >
> > Quoting you again from 23rd April 2005 and using your verbal dexterity
to
> > amend words:
> >
> > I quote: What part of private do you not understand??
> >
> > What part of committing to leave the Group do YOU not understand!
> >
> > Please give us your technical solution, turn it into a product and then
> > expose it to the vagaries of use by hundreds of Home builders around the
> > world with their own particular and varied levels of expertise. Eric is
> > doing it, Bob is doing it and both know they are open to criticism and
> > product failure. The vast amount of criticism and comment on this group
is
> > balanced and valid. Products do get modified to remove or improve points
of
> > failure.
> >
> > Yours is a tirade based on I dont agree because it isn't what I want or
> > believe.
> >
> > You have a right to object, should be able to object but not as a series
of
> > guerrilla attacks on this Forum as and when you feel like hearing your
own
> > voice.
> >
> > Do me a favour at least please. Give us 24 hours email notice that you
are
> > building up for a sanctimonious outburst and I can adjust my spam filter
to
> > remove the inevitable following tirade from you.
> >
> > Paul. Either keep quiet as you keep threatening or build us this perfect
> > product you have in your mind based on the often quoted experience you
have
> > and put in on the market.
> >
> > Again. My apologies to the rest of the group for my obvious irritated
> > outburst.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Gerry
> >
>
>
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: | OVM trips on Alt Restart |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Holland" <hollandm@pacbell.net>
Bob, etal. Wiring per Z13 and Z24, Vans 60amp internally regulated Alt.
Situation, pilot forgot to start alternator, discovers battery voltage in-flight,
tries to start alternator at cruise rpm and Bingo, trips the Alt. breaker (5amp).
In my opinion this shouldn't happen with a robust electrical system. Is this an
"oversensitive or defective OVM (B&C)? How would I go about finding out? I'm
not an electrical engineer.
Or is there a better, safer, way to restart an alternator, in-flight. Alternators
shut down for various reasons, sometimes for test purposes, sometimes because
a distracted pilot forgets to start it, whatever. Any wiring system that
won't permit in-flight restart of a perfectly functional alternator isn't acceptable.
Regards,
Mike Holland
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: I've got a secret |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
You probably won't see it. I've encountered this before. It's the "I've
got a secret" game. Look it up in any good psych textbook.
Dave Morris
At 07:31 AM 7/28/2005, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Vern W." <vernw@ev1.net>
>
> I'd like to avoid going through a tedious search, but I "seem" to recall
>that Paul Messinger had some kind of perfect architecture but he couldn't
>release it because he was using it on some kind of proprietary project.
> Fine. But until Paul is willing to be as open about his designs as Bob
>N. is, it just makes him look a bit childish in that all he has to do is to
>criticise others but doesn't feel he has to follow up with his own
>"expertise". It appears that Bob has done a LOT of proprietary design for
>commercial ventures, but he doesn't appear to have a problem with sharing
>all the relevant stuff with others.
> Paul, if you got something, publish it.
>
>Vern
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Tim Olson" <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Paul Messinger
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
> >
> > Man, all I want is to actually see a circuit, similar to a Z-diagram,
> > that shows exactly what Paul is talking about. I *REALLY* don't want
> > to have to shell out a couple thousand bucks for a good pair of
> > alternators and regulators if it can be done better and more
> > realiably with new technology. In fact, at OSH yesterday I
> > finally ran into something that I'm going to look into a bit
> > more, but it's based on crowbar technology as well...but could
> > at least save some good cash.
> >
> > I think that Paul & Bob should take the personal garbage offline,
> > but post only technical stuff. Bob seems to be at worst, an honorable
> > intentioned guy. Paul, I'd absolutely LOVE to see your circut,
> > and if it was posted and explained, I think you'd get a good
> > following of your own, but when all we get is these finger-pointing
> > exchanges between you and Bob, it *really* doesn't make you
> > look good. Wouldn't it be cool if your circuit was starter
> > as a whole series, like Y-12, Y-13, Y14, and was all part
> > of the book, with full credit given, and you were turned into
> > the revolutionary new mind in the homebuilt electrical system
> > world? From what I see of Bob, he'd be happy to share the
> > spotlight if you could just put out something to us all that
> > would actually help our community. Even if you won't post it
> > to the list, I'd *LOVE* to see your circuit. I'm running
> > out of time before I need to wire mine in....and today all I
> > can do is use a customized Z-12 thru 14 mish-mash. I'm just
> > praying that at worst, I have a system that works, but cost
> > me way too much money. With your help, if you're true to your
> > preaching, I could have a system that works *better* and spend
> > way less money....in my book, having that ability would raise
> > your image a lot....but, without jumping in to help the community,
> > you make yourself look worse with every new email.
> >
> > Tim Olson -- RV-10 #40170
> > Engine at AeroSport booth, Panel at SteinAir
> >
> > DO NOT ARCHIVE
> >
> >
> > Gerry Holland wrote:
> > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gerry Holland
><gholland@gemini-resourcing.com>
> > >
> > > I apologise up front to the group for being long winded.
> > >
> > > Paul Messinger
> > >
> > > Why have YOU not lived up to your commitment to the rest of the Group as
> > > quoted below from your dramatically delivered e-mail of April 23rd 2005.
> > >
> > > I Quote:
> > > I apologize to the group and I do not expect to ever post here again and
>I
> > > will ask that no one else forwards a press release of mine to this
>group.
> > >
> > > Why have you not taken your own advice as stated in YOUR e-mail of July
>15th
> > > 2005.
> > >
> > > I quote:
> > > NO this not mean a return to posting but I will respond to what I feel
>are
> > > misstatements of my words.
> > >
> > > NO one has misstated your words. In this case you just jump on a
>bandwagon
> > > after Eric Jones e-mail regarding an award and snipe away and
>pontificate.
> > >
> > > Eric's comments although sometimes on the edge of rudeness for me are
> > > normally scattered with some respectful comments and his product
>knowledge
> > > has been turned into a product range that is always a good consideration
>or
> > > use. He is one of life's character and long may he remain.
> > >
> > > Whether you intend it or not, and allowing for the smallest mitigation
>of
> > > misinterpretation due to e-mail syntax your input to this group is
>nothing
> > > short of a whinging tirade of self importance.
> > >
> > > Quoting you again from 23rd April 2005 and using your verbal dexterity
>to
> > > amend words:
> > >
> > > I quote: What part of private do you not understand??
> > >
> > > What part of committing to leave the Group do YOU not understand!
> > >
> > > Please give us your technical solution, turn it into a product and then
> > > expose it to the vagaries of use by hundreds of Home builders around the
> > > world with their own particular and varied levels of expertise. Eric is
> > > doing it, Bob is doing it and both know they are open to criticism and
> > > product failure. The vast amount of criticism and comment on this group
>is
> > > balanced and valid. Products do get modified to remove or improve points
>of
> > > failure.
> > >
> > > Yours is a tirade based on I dont agree because it isn't what I want or
> > > believe.
> > >
> > > You have a right to object, should be able to object but not as a series
>of
> > > guerrilla attacks on this Forum as and when you feel like hearing your
>own
> > > voice.
> > >
> > > Do me a favour at least please. Give us 24 hours email notice that you
>are
> > > building up for a sanctimonious outburst and I can adjust my spam filter
>to
> > > remove the inevitable following tirade from you.
> > >
> > > Paul. Either keep quiet as you keep threatening or build us this perfect
> > > product you have in your mind based on the often quoted experience you
>have
> > > and put in on the market.
> > >
> > > Again. My apologies to the rest of the group for my obvious irritated
> > > outburst.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Gerry
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
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: So where's my award? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
nuckollsr@cox.net
>Please sir, "stick it to me".
>Bob . . .
My point-by-point arguments do not need a point-by-point response since my
arguments are basically expressions of gut instincts:
I fervently believe that a discussion of technical issues is skewed
irretrievably by an Imprimatur on a particular technical approach.
All ideas, of course, are not created equal. But when one idea comes
equipped with an award certificate--some people might think it means
something. Does your award for Ken's anti-glitch capacitor for the crowbar
OVP somehow make the approach better than a non-crowbar "linear" approach?
We've been on opposite sides of this technical debate for a year. Now you
put a gold sticker on it? What is one to think?
Please be certain that your expressions of approval and encouragement ARE
ALWAYS appreciated by those on this website. My disagreement has only to do
with the subtleties.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
Teamwork: " A lot of people doing exactly what I say."
(Marketing exec., Citrix Corp.)
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: | So where's my award? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
Ah huh. So, now we're playing hide-and-seek. Paul hides his
information (under the generous assumption it exists) and Bob, et al is
supposed to seek it out. I think not.
Chuck
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Messinger
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: So where's my award?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger"
<paulm@olypen.com>
Bob: You are correct I never told you "exactly" why the OVP was prone to
tripping. I did repeatedly point out under what conditions it did (and
at
least once you agreed that my specific condition could cause false
tripping)
BUT you never seemed follow up on that tip.
I showed the circuit to two other qualified electronic engineers and
they
both immediately saw several problems(the same ones I saw).
I thus assumed you were not interested in my findings as below you
continue
repeat the "mantra" :-) of the past "sold thousands and neglable
feedback".
I have dozens of false tripping reports as does Eric and for the most
part
the builder simply throws the OVP away as for the cost of dealing with
"infamous verbose hassle" you show the poster on the web its simply not
worth it. Ever really wonder why with all the people who listen why so
few
post??? No mystery to many of us :-)
You as the designer needs to prove its a good design NOT the other way
around where the detractor must prove you wrong.
Never heard of that (your) approach anywhere else but from you. MY total
design experience is that, when the design is questioned, the designer
must
prove the questioner is wrong (assuming there is some semblance of
credibility in the questioner and in my career that was always a given).
It has been my experience that telling someone how to spot a design
problem
has large educational value in teaching how to design in the future, to
detail the specific fix to the problem has little educational value.
Thus I
simply pointed out where to look and assumed that if you were interested
you
would follow up. In this case its not hard to see the problem(s) but so
far
not all the design issues (in the OVP) have been properly looked at and
corrected. One source of false tripping has been defined but there is
another to be corrected.
Finally please do not lay back and think the OVP is now bug free. Far
from
it, it still has another design issue that causes false tripping as well
as
severe overstress in one part under reasonable application conditions.
Worst
case design is worst on worst case over part tolerance and temperature
conditions (a max value and a min value some times produce the worst
case so
its not a simple all max or all min values that are really worst case
conditions) and also the so called "RSS" is not worst case and while it
is
often used to get a marginal design to show its valid when its really
not.
A straight forward worst case circuit analysis using real bus voltage
level
transients (fast and slow) will immediately show another design short
coming. In my case the patched design (my version) worked most of the
time
under DO-160 and failed all of the time under the harder to pass
automotive
design requirement conditions. My test conditions were nominal
components
under typical modern aircraft designs NOT some "wild worst case
approach" to
try to prove a design wrong. In fact I had no idea that the OVP had a
design
problem until I tried to use it in the Load Dump testing of 1 1/2 years
ago.
There it failed 100% of the time and so did a second unit. I was forced
to
find and fix the design. As I feel its not a good design approach I
simply
patched it and pressed on. I do not feel its my place to spend time
trying
to prove to you that the details are defective when the concept is
defective
in my opinion.
IS a better design approach available YES. Is it more reliable YES. Does
it
eliminate the unintended side affects of the current design YES. So why
do
we continue to stick our head in the sand and refuse to use more modern
technology? Beats me :-)
I have never seen any worst case analysis on any of your designs. If I
missed one please send me the link.
I have been considering posting more details on this general subject and
I
may in the near future limited to the specific subject of OVP and
internally
regulated alternators as there are some industry wide truths (facts that
is)
that seem to be missing from posts on this list that directly contradict
what is frequently posted as truths etc.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: So where's my award?
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> What kind of "bonuses" are we talking about here? Mr. Lehman has
> received nothing more than my enthusiastic appreciation for
> illuminating
> something I missed when offering a design up to my readers for
> crafting a useful accessory to their electrical system. Paul
> (and to some extent you too) have commented on the "tendency
> to nuisance trip" for that circuit and have branded it unworthy
> of consideration by the prudent designer. B&C and I have sold
> thousands
> of those systems with an exceeding low rate of difficulty so I
> was mystified as to why your and/or Paul's experiences were so
> unrewarding. I had no way of knowing how many folks had tried
> the roll-yer-own but I DID receive what had to be a
disproportionate
> number of unhappy feedback.
>
> Ken's work showed us exactly WHY the circuit as offered from
> my website is especially dv/dt vulnerable. It also prompted a
> study on my part to discover the differences between what
> we've sold and what numerous others have built. I would have
> been just as enthusiastic if you or Paul would have caught
> the design flaw and brought it to light. I have invited
> you both repeatedly to participate in the discovery, explanation
> and distribution of simple-ideas that help us move our craft
> forward.
>
> I have a standing invitation on my website for anyone
> to document any useful contribution for addition to the collective
> pile. I don't have anything from you or Paul to post there yet
> but I DO have something from Mr. Leyman. Ken's contribution
> is quite simple but profoundly significant in solving a years-old
> mystery concerning my implementation of the crowbar ov protection
> philosophy.
>
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: Noise from strobe PS |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Jurotich <mjurotich@hst.nasa.gov>
Bob et all
This strobe power supply noise is a physical noise very audible without
headset. My noise cancelling headset masks it completely, at least for my
high frequency challenged hearing. Is your "fix" good for the "I can hear
it outside the airplane noise.
Thanks
Matthew M. Jurotich
e-mail mail to: <mjurotich@hst.nasa.gov>
phone : 301-286-5919
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: So where's my award? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Harold Kovac" <kayce33@earthlink.net>
Bravo Bob,
I'm just a lurker who has yet to begin wiring, but as an ill educated soul vis
a vis electronics, I try to glean everything I can from the AE book and the forum.
keep trying to help us who are electrically challenged.
Harold Kovac....RV9A fuselage...wiring soon.
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 2:38 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: So where's my award?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 04:58 PM 7/27/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
>
>Bob: You are correct I never told you "exactly" why the OVP was prone to
>tripping. I did repeatedly point out under what conditions it did (and at
>least once you agreed that my specific condition could cause false tripping)
>BUT you never seemed follow up on that tip.
That's cheesy Paul. Look at all the work I did in response
to your salvos of cabbages and all you have to offer now is that
I "seemed uninterested" in following up on a TIP? If you KNEW,
why keep it a secret?
>I showed the circuit to two other qualified electronic engineers and they
>both immediately saw several problems(the same ones I saw).
If they KNEW, why keep it a secret?
>I thus assumed you were not interested in my findings as below you continue
>repeat the "mantra" :-) of the past "sold thousands and neglable feedback".
That "mantra" was data based on experience. Do you belive I was
lying to you? If you're accusing me of dishonorable behavior, then
we have nothing more to discuss. Delete this message but do drop
me a note that describes your true beliefs.
>I have dozens of false tripping reports as does Eric and for the most part
>the builder simply throws the OVP away as for the cost of dealing with
>"infamous verbose hassle" you show the poster on the web its simply not
>worth it.
I have never chased off anyone who was having a
problem with one of my products. At the minimum, he/she
can expect to get their money back no questions asked.
How is it that YOU TWO know of all these disgruntled customers
but they never bothered to contact me? I don't buy it.
I offered to give cash refunds + nuisance bonus to anyone you knew
that had a problem with a product I supplied if they would simply
tell me of their personal experiences. How can I gather field data
if everyone claiming that my "mantra" is just marketing propaganda but
at the same time, is unwilling to help me identify and fix real problems.
It's equally mystifying that these same individuals ARE willing to
add his/her name to the growing list of Bob'a unhappy customers maintained
by Eric and Paul. That's bull hockey sir.
>Ever really wonder why with all the people who listen why so few
>post??? No mystery to many of us :-)
>You as the designer needs to prove its a good design NOT the other way
>around where the detractor must prove you wrong.
Sorry sir but that miserable bucket just doesn't hold water. If
the folks I work with at my day job had your attitude with respect to the
engineering profession, we'd have crashed and burned years ago.
How many times have I extolled the virtues of good critical
design review? When you're a customer oriented supplier of goods
and services, we help each other out . . . not stand off and toss
tomatoes and cabbages at each other.
>Never heard of that (your) approach anywhere else but from you. MY total
>design experience is that, when the design is questioned, the designer must
>prove the questioner is wrong (assuming there is some semblance of
>credibility in the questioner and in my career that was always a given).
I went off and researched every incoming cabbage and tomato
you pitched when you started claiming 700A faults and breakers
that would go belly up at interrupts more than 10x rated trip
current. I started a white paper to demonstrate fault currents
very benign compared to your claimed "killer cabbages". When
I produced feedback from Eaton/Cutler-Hammer, Klixon, and a stack
of spec documents that debunked your claim about breakers, you
countered with, "Well, the breakers I was using won't tolerate
that abuse and I've got golden specs to prove it."
I asked you for brand and part number of any breaker that was so
limited but I've yet to see any such spec. After the effort to
field your cabbages without learning anything useful, I didn't
have the energy to address any "hints" you might have made on
the circuitry. Besides, after 10+ hours of work proved two of
your salvos to be hogwash, I was hard pressed to assign any
credibility to any other claims you might have made . . . especially
when unaccompanied by supporting simple-ideas . . . only cabbages.
>It has been my experience that telling someone how to spot a design problem
>has large educational value in teaching how to design in the future, to
>detail the specific fix to the problem has little educational value. Thus I
>simply pointed out where to look and assumed that if you were interested you
>would follow up. In this case its not hard to see the problem(s) but so far
>not all the design issues (in the OVP) have been properly looked at and
>corrected. One source of false tripping has been defined but there is
>another to be corrected.
Boy, am I glad I never had any teachers with your teaching
style. Besides, which was more important (1) teach that ol' fart
in Wichita how to design or (2) expose the details of a problem that
was being repeated many times over by readers of my work? I'm beginning
to belive you're more interested in whacking me than in helping
folks on this List. It appears that the more poor saps who built the
circuit as-published and had problems with it, the happier you are. You
seem to have collected quite a list of names for which only you are
aware.
>Finally please do not lay back and think the OVP is now bug free. Far from
>it, it still has another design issue that causes false tripping as well as
>severe overstress in one part under reasonable application conditions. Worst
>case design is worst on worst case over part tolerance and temperature
>conditions (a max value and a min value some times produce the worst case so
>its not a simple all max or all min values that are really worst case
>conditions) and also the so called "RSS" is not worst case and while it is
>often used to get a marginal design to show its valid when its really not.
I assume nothing. I'm still waiting for data but I quit holding
my breath months ago . . .
>A straight forward worst case circuit analysis using real bus voltage level
>transients (fast and slow) will immediately show another design short
>coming. In my case the patched design (my version) worked most of the time
>under DO-160 and failed all of the time under the harder to pass automotive
>design requirement conditions. My test conditions were nominal components
>under typical modern aircraft designs NOT some "wild worst case approach" to
>try to prove a design wrong. In fact I had no idea that the OVP had a design
>problem until I tried to use it in the Load Dump testing of 1 1/2 years ago.
>There it failed 100% of the time and so did a second unit. I was forced to
>find and fix the design. As I feel its not a good design approach I simply
>patched it and pressed on. I do not feel its my place to spend time trying
>to prove to you that the details are defective when the concept is defective
>in my opinion.
>IS a better design approach available YES. Is it more reliable YES. Does it
>eliminate the unintended side affects of the current design YES. So why do
>we continue to stick our head in the sand and refuse to use more modern
>technology? Beats me :-)
Who is refusing anything? I wrote just a few weeks ago that
I welcome anything new and better. The only thing you've offered
so far is a demonization of my field proven products and zero
suggestions of anything different or better. How many happy
customers are flying your designs sir?
I agree that applying OVP protection to the internally
regulated alternator wasn't well conceived . . . that
wasn't a fault of the crowbar ov protection system but a lack
of capability in the style of contactor selected -AND- a lack
of confidence with respect to characteristics of the constellation
of designs. The same basic problems persist IRRESPECTIVE of how
you chose to sense and react to the OV event. The "thousands
of happy customers" I've referred to are all flying aircraft
alternators.
Yes, there is work to be done with respect to the internally
regulated alternator and I thought that's what you an Eric
were offering to help with when this discussion was started
over a year ago. But instead of a collaborative effort utilizing
data I thought you were going to acquire, I've wasted a lot of time
fielding tossed cabbages . . . and we've yet to see any data.
>I have never seen any worst case analysis on any of your designs. If I
>missed one please send me the link.
>
>I have been considering posting more details on this general subject and I
>may in the near future limited to the specific subject of OVP and internally
>regulated alternators as there are some industry wide truths . . .
Give us links to your "industry wide truths" . . .
>. . . (facts that is)
>that seem to be missing from posts on this list that directly contradict
>what is frequently posted as truths etc.
When Ken revealed his discovery earlier this week the light bulb
went on. "Gee, that's what's causing problems for Paul and
several others with the DIY circuit." The effect turns out to
be unique to the DIY circuit as published and not relevant
to the thousands of products we've fielded over the years. So
while I was offering the only DATA I had based on experience
with the marketplace, you were holding SECRETS close to the
chest to the torment of myself and others who had also built
the DIY circuit.
For years, the tag line on my e-mail signature was
////
(o o)
o00o(_)o00o
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
This wasn't a joke. It's still applicable. When we had an
issue come up with the crowbar system in Bonanzas, we
jumped on it and got it fixed in jig time because we
had the cooperation of everyone who was concentrating on
the CUSTOMER. The benefits of that discovery were incorporated
across the product line. Well, readers of this list are my customers,
who are yours?
I'm through proving anything to you Paul. I'm just worn out.
If you want to make a contribution to this discussion, do it with
schematics, bills of materials, maufacturer's data sheets and
repeatable experiments that I or ANYONE here on the list
can duplicate, evaluate and exploit. Help me take care of the
customers and quit wasting my time.
The offer still stands. Give us some simple-ideas worthy
of induction into the AeroElectric Hall of Fame (while sticking
it to Bob). Let the List decide. You give them something they say
addresses the issues of my offer (doesn't even mention OV protection)
and my check will be in the mail the same day. Let's figure out why
George blew up his Transorbs. Let's see if Transorbs alone can
be reasonably expected to mitigate load dump and/or ov effects
for every style of alternator a builder might pull off a car. Let's
see if there are reasonable approaches to regulator design that
will mitigate if not eliminate the effects of a load-dump event.
You'd better not wait too long. I've got a 2 h.p. variable
speed drive and some other goodies that will eventually
be assembled into a test stand for proving a whole new line of
processor based electrical system management products. However,
if I'm forced to answer all the questions I've posed without
your help, then the results will be published here on the List.
After that, the only way I'm going to let you "stick it to Bob"
is to "make my day and show me where I'm wrong."
I am mystified as to how you can KNOW the specifics of a design
error, allow the numbers of victims to grow because of your silence,
compile secret lists of victims of the error as manifest
evidence of the incompetence of the designer, and then claim to
be helping the designer grow in stature by offering "hints" of
your secret buried in a avalanche of unsupported allegations.
You'd think I was seeking confirmation to the Supreme Court or
something.
Ken has let at least one of your secrets out of the bag.
It's well on the way to being corrected and I've made my thanks
for his participation in good critical review well known. His
contribution to this discussion far outweighs anything I've
seen from you sir. The only appreciation I can muster for our
conversation thus far are the benefits of having reviewed a lot
of specs that supported what I've understood for the past 20+ years.
Bob . . .
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: So where's my award? (Way Off Topic) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Guy Buchanan <bnn@nethere.com>
Now THAT was an email response worthy of an award. That may be the most
cynical response I have EVER read. I do hope, for your sake, that it was
subtle humor, and not in any way serious. Was it?
At 12:01 PM 7/27/2005, you wrote:
>Dearest Robert--
>
>Thou hast erred.....you have made the mistake of a loving father who gives a
>treat to one of his twelve (hundred) children without giving an equivalent
>treat to the rest. You have put yourself into a predicament with all good
>intentions, but a predicament nevertheless:
>
>1) What about the ugly child...over there...who is REALLY right but has no
>social graces?
>
>2) Now your students are going to play for your approval. Reasonable
>discourse goes out the window.
>
>3) You now carry the risk that people won't want to disagree with you
>because they will have NO CHANCE of gaining your approval.
>
>4) You have automatically set up the "I stuck it to Bob award".
>
>5) Whenever I got an award at work, I knew the guys upstairs were getting
>bonuses. How about cutting us in?
>
>6) It cheapens the whole idea of intellectual discussion.
>
>7) You want slow pitches and softballs? You'll get slow pitches and
>softballs.
>
>8) Every leader worth his salt has one guy who tells him not to pee in the
>soup.
>
>Okay, so now give me an award to suggest that you kill the award system.
>Permanently. And don't pee in the soup.
>
>Regards,
>Eric M. Jones
>www.PerihelionDesign.com
>113 Brentwood Drive
>Southbridge MA 01550-2705
>(508) 764-2072
>
>" I would have made a good Pope."
> -- Richard M. Nixon (1913-1994)
>
>
Guy Buchanan
K-IV 1200 / 582 / 99% done, thanks to Bob Ducar.
Do not archive
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: "So where's my award?"--A New & Bigger Mess(inger) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark & Lisa" <marknlisa@hometel.com>
Mr. Messinger,
Do you have any desire whatsoever to contribute to this group?
Most who participate on this list (absent yourself obviously) understand
that it's a collaborative effort to reach a goal--a safe, utile,
cost-effective electrical system for our OBAM. That's the vision; the one
you should have firmly in mind every time you consider posting. Ask
yourself, "Paul, is what I'm about to post moving the group towards the
goal, or is it just answering a pecular personal need to exercise power by
showing others how smart I am?" Ironically, you can do both if you just
properly use the power at your disposal. But, in order to do so, you need
to at least understand the mechanism your trying to use.
There several types of power typically used by individuals in group
situations. They are:
Coercive - fear-based; the ability to punish, sanction, force.
Expert - acknowledged expertise, skills. Must be credible, trustworthy,
relevant.
Legitimate - position power, authority. The power of the position you hold.
Referent - personal traits, charisma, the halo effect.
Reward - perceived ability to provide valued rewards.
Connection - networks, connections, who knows whom....
Information - access to information, gatekeeper
Of these, the only types relevant to you would be "Expert" & "Information."
You can't "coerce" anyone here, you don't have any "legitimate" power, you
can't offer any "reward," your "connections" are suspect, and let's not even
get into your "referent" traits.
Of the two types of power you can exercise on this list, you've overused
"expert" and underused "information." Your failure is one of ignorance; you
don't seem to understand that these two types of power are interconnected.
Unless I know an individual personally and/or professionally, I can only
consider him/her an "expert" when the quality of the "information" they
possess is high. With that in mind, let's consider the proper use of
information power.
Information power is not well understood. Look at it this way: If you
possess knowlege others don't, you hold the means to influence them
(assuming others also wish to possess that knowledge) because they have to
rely on you to provide the needed information. Some who find themselves in
this position believe that withholding information makes others want it more
(kinda like playing hard to get). That may work for a while, but eventually
it just gets boring. If you want wield information power effectively you
have to share at least SOMETHING, allowing those whom you wish to desire
more the opportunity to evaluate the quality. At the risk of sounding
crude; a coy smile and a little thigh showing can generate some interest,
but how many times do you take the same girl out if all you ever get is a
goodnight handshake? You need to share at least a small taste of your
information, think of it as a chaste kiss, so to speak...
If you wish to exercise these two types of power effectively you should
spend a little less time polishing your "Industry Awards" and a little more
time in the shop gathering data. As has been pointed out many times, data
will prove your point much more effectively than bluster and back-biting.
Once you have good data to prove your position I guarantee the serious folks
on this list (and most likely in other areas of your life) will read your
posts because they believe you have something to teach, not because it's
entertaining to watch someone bury themselves in their own tripe.
Playing "I've got a secret" works only to get everyone's attention. At that
point it's "put up or shut up." For the love of all that's holy--PLEASE
PICK ONE AND STICK TO IT!
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Mark & Lisa Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.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: | I've got a secret |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Pat Hatch" <pat_hatch@msn.com>
Actually, I think the term is narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), also
known as narcissistic entitlement syndrome (NES)...here is an example in the
literature, see the 9 personality traits:
http://www.angelfire.com/ego/narcissism/
Pat Hatch
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave
Morris "BigD"
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: I've got a secret
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\""
<BigD@DaveMorris.com>
You probably won't see it. I've encountered this before. It's the "I've
got a secret" game. Look it up in any good psych textbook.
Dave Morris
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: | Message for Messinger |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
Paul,
I cannot accept your anklebiting although we all see why you
have broken your word and pontificated following Eric's attack. The idea of
an award doesn't bother me, or anyone else on net - besides it's a private
thing and who knows who deserves it? Personally I'm about one hundred
awards short on my achievement wall.
What Gerry Holland said is Bang On. Wish I could have said it.
Eric makes some provocative messages - and entertaining. Yours is just
negative drivel.
Both Eric and Bob have contributed to my education
immeasurably - you have done nothing for me. I recommend total silence.
Ferg
Europa A064
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: So where's my award? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:32 AM 7/28/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>nuckollsr@cox.net
>
> >Please sir, "stick it to me".
> >Bob . . .
>
>My point-by-point arguments do not need a point-by-point response since my
>arguments are basically expressions of gut instincts:
>
>I fervently believe that a discussion of technical issues is skewed
>irretrievably by an Imprimatur on a particular technical approach.
If you sensed a strong desire on my part to validate the
approach, you are correct. There are thousands of these
systems in service and I have a personal responsibility to
the folks flying those systems to make sure there are no
"gotchas" that owners should be aware of . . .
When learned folk raise valid questions for which I do
not have considered answers at hand, it's my personal
decision to go get the answers. Paul's thrust seemed to
raise concerns not only about my understanding of the
simple-ideas but he also painted an alarming picture
of potential for doom on the part of my customers who
purchased my products in good faith.
Yes, I did mount a vigorous response but soon became
weary of defending something that didn't need defending.
At the same time, I was getting poor marks for not
comprehending hints of secrets buried in the avalanche
of no-value-added-busywork.
>All ideas, of course, are not created equal. But when one idea comes
>equipped with an award certificate--some people might think it means
>something. Does your award for Ken's anti-glitch capacitor for the crowbar
>OVP somehow make the approach better than a non-crowbar "linear" approach?
You missed the point Eric. Ken's revelation pointed out a
vulnerability of the voltage sensing and trip circuit to
negative going transients that would take the cathode of
the reference zener negative, turn on the top transistor by
way of the charge on the time delay capacitor and cause the
synthesized 4-layer device to trigger and pass that energy
on the to the gate of the SCR.
THAT my friend is the simple-idea. It doesn't matter whether
the circuit is part of a my crowbar ov protection system or
your high volt warning light on the annunciator panel. Simple-ideas
are application independent. They're the Leggos, Tinker-Toys,
and Lincoln Logs from which inventions are crafted, like
crowbar ov systems.
>We've been on opposite sides of this technical debate for a year. Now you
>put a gold sticker on it? What is one to think?
>
>Please be certain that your expressions of approval and encouragement ARE
>ALWAYS appreciated by those on this website. My disagreement has only to do
>with the subtleties.
Nothing subtle about it. I have no interest in recognizing
someone's super-dupper, gee-whiz product . . . unless it
showcases simple-ideas that are shared so that other designers
can use them in their own inventions. You can use a nail and a board
to build mansions or sheds. The applications don't count here.
I'm interested in rewarding the discovery of alternatives to
nails and boards -AND- discoveries of nails that are too small,
boards that are unpainted and won't stand up to the weather.
Ken's contribution to this discussion illuminated a simple-idea. A
spotlight on a combination of rudimentary physics that explained
a phenomenon that some folks claim to have understood but did not
deem it worthy of sharing.
Knowledge in the form of simple-ideas is the only commodity
I know of that becomes MORE valuable the more you GIVE IT AWAY.
That same knowledge held in secrecy for any reason gains no
value and only gives one pause to wonder about the motivations
of the secret's holder.
This was never about whether the crowbar system was better or
worse than any other technique. I've designed many forms of
ov protection, all of which have flown on thousands of airplanes.
This was always about understanding the simple-ideas that
made up a product no matter what its purpose, who designed it,
or who was selling it.
If you have a better way, come on in my friend, the water's
fine. But be assured that if your product stubs its toe in
the marketplace, your willingness to share the simple-ideas
of its construction here on the LIST will bring a response
from myself and others to help deduce the Tinker-Toy that
doesn't fit right. The goal is not to convince others that
Eric is an irresponsible, ignorant and slightly corrupted
entrepreneur and they should have stayed with stuff that
ol' fart out in Wichita sells. The goal will be to help you
deliver good value to your customers.
Bob . . .
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: OVM trips on Alt Restart |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Mike you may have been lucky that it tripped. The regulator would tell
the alternator to go full output and since the alternator is at high
rpm, the voltage may have risen faster than the regulator was designed
to handle. (ie a real OV) Not a defect just perhaps the way it is in
order to get a stable regulator during normal operations. Some of the
new automotive VR chips do ramp up the alternator slowly though which
would likely help in this scenario. After reading this, I think I'd slow
down and close the throttle to at least get the rpm as low as possible.
Hopefully that would reduce the likelihood of an OV, a belt coming off,
or something breaking. I might even turn lights on and radios off. At
idle the voltage should rise slower as limited by the slower speed of
the alternator. I suspect that there is no problem with your system.
With a 60 amp IR alternator, can I assume that you had a battery
contactor as a B lead disconnect, the OVM tripped it, and the contactor
still functions normally? I know that you didn't have a rip snorting
full bore alternator runaway but I'm still curious as I am keeping a
similar setup on my 40 amp alternator and figure it will be informative
if nothing else to see what happens if I ever have a real alternator
runaway.
Ken
Mike Holland wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Holland" <hollandm@pacbell.net>
>
>Bob, etal. Wiring per Z13 and Z24, Vans 60amp internally regulated Alt.
>
>Situation, pilot forgot to start alternator, discovers battery voltage in-flight,
tries to start alternator at cruise rpm and Bingo, trips the Alt. breaker
(5amp).
>
>In my opinion this shouldn't happen with a robust electrical system. Is this
an "oversensitive or defective OVM (B&C)? How would I go about finding out?
I'm not an electrical engineer.
>
>Or is there a better, safer, way to restart an alternator, in-flight. Alternators
shut down for various reasons, sometimes for test purposes, sometimes because
a distracted pilot forgets to start it, whatever. Any wiring system that
won't permit in-flight restart of a perfectly functional alternator isn't acceptable.
>
>Regards,
>
>Mike Holland
>
>
>
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: | real data on OVP/etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
Bob;
Take a deep breath and read carefully and ignore any non technical parts but
please consider the technical comments as worth considering as many are
industry wide technical info.
Sorry for your upset but as usual you have missed my point and not addressed
MY technical issues in a technical manner, merely replied with a personal
assault (and perhaps properly deserved). There are some technical details
here in this post as you requested and some are a repeat of my much earlier
posts, but I digress. Here is some of the data you asked for.
Clearly my assumption you would forget the lab test and do a circuit
analysis was a bad assumption, but as we were in a verbal war of sorts and
that was one of the casualties. One can never Test a bad design into a good
one, or find a design fault with testing, unless one very lucky. I did point
out and you agreed on one condition of triggering false tripping and this, I
assumed, meant you would go off and look at the transient analysis of your
design, not continue to test it under non transient conditions (I do not
mean transient as a very narrow spike).
As I feel the concept of a battery crowbar and the contactor OVP concept was
faulty I had, and have, no interest in trying to fix the OVP when the system
concept is questionable.
(It reminds me of rearranging the deck chairs on the HMS Titanic)
I have demonstrated to myself and many others the OVP/contactor concept was
not a viable approach and alternatives needed to be found. I can remember
for many years you refused to support internally regulated alternators and
you were right and never should have yielded under pressure to implement one
without more study. The false tripping has a high probably of causing any
brand alternator regulator failure and the contact arcing in the diode
suppressed common contactor can produce major hi voltage spikes in the
aircraft systems bus that can cause failure of other systems just as quickly
as the HV the design is trying to prevent.
The failure rate of brand new current production ND alternators is so high
that its questionable any OV prevention is needed (the documented failure
rate is much lower than prop bolts). Clearly an OVP that can false trip, a
contactor that is not rated for the application etc is not improving
reliability.
Your approach seems to be to test a design and then analyze the tested
design as proof of that design. I repeat, I have never seen any example of
worst case design analysis to validate the design. Your analysis of your
test was extensive but never addressed the possibility of huge variations of
parts tolerances and that affect on the lab test.
I am still waiting for ANY worst case design analysis showing any of your
designs is usable in all likely applications. Some of the possible false
tripping have been reported by buyers (not builders) of the OVP and all who
contacted me wanted to remain anomalous (nor were they interested in a
refund), just a good approach to the design issue as Vans says to not use
any OVP design (yours or similar approaches). As we have no info on the sold
OVP design, its not possible to accept your statement that only the builders
versions are at fault. I for one wonder why the sold version would be any
different schematically.
You have suggested many times that somehow the Vans rebuilt alternators have
poor quality regulators and that is why they fail at a extremely hi rate
when used with your OVP. From what little data I could find its a failure
rate of 10% or much higher. Clearly something unique in the application of
the wiring in Vans designs or ????? Some were purchased OVP and not built up
units.
"Rebuilt" alternators is really a false name in the industry. They are only
repaired (what is failed is replaced, what still works is not replaced) and
the ND 60 amp unit has been around for at least 25 years. Many units have
been "rebuilt" several times. I contacted several major rebuilders around
the country (including Bosch) as well as a couple of local ones and found no
one replaces anything still working. Not even bearings were normally
replaced in some cases. Thus a "new rebuilt" alternator might have an
original 25 year old regulator or a cheep low quality import replacement or
a modern but still low cost replacement. None admitted they used OEM (ND)
regulators as replacements. The typical reply was "price competition"
prevented that approach. Thus its not possible to single out Vans as having
poorer alternators than others.
The comments that in affect state my OVP is not the problem its Vans low
quality rebuilds is what is upsetting. (MY S%&T does not smell :-) )
Then I contacted a design engineer in the semi industry responsible for the
modern one-chip regulator (not the one used by ND) and described the problem
we were having. The reply was the design would protect against the normal
load dump but was unlikely to survive a contactor contact arcing and the
opening a loaded output "B" lead. This agrees with several different
automotive test requirements for alternator design testing. The industry is
designing to the automotive equivalent of the aircraft DO-160 which is more
severe.
At present the only known reasonably priced contactor RATED to open the "B"
lead is the Kilovac. The common contactors available are not rated to open
the voltages likely to be found under fault conditions.
I quote from a major relay manufacturers web site for contact application.
"Improper or excessive suppression can cause the relay to suffer from a
long release time, slow contact transfer, and contact bounce on break. All
of these conditions will increase contact arcing when load switching, which
will reduce relay life dramatically.".
One site http://relays.tycoelectronics.com/kilovac/appnotes/transients.stm
goes on to compare six different methods of coil "spike suppression" Its
interesting to read this table and see that the common diode is the LAST
choice and the Bi directional Zener (read bi directional transorb). There
are similar tables in the USA and Europe and ALL suggest the last method of
choice is the simple diode. The simple diode works as long as the contacts
are carrying low currents and non inductive loads. In the case of the
alternator its a very different matter as the unloaded unregulated
alternator voltage can jump to hundreds of volts during the contact bouncing
during opening even with the best coil suppression method thus the need for
the Kilovac which is rated at hundreds of volts.
I find the use of the simple diode across relay contacts one of the most
widespread miss information in the industry. IF ""Joe"" does it, it must be
OK ,or if it was not good why are relays available with one built in?. It's
very simple engineers are lazy and copy what others do far too often. Also
it works in 99.9% of the cases. It does not work in a "B" lead contactor
application however. Manufacturers will build what the engineers want
regardless of its design value.
I have demonstrated this in my testing and I suspect its repeatable by you
if you use a common contactor from Wicks for example. The contactor I used
was from Wicks. In one case the bounce duration was quite long and included
many bounces.
My conclusion is never use a "rebuilt" internally regulated alternator with
ANY OVP device that might false trip or trigger on a short transient. With
a brand new ND alternator available for $300+ and the demonstrated failure
rate in the auto industry being so low its unlikely any of us will ever see
a "fail hi" condition in a lifetime of flight. Van does not recommend any
OVP and with a modern regulator I agree its addition only reduces system
reliability. The Fail HI mode of regulator failure is a very low
probability in the failure modes of the modern regulator . Any failure of
any type is extremely low in today's new production ND alternators.
Use of any OVP has the potential of failing the alternator when it trips for
what ever reason so IF a OVP is used it needs to be extremely reliable under
all design conditions. It should never trip unless the OV is clearly of long
duration. The AEC OVP device trips in a few milliseconds and really should
not trip unless the OV is longer than what one might expect from a major
load dump.
YOU agreed there were cases of false tripping yet you failed to properly
analyze your design. There was absolutely no reason for a real lab test and,
in fact testing was a near total waste of time, as the false tripping
depends on a specific implementation of the classic schematic. How do you
expect to build all variations of a schematic??
How can there be repeatable tests when several major components have
important design tolerances or variables in the 5x or 10x range of
tolerances. Battery internal resistances of 5-1 or more, CB resistances of
10-1 or more. Schematic is one thing wiring diagram is another (how a
schematic is implemented and where wires are connected along a common line
in a schematic can and often does greatly affect the results.
The time tested and standard method of circuit analysis is on paper with or
without the help of software; NOT lab testing. If you use any of the
components offered by Wicks , Aircraft Spruce etc and a dozen other sources
you end up with huge part variations in critical parameters that preclude
any repeatable testing in the manner you seem to desire.
The 700 amp was a one time attempt to see the worst case current. The 400
amp current was from a built up exact duplicate of a real installation and
repeatable and represented a common design being use around here. It is
identical in the schematic form to your test that is repeatable at 135 amps
except for my use of dual PC625 batteries which is a very common builders
choice out here. The difference is in the wiring diagram and the actual
component variation. BTW In my setup the battery terminal voltage never
dropped below 12V and thus the alternator was not shorted out but in fact
was over 70 amps of the 400 amp total. (the Measured resistance of the dual
PC625 was under 0.002 ohms times 330 amps is 0.66V drop from 12.6 volts or
on paper this battery pair can deliver 330 amps at 12V terminal voltage.
One PC625 is specified at 0.0035 ohms and even one battery still can produce
a very high current (0.0035 times 330 amps is 1.155v or a terminal voltage
drop from 12.6 nom to 11.45v) The Panasonic has a much higher internal
resistance and that is what you used and your test results reflected that
fact. However the use of PC625 and the very similar PC680 are very popular
around here as are the use of dual batteries often simple wired directly in
parallel.
You used 0.035 ohms for the CB and got trip times of a few MS. I used a CB
from Wicks and measures it at 0.003 ohms and it tripped repeatetly in the
50-70 ms range. Yes the data seems illogical but my data is repeatable here
and I accept your data also as factual.
There is no way you can reproduce my test data unless you use the exact same
parts. This is the fallacy of your requirements that the test must be
reproducible by you to be valid. Perhaps its valid where the circuit
variables are not so dependent on individual parts used but in this case the
parts variation is so huge they prevent repeatable tests. Both tests are
reasonable examples of the overall design as documented on your web site and
neither are a worst case example as only a proper analysis can define the
range of design results.
ANY design that is to be reproduced must be analyzed using the specified
data sheet parts variations (and either specify the exact parts of consider
all the likely parts brands that could apply) and for general use NEVER
publish a design that violates the data sheet under any condition or assumes
parameters not specifically printed in the data sheet.
In any event I see no reason to continue posting.
Paul
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: real data on OVP/etc |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gerry Holland <gholland@gemini-resourcing.com>
The most comprehensive dose of LISTEN TO ME! I have ever suffered.
Diatribe extraordinaire!
> In any event I see no reason to continue posting.
Well please stop posting until you can announce or show your super
solution.....PLEASE!
Pontificating often offends!
Gerry Holland
Do not archive
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
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: Suzuki G13 engine with BRS |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Traveling Man" <travliman58@hotmail.com>
Alow me to add my two cents:
Structural failure isn't the only concern. Engine faiure over unlandable
terrain and at low altitudes make up a large percentage of the "Saves"
stories from the BRS website. I'm a low time ultralight pilot, building an
LSA. I think of a BRS as life insurance that could save my life, and my
passengers life. It just makes sense to me.
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: OVM trips on Alt Restart |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 05:52 AM 7/28/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Holland" <hollandm@pacbell.net>
>
>Bob, etal. Wiring per Z13 and Z24, Vans 60amp internally regulated Alt.
>
>Situation, pilot forgot to start alternator, discovers battery voltage
>in-flight, tries to start alternator at cruise rpm and Bingo, trips the
>Alt. breaker (5amp).
>
>In my opinion this shouldn't happen with a robust electrical system. Is
>this an "oversensitive or defective OVM (B&C)? How would I go about
>finding out? I'm not an electrical engineer.
>
>Or is there a better, safer, way to restart an alternator,
>in-flight. Alternators shut down for various reasons, sometimes for test
>purposes, sometimes because a distracted pilot forgets to start it,
>whatever. Any wiring system that won't permit in-flight restart of a
>perfectly functional alternator isn't acceptable.
Great questions and astute observations sir.
The problem you've illuminated is one reason why I used to
recommend a 2-3 DC Power Master switch in the earliest
examples of the Z-figures. There's no particular advantage
to NOT having the alternator ON during cranking so why not
keep the DC Power Master switch simple.
The situation you describe is characterized by bringing
an alternator up cold while already running at over 10,000
rpm. The OV trip probably has nothing to do with a design
flaw in the OV sensor . . . what I think is happening is
an overshoot in system voltage due to a VERY energetic
alternator being turned on at high input speeds.
We can confirm my hypothesis by instrumenting the airplane
and getting data (probably not practical) or by conducting
an experiment. I could send him a modified OV module with
and extra-ordinarily long time constant. This would not
seriously affect suitability of the device to protect from
overvoltage conditions but could confirm my hypothesis
if the problem did not repeat with the experimental ov
module in place.
There are RISKS. Since this is a Van's internally regulated
alternator. Repeating this experiment places the alternator
at-risk from the stresses identified earlier and generated
our decision to remove Z-24 from the book pending resolution
of the problem.
This experiment COULD be conducted on a test stand with
no risk to a customer's airplane . . . that would have to
be done by someone with an interest in discovery and
promulgation of simple-ideas that underlie the problem.
I don't have the necessary facilities yet.
B&C has facilities . . . but they have a ton of things
on their plate. Given that the problems are manifest in
a system that neither B&C nor I can recommend (for the
variety of reasons recently cited here on the List), it
seems unlikely that they'll put on their white hats,
mount up and come charging over the hill to rescue us
from this conundrum generated by a lack of data.
Until better data are made available, my best advise
is as follows:
(1) Consider replacing the DC PWR Master with a 2-3.
(2) Consider tighter adherence to the checklist -OR-
how about ACTIVE NOTIFICATION OF LOW VOLTAGE? A
light flashing in one's face is an excellent reminder
taxi out from parking.
(3) If one considers deliberate operation of the alternators
ON/OFF functions in flight, I would reduce rpm to
flight idle before turning it back ON. I suspect this
will mitigate the overshoot that irritates the
OV protection.
(4) Resist the idea of doing any "testing" while en route
to aunt Martha's house. A large number of problems are
discovered in less than friendly situations for dealing
with them. If there are experiments to be conducted,
do them at altitude over the home airport on a clear
day.
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: OVM trips on Alt Restart |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Joseph Larson <jpl@showpage.org>
I continue to be amazed at the wealth of information gained from
reading this list.
-Joe
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: | OVM trips on Alt Restart |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Ok at the risk of sounding really dumb...what exactly is a 2-3?
Personally I was assuming (bad thing to do) the master would energise
the battery contactor and the main alt and field sensing wire would
connect permanently to the engine side of the master contactor.
As the contactor is close to the battery seems a simple solution...2nd
alt will be connected directly to the battery buss via an on-off switch.
Any problems with this?
Frank
The problem you've illuminated is one reason why I used to
recommend a 2-3 DC Power Master switch in the earliest
examples of the Z-figures. There's no particular advantage
to NOT having the alternator ON during cranking so why not
keep the DC Power Master switch simple.
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: I've got a secret |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 07:53:38 -0500, Dave Morris "BigD"
<BigD@DaveMorris.com> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\""
> <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
>
> You probably won't see it. I've encountered this before. It's the "I've
> got a secret" game. Look it up in any good psych textbook.
>
> Dave Morris
>
>
>> Paul, if you got something, publish it.
>>
>> Vern
>>
Paul -
Or crawl back under your rock and leave us alone - or- start your own list.
John
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Tranpsonder Coax Connection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tinne maha" <tinnemaha@hotmail.com> (by
way of Matt Dralle <nospam@matronics.com>)
Hello List,
I've actually been searching the archives lately (usually with great
success) before just blurting a question that has probably been asked 1,000
times before. That was starting to be a bad habit for me: Sorry for any
unnecessary repition: I'm getting better though. This list is a GREAT
resource! Thank You Bob!
Maybe I didn't use the correct search string, but I did have trouble
finding an answer to my current dillema: I'm installing a KT-76A
transponder but the coaxial connection in the back is not a BNC type (I
don't recognize it as any type) The tech rep from Honeywell said that the
Coax must be soldered to the trasnponder & recommended I have an avionics
shop do the work.
Seems odd to me: Any advice or suggestions?
Thanks,
Grant Krueger
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: | Help locating a 7-10 Amp, 12 V Diodes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Banus" <mbanus@hotmail.com>
Bob,
I am powering a device from two separate power busses. I want to ensue no voltage
from Circuit "A" is allowed into Circuit "B" thus the need for two inline
diodes on the power leads to the devise. I have looked @ Digi-Key but the
tech specs are beyond my technical knowledge. Would you recommend a suitable device?
TIA
Mark Banus
Glasair IIFT
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Tranpsonder Coax Connection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Swartout" <jgswartout@earthlink.net>
I'm in exactly the same boat--just took a KT-76A, yellow tagged, out of
the box. It didn't come with a manual, and on mine, the coax was just
snipped off near where it is soldered to the side of the plug that goes
thru the back of the tray to plug into the radio. Also I don't see how
to supply power to the radio.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tinne
maha (by way of Matt Dralle <nospam@matronics.com>)
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Tranpsonder Coax Connection
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tinne maha"
<tinnemaha@hotmail.com> (by way of Matt Dralle <nospam@matronics.com>)
Hello List,
I've actually been searching the archives lately (usually with great
success) before just blurting a question that has probably been asked
1,000
times before. That was starting to be a bad habit for me: Sorry for any
unnecessary repition: I'm getting better though. This list is a GREAT
resource! Thank You Bob!
Maybe I didn't use the correct search string, but I did have trouble
finding an answer to my current dillema: I'm installing a KT-76A
transponder but the coaxial connection in the back is not a BNC type (I
don't recognize it as any type) The tech rep from Honeywell said that
the
Coax must be soldered to the trasnponder & recommended I have an
avionics
shop do the work.
Seems odd to me: Any advice or suggestions?
Thanks,
Grant Krueger
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tranpsonder Coax Connection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
I just did that using the connectors for the KT76A's,but on a Terra TN200D,
replacing the funky Terra connectors. These are not particularily "a snap"
to do, but if you use theRG400 coax which has inner insulation much less
heat sensitive, it would be much easier. I learned of these from Lane_pilot
on eBay. Try this link; he has more for sale.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/BRAND-NEW-RF-TRAY-connector-for-King-Narco-install-TED_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ26436QQitemZ4564572505QQtcZphoto
You will need two soldering irons; one low heat, ~20 watt for the center
connection and one about 60 watt for the shield soldering. If you must use
the RG58U, this stuff has a center insulation that will melt much more
easily when the shield is soldered to the connector's shell; I tried and
then got out the RG400. You will need BNC connector for the other end that
is specifically for the RG400, since the center wire insulation is just a
tad bit larger diameter and the RG58 connector will not work. I have the P/N
for the RG400 in my hangar, so if you need it, email me.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tinne maha (by way of Matt Dralle <nospam@matronics.com>)"
<tinnemaha@hotmail.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Tranpsonder Coax Connection
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tinne maha"
> <tinnemaha@hotmail.com> (by way of Matt Dralle <nospam@matronics.com>)
>
> Hello List,
>
> I've actually been searching the archives lately (usually with great
> success) before just blurting a question that has probably been asked
> 1,000
> times before. That was starting to be a bad habit for me: Sorry for any
> unnecessary repition: I'm getting better though. This list is a GREAT
> resource! Thank You Bob!
>
> Maybe I didn't use the correct search string, but I did have trouble
> finding an answer to my current dillema: I'm installing a KT-76A
> transponder but the coaxial connection in the back is not a BNC type (I
> don't recognize it as any type) The tech rep from Honeywell said that the
> Coax must be soldered to the trasnponder & recommended I have an avionics
> shop do the work.
> Seems odd to me: Any advice or suggestions?
>
> Thanks,
> Grant Krueger
>
>
>
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tranpsonder Coax Connection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
Oh, one more item. I have instructions how to attached the coax to these
Bendix connectors; I can attach it to an email if you are interested.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tinne maha (by way of Matt Dralle <nospam@matronics.com>)"
<tinnemaha@hotmail.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Tranpsonder Coax Connection
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tinne maha"
> <tinnemaha@hotmail.com> (by way of Matt Dralle <nospam@matronics.com>)
>
> Hello List,
>
> I've actually been searching the archives lately (usually with great
> success) before just blurting a question that has probably been asked
> 1,000
> times before. That was starting to be a bad habit for me: Sorry for any
> unnecessary repition: I'm getting better though. This list is a GREAT
> resource! Thank You Bob!
>
> Maybe I didn't use the correct search string, but I did have trouble
> finding an answer to my current dillema: I'm installing a KT-76A
> transponder but the coaxial connection in the back is not a BNC type (I
> don't recognize it as any type) The tech rep from Honeywell said that the
> Coax must be soldered to the trasnponder & recommended I have an avionics
> shop do the work.
> Seems odd to me: Any advice or suggestions?
>
> Thanks,
> Grant Krueger
>
>
>
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Help locating a 7-10 Amp, 12 V Diodes |
Z-USANET-MsgId: XID719JgCc7j0402X37
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: chad-c_sip@stanfordalumni.org
Anything on this page of Allied's catalog:
http://www.alliedelec.com/catalog/pf.asp?FN=1257.pdf
Each bridge has 4 diodes in it. You want to use the two as such:
From neg. TO AC is your 12V to device connection
From AC TO pos. is your other 12V to device connection
If you're near the current limit of the one you choose you'll want to add a
heat sink. However, they range in current ratings from 30A to 400A so you'll
be fine. If you head to your local Radio Shack (or Fry's Electronics, etc.)
and pick out any rectifier bridge that has the square shape with the bolt hole
in the middle for the heat sink (like Fig. 6,7 and 8) you're almost certainly
going to be buying something beefier than 10A at 12V.
Chad
Chad Sipperley
Lancair IV-P turbine (under construction)
Phoenix, AZ
------ Original Message ------
From: "Mark Banus" <mbanus@hotmail.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Help locating a 7-10 Amp, 12 V Diodes
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Banus" <mbanus@hotmail.com>
>
> Bob,
>
> I am powering a device from two separate power busses. I want to ensue
no voltage from Circuit "A" is allowed into Circuit "B" thus the need for two
inline diodes on the power leads to the devise. I have looked @ Digi-Key but
the tech specs are beyond my technical knowledge. Would you recommend a
suitable device?
>
> TIA
> Mark Banus
> Glasair IIFT
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: I've got a secret |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Riley <richard@riley.net>
At 05:53 AM 7/28/05, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\""
><BigD@DaveMorris.com>
>
>You probably won't see it. I've encountered this before. It's the "I've
>got a secret" game. Look it up in any good psych textbook.
Amen.
Months ago, when this started, I begged for a simple, 4 sentence statement
of what the problem was and what the proposed solution was. I never got a
hint of one. I didn't care about price, or who's product was proposed. As
near as I can tell, if you have a B&C alternator and voltage regulator, it
doesn't concern you. But I'm not even sure of that. Time for me to start
using my filters again.
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Help locating a 7-10 Amp, 12 V Diodes |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:54 PM 7/28/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Banus" <mbanus@hotmail.com>
>
>Bob,
>
> I am powering a device from two separate power busses. I want to
> ensue no voltage from Circuit "A" is allowed into Circuit "B" thus the
> need for two inline diodes on the power leads to the devise. I have
> looked @ Digi-Key but the tech specs are beyond my technical knowledge.
> Would you recommend a suitable device?
The diode bridge I've been recommending for the
e-bus normal feedpath will work. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/RS_Diodes.jpg
It's the 276-1185 at the bottom of the picture
and available from Radio Shack. Doesn't need insulating,
mounts to aircraft metal surface for heat sinking
and accepts 1/4" fast-on terminals. Very easy to
use.
Bob . . .
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Fw: Eric and the epoxy |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob W M Shipley" <rob@robsglass.com>
Subject: Eric and the epoxy
(By the way...I'm still dissolving the epoxy from the Powerlink Jr. More
later).
I didn't know there was a way to do this! How is it done? Enquiring minds
would like to know.
Rob
Rob W M Shipley
N919RV (res) Fuselage .....still!
La Mesa, CA. (next to San Diego)
--
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 5436 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | OVM trips on Alt restart |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Holland" <hollandm@pacbell.net>
Thanks for the feedback. After landing and realizing what had happened it dawned
on me that the high rpm may have triggered a voltage spike that tripped the
OVM. I'm happy to report no instruments were harmed, with the exception of an
electric t&b that died, but I think that was coincidental.
Yes, I have the Z24 wiring, with the B-lead connected to a relay and assume it
tripped. I didn't have the presence of mind at the time to reset the breaker,
cut power to idle and try to restart the alternator, didn't even realize the
breaker had tripped until I'd landed and started to evaluate what had happened.
Clearly I was unprepared for the event.
My take aways:
1 Develop and use checklists, prepare for overvoltage situations and avoid inducing
them if you can.
2 The crowbar system works.
3 Pay attention to the data in front of you.
Throughout this situation, the Dynon EFIS continuously displayed 3 voltages; Main
bus, E bus and it's own internal battery. If I'd paid attention, it was obvious
that the Alternator wasn't on, from the get-go.
One last question - I did try to start my 8 amp B&C permanent magnet, externally
regulated alternator connected to my ebus. As I switched this alternator on
I watched the system voltages and didn't see squat with the ebus on. However
I didn't think to turn off the master if this matters.
This raises a whole different set of questions which is really more suitable for
another thread.
The SD8 Spec sheet indicates that output of this alternator is closely related
to it's rpm. At prop rpm levels you would be luck to see 2 amps from this device
under load. But this assumes the mag shaft dive turns at prop speed. Does
anyone know if this is so? Bottom line is I still don't know if the SD8 really
is a backup alternator. I'll be finding out though and will report what
I learn.
Mike
.
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! --
|