Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:13 AM - Re: Screw terminals and Vision Microsystems' 1000 (Bruce Gray)
2. 03:32 AM - Re: Power/ground terminal blocks (Kevin Horton)
3. 05:11 AM - Re: Re:Real data on OVP/etc (disinterested?) (Mickey Coggins)
4. 05:38 AM - Re: Power/ground terminal blocks (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 05:44 AM - Re: Re:Real data on OVP/etc (disinterested?) (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 05:49 AM - Re: Screw terminals and Vision Microsystems' 1000 (Dale Ensing)
7. 06:00 AM - Re: Screw terminals and Vision Microsystems' 1000 (Wayne Sweet)
8. 06:00 AM - headset and microphone plugs (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 06:33 AM - Re: Screw terminals and Vision Microsystems' 1000 (Paul McAllister)
10. 07:08 AM - Re: Power/ground terminal blocks (Steve Ruse)
11. 07:16 AM - Re: Screw terminals and Vision Microsystems' 1000 (Malcolm Thomson)
12. 07:18 AM - Re: Screw terminals and Vision Microsystems' 1000 (Rhett Westerman)
13. 08:02 AM - Re: Screw terminals and Vision Microsystems' 1000 (John Schroeder)
14. 08:31 AM - Aeroelectric List Format (Eric M. Jones)
15. 08:39 AM - Re:Real data on OVP/etc (disinterested?) (Eric M. Jones)
16. 08:44 AM - Re: Screw terminals and Vision Microsystems' 1000 (Ron Raby)
17. 08:54 AM - Screw terminals and Vision Microsystems' 1000 ()
18. 09:13 AM - Re: Aeroelectric List Format (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
19. 09:50 AM - Re: Re:Real data on OVP/etc (disinterested?) (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
20. 09:58 AM - Re: Control input (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
21. 11:15 AM - Re: Aeroelectric List Format (Phil Birkelbach)
22. 11:28 AM - Re: Re:Real data on OVP/etc (disinterested?) (Matt Prather)
23. 11:28 AM - Ferrels for use in screw connectors (DonVS)
24. 12:39 PM - Re: Aeroelectric List Format (Eric M. Jones)
25. 01:16 PM - Re: Re: Aeroelectric List Format (Joseph Larson)
26. 01:47 PM - Re: Re: Aeroelectric List Format (Frank & Dorothy)
27. 02:08 PM - Re: Aeroelectric List Format (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
28. 02:34 PM - Re: Ferrels for use in screw connectors (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
29. 02:36 PM - Re: Re: Aeroelectric List Format (Mickey Coggins)
30. 02:37 PM - Re: Power/ground terminal blocks (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
31. 02:52 PM - Re: Ferrels for use in screw connectors (DonVS)
32. 03:13 PM - Re: Re: Aeroelectric List Format (Matt Prather)
33. 03:20 PM - Re: Re: Aeroelectric List Format (Phil Birkelbach)
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: | Screw terminals and Vision Microsystems' 1000 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce@glasair.org>
Upgrade to the VM1000C. They have gone to all d-sub connectors.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Malcolm
Thomson
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Screw terminals and Vision Microsystems' 1000
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Malcolm Thomson"
<mthomson@showmeproductions.com>
We are having reliability issues with a VMS 1000. Intermittent gauge
readings, reboots, etc. I believe the issue is the connections to the unit
which are made with screw terminals. These are the kind of terminals in
which you strip the wire, insert it into the hole and then tighten the screw
onto the wire. Does anyone have a suggestion of how this type of connection
can be turned into something more reliable. Have others had this issue with
the VMS 1000 or is it just me?
Thanks.
--
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: Power/ground terminal blocks |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
On 5 Aug 2005, at 24:12, Steve Ruse wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Ruse"
> <steve@wotelectronics.com>
>
> I'm looking for power & ground terminal blocks, and haven't been
> able to
> find them anywhere. I'm not sure if that is the correct term for
> what I am
> looking for or not. Basically I need a terminal block that will
> connect
> multiple wires to one wire, instead of acting as a pass-through/
> disconnect
> point for each wire. I want to mount them behind my panel, bring
> in one hot
> wire and one ground, and then feed each individual device from that
> strip.
> Make sense?
>
> I know something like this exists, I'm surprised they aren't easier
> to find.
> Can anyone tell me where to get these?
>
How are you going to protect each hot wire from a short? If you are
going to use CBs, then many people have a copper or brass bar that
connects one side of the CBs together to distribute the power to
them. If you want to use fuses, then you should look at some sort of
fuseblock. See http://www.steinair.com/fuseblocks.htm. Ones with
more fuses are available from B & C Specialties, but their site isn't
working properly right now. http://www.bandc.biz/parts.html I
recommend fuse blocks.
For grounds, B and C Specialties sells a brass tab block that is
designed to be used as a single point to ground dozens of things. It
has dozens of tabs to take Fast-On connectors that you crimp onto the
end of each wire. http://www.bandc.biz/parts.html
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re:Real data on OVP/etc (disinterested?) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> By using a normal procedure of manually switching the alternator ON
> after starting and OFF before shut down, you forced an abrupt ON/OFF
> thru the regulator. This is known to cause grief. (Read below-The IC
> chip inside the alternator is a microprocessor and its internal
> protections only work if it is powered during engine start and stop.)
> ... ND alternators have an IC chip that provides many safety and
> fault protection functions including OV protection. In fact this
> microprocessor chip may have thousands of transistors VS. a
> Plain-Jane external VR with 2 or 4 transistors. Therefore doing
> abrupt things repeatedly stresses the chip overtime. It just was not
> designed to be used like that. You got away with it for a while, but
> eventually is started to fail (with out dramatic affect I might add).
>
I had not heard of this before. Are you saying that I should make
sure the alternator is on whenever the batteries are on?
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
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: Power/ground terminal blocks |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 11:12 PM 8/4/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve Ruse"
><steve@wotelectronics.com>
>
>I'm looking for power & ground terminal blocks, and haven't been able to
>find them anywhere. I'm not sure if that is the correct term for what I am
>looking for or not. Basically I need a terminal block that will connect
>multiple wires to one wire, instead of acting as a pass-through/disconnect
>point for each wire. I want to mount them behind my panel, bring in one hot
>wire and one ground, and then feed each individual device from that strip.
>Make sense?
>
>I know something like this exists, I'm surprised they aren't easier to find.
>Can anyone tell me where to get these?
How would you use such a device in the architecture of your
electrical system? Have you selected an architecture? May
I suggest that you review the document which you may download
at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11C.pdf
. . . pick an architecture that comes closest to what you
believe you'd like to have and then consider modifying it
as needed for any special requirements you might have. Then
toss those considerations out here on the List for considered
critical review. In particular, help us understand the
concepts you described in your posting above and where this
technique fits into any of the suggested architectures.
Bob . . .
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re:Real data on OVP/etc (disinterested?) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
> > By using a normal procedure of manually switching the alternator ON
> > after starting and OFF before shut down, you forced an abrupt ON/OFF
> > thru the regulator. This is known to cause grief.
Please cite the study and a location from which we might
access it . . .
> (Read below-The IC
> > chip inside the alternator is a microprocessor and its internal
> > protections only work if it is powered during engine start and stop.)
> > ... ND alternators have an IC chip that provides many safety and
> > fault protection functions including OV protection. In fact this
> > microprocessor chip may have thousands of transistors VS. a
> > Plain-Jane external VR with 2 or 4 transistors. Therefore doing
> > abrupt things repeatedly stresses the chip overtime. It just was not
> > designed to be used like that. You got away with it for a while, but
> > eventually is started to fail (with out dramatic affect I might add).
The users of microprocessors throughout the industrial world would
be astounded should suppliers of such devices express this kind
of warning in the specifications for their products. I will suggest
that any microprocessor product has no upper bounds for exercising
it's functionality if one observes the well stated limits to
external stress (voltages and currents) and accepts limit to
operational agility (clock speeds). The notion that any manufacturer
would field a product with the vulnerabilities cited above is
mind boggling.
Bob . . .
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Screw terminals and Vision Microsystems' 1000 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dale Ensing" <densing@carolina.rr.com>
Simalar probems with RMI engine monitor......After 70 hours on the airplane
I am now starting to have fluctuating CHT and EGT gauge readings with the
RMI engine monitor. Engine is running normally. I also suspect the
connections between the sensor wires and hook-up wires to the instrument.as
it is happening on all but one cylinder. The connectors are the bullet
shaped push-ins and seem to be tight as it is very difficult to pull them
apart. I too would appreciate hearing from others if they have had this
problem and how they corrected it.
Dale Ensing
RV-6A
We are having reliability issues with a VMS 1000. Intermittent gauge
readings, reboots, etc. I believe the issue is the connections to the unit
which are made with screw terminals. These are the kind of terminals in
which you strip the wire, insert it into the hole and then tighten the screw
onto the wire. Does anyone have a suggestion of how this type of connection
can be turned into something more reliable. Have others had this issue with
the VMS 1000 or is it just me?
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: Screw terminals and Vision Microsystems' 1000 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
I have had this same problem with my older Vision 800 system. One way to
make the connection more robust is to wrap the stripped wire back around the
insulation, say 1/8" and then insert that into the hole. Then the screw will
clamp down onto the wire supported by the insulation just prior to the
stripped section.
Wayne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III Microsystems' 1000" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Screw terminals and Vision Microsystems'
1000
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr@cox.net> Microsystems' 1000
>
> At 07:59 PM 8/4/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Malcolm Thomson"
>><mthomson@showmeproductions.com>
>>
>>We are having reliability issues with a VMS 1000. Intermittent gauge
>>readings, reboots, etc. I believe the issue is the connections to the
>>unit
>>which are made with screw terminals. These are the kind of terminals in
>>which you strip the wire, insert it into the hole and then tighten the
>>screw
>>onto the wire. Does anyone have a suggestion of how this type of
>>connection
>>can be turned into something more reliable. Have others had this issue
>>with
>>the VMS 1000 or is it just me?
>
> Funny thing about those terminal strips . . . Greg Richter
> likes 'em too. See pages 41 and 50 of
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/richter/response_1.pdf
>
> These terminal strips are one step above wrapping a wire
> around a screw and mashing it under a washer. Not gas tight,
> no insulation support.
>
> I'm wondering if Greg uses these throughout is
> EFIS system?
>
> Anyhow, it does not surprise me that you or anyone else
> might have some difficulties with them. They're not
> very suited to a mobile environment, especially airplanes.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
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: | headset and microphone plugs |
0.01 URI_REDIRECTOR Message has HTTP redirector URI
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 11:46 PM 8/4/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>Longer form.
>
>I'm working on a panel mount intercom in an ultralight, trying to connect to
>an Icom radio. I believe I've got a problem in the superfine wires going to
>microphone and headset plugs. The previous builder connected those plugs to
>an Icom connector cable (jacks going to an Icom connector).
>
>One way out of my trouble would be to find connectors which let me solder
>"real" wire to. One is a 3/8 headphone style, the other is slightly smaller
>(0.205?) for the microphone. They're the same size plugs as an aviation
>headset uses. I can't seem to find these connectors sold in kit form.
>
>There may be other ways to solve this, but I'm almost ready to buy a
>"portable" intercom (which has the connectors already wired) and break the
>case to remount in my panel.
>
>I'd appreciate any leads on where to find connectors, or on alternate
>solutions.
The plugs your looking for are made by Switchcraft and
may be viewed at:
http://www.switchcraft.com/products/jack-122.html
#480 is for the microphone, #440 is for headset side.
You can purchase from folks linked below:
http://www.newark.com/NewarkWebCommerce/newark/en_US/endecaSearch/partDetail.jsp?SKU=39F792&CMP=AFC-CC3763909474&QTexthttp://www.onlinecomponents.com/search-general.cfm?pn=480&manufacturer=SWITCHCRAFT&ref=Froogle
and
http://www.newark.com/NewarkWebCommerce/newark/en_US/endecaSearch/partDetail.jsp?SKU=39F791&CMP=AFC-CC3763909474&QTexthttp://www.onlinecomponents.com/search-general.cfm?pn=480&manufacturer=SWITCHCRAFT&ref=Froogle
I note that the Newark description and illustration for the #480 is
wrong but the part number and price differential suggests that
if you order a #480, that you'll get the right part as described
in the Switchcraft data sheet cited above.
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: Screw terminals and Vision Microsystems' 1000 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister@qia.net>
Hi all,
Although I don't know a good source, it is possible to purchase crimp pins
that will solve this problem. Good quality ones are constructed in a
similar manner as the push on spade connector, but have a pin instead that
can be put in the terminal block.
Paul
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: Power/ground terminal blocks |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Ruse <steve@wotelectronics.com>
Thanks for the input Bob. The fuseblock suggested by Kevin is exactly
what I'm
looking for. My system will be most similar to "Z-29". Just a very basic
battery-only system. My plane has no starter or alternator, although I
may add
a wind generator at some point in the future. I will only be powering my GPS,
Intercom, and COMM radio from a battery, via something like the
fuseblock Kevin
suggested. I will also provide a spare 12v jack, as well as a ground charging
jack.
Thanks for the input,
Steve Ruse
Dallas, TX
> How would you use such a device in the architecture of your
> electrical system? Have you selected an architecture? May
> I suggest that you review the document which you may download
> at:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11C.pdf
>
> . . . pick an architecture that comes closest to what you
> believe you'd like to have and then consider modifying it
> as needed for any special requirements you might have. Then
> toss those considerations out here on the List for considered
> critical review. In particular, help us understand the
> concepts you described in your posting above and where this
> technique fits into any of the suggested architectures.
>
> Bob . . .
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: | Screw terminals and Vision Microsystems' 1000 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Malcolm Thomson" <mthomson@showmeproductions.com>
Thanks Paul. If anyone has a source or picture of what Paul is describing,
please let me know.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul
McAllister
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Screw terminals and Vision Microsystems'
1000
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister"
--> <paul.mcallister@qia.net>
Hi all,
Although I don't know a good source, it is possible to purchase crimp pins
that will solve this problem. Good quality ones are constructed in a
similar manner as the push on spade connector, but have a pin instead that
can be put in the terminal block.
Paul
--
--
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: | Screw terminals and Vision Microsystems' 1000 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rhett Westerman" <Rhettwesterman@cox.net>
Malcolm,
I have almost 1000 hours on my VM1000 and never any trouble. I have many
friends with this same unit that have run trouble free for long periods of
time.
I suspect that your wires are touching more than they are supposed to at the
DPU or you have trouble elsewhere in the wiring. I do not think it is the
screw terminals.
best,
Rhett
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Malcolm Thomson
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Screw terminals and Vision Microsystems'
1000
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Malcolm Thomson"
<mthomson@showmeproductions.com>
We are having reliability issues with a VMS 1000. Intermittent gauge
readings, reboots, etc. I believe the issue is the connections to the unit
which are made with screw terminals. These are the kind of terminals in
which you strip the wire, insert it into the hole and then tighten the screw
onto the wire. Does anyone have a suggestion of how this type of connection
can be turned into something more reliable. Have others had this issue with
the VMS 1000 or is it just me?
Thanks.
--
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: Screw terminals and Vision Microsystems' 1000 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Malcolm -
I have seen small, all-metal end caps that you crimp on to the ends of the
wires. The cap is then inserted into the terminal. I have not had to do
this because we do not have this kind of terminal in the A/C.
John
PS Are you flying the Thunder yet?
O
> We are having reliability issues with a VMS 1000. Intermittent gauge
> readings, reboots, etc. I believe the issue is the connections to the
> unit
> which are made with screw terminals. These are the kind of terminals in
> which you strip the wire, insert it into the hole and then tighten the
> screw
> onto the wire. Does anyone have a suggestion of how this type of
> connection
> can be turned into something more reliable.
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: | Aeroelectric List Format |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
When the Federal government and IBM were struggling in court a decade ago, IBM's
defense strategy was to send truckloads of documents to the government prosecutors.
When the prosecutors asked for the slightest clarification on any point,
IBM would ask for a geological amount of time to answer the question, then
responded with more truckloads of documents. IBM kept this up until the government
simply gave up and went away.
This is to illustrate that all methods of argument are not equal, and some lead
nowhere. I suspect that this "public email list server" has its structural limits,
and we have exceeded them mightily.
So what to do....? I suspect that the Aeroelectric Connection (or its clone) should
be turned into a free document that can be edited continuously online like
Wikipedia or other open source documents. Although one could charge for the
subscription, the consensus seems to be that free subscriptions and paid advertising
works better.
Good textsbooks like the Aeroelectric Connection remain unread for the most part
since people absorb what they find of most interest at the moment. Books also
freeze a particular technical viewpoint, and the technology is changing too
fast for this to be the medium of choice.
The Aeroelectric list is handicapped by many operational limitations, such as no
graphics attachments, no video clips, short display times (seven days goes zooming
by), obscure formatting restrictions, etc.
The wonders of the internet allow magical connections between people. We aren't
doing it yet and as a result problems with discourse follow. The list is tiresomely
repetitive, running the same debates on and on, just because the medium
makes it so easy to forget all the arguments previously posted. I could suggest
just numbering the arguments like the old joke about the comedian convention.
Mr. X and Mr. Y lashing each other about load dump, "Well, that's old # XY-LD135Z.
I thought we resolved that....let's see....two years ago? Let's put on
our thinking caps (the beanie with the little propeller on it), and seek a better
answer.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
"What the West really has to offer is honesty. Somehow, in the midst of their
horrid history, the best among the Gaijin learned a wonderful lesson. They
learned to distrust themselves, to doubt even what they were taught to believe
or what their egos make them yearn to see. To know that even truth must be
scrutinized, it was a great discovery...."
-- David Brin, "Dr. Pak's Preschool"
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re:Real data on OVP/etc (disinterested?) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
George you flatter me!
>Paul's http://www.periheliondesign.com/suppressors.htm
Should be Eric M. Jones's http://www.periheliondesign.com/suppressors.htm
I borrow good designs wherever I can find them.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
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: Screw terminals and Vision Microsystems' 1000 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby" <ronr@advanceddesign.com>
Malcolm
They are called ferrules. Various manufactures. We use Weidmuller, for 22
awg the part # is 902575. There is a special crimper to put them on though.
www.weidmuller.com
Regards
Ron Raby
Lancair ES
55 hrs
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Screw terminals and Vision Microsystems'
1000
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder"
> <jschroeder@perigee.net>
>
> Malcolm -
>
> I have seen small, all-metal end caps that you crimp on to the ends of the
> wires. The cap is then inserted into the terminal. I have not had to do
> this because we do not have this kind of terminal in the A/C.
>
> John
>
> PS Are you flying the Thunder yet?
>
>
> O
>> We are having reliability issues with a VMS 1000. Intermittent gauge
>> readings, reboots, etc. I believe the issue is the connections to the
>> unit
>> which are made with screw terminals. These are the kind of terminals in
>> which you strip the wire, insert it into the hole and then tighten the
>> screw
>> onto the wire. Does anyone have a suggestion of how this type of
>> connection
>> can be turned into something more reliable.
>
>
>
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: | Screw terminals and Vision Microsystems' 1000 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Malcolm Thomson"
<mthomson@showmeproductions.com>
<<We are having reliability issues with a VMS 1000. Intermittent gauge
readings, reboots, etc. I believe the issue is the connections to the unit
which are made with screw terminals. These are the kind of terminals in
which you strip the wire, insert it into the hole and then tighten the screw
onto the wire. Does anyone have a suggestion of how this type of connection
can be turned into something more reliable. Have others had this issue with
the VMS 1000 or is it just me? Thanks.>>
8/5/2005
Hello Malcolm, VMS has abandoned the screw terminals for connecting the
sensor wires to the DPU (Data Processing Unit) and gone to D Sub
connections. They did this just about the time my DPU was delivered with
screw terminals. I sent the DPU back to them and they converted it (Jan
2001) to the D Sub connector type, returned it to me, and it was installed
by me.
If you are absolutely convinced that the screw terminals are at fault it may
be possible for them to convert your DPU also. Be advised that this will not
be a trivial task. It will down your plane while the change to the DPU is
being made. It will cost money. You may have to rewire all of your sensors
since just putting D Sub connectors on your present wires may not be
feasible. Wiring up the D Sub connectors is quite a chore. If you want to
consider going this route contact me off list and I will mail you some
instructions from the current VMS manual that will give you an idea of what
is involved.
Let's consider something else -- is it possible that the problem lies in the
flat ribbon cable going to your gauges? These cables and the insulation
piercing connectors are not foolproof and they can go bad. You can purchase
cabling and connectors from the electrical supply places and roll your own
replacement (contact me for advice) or you can order a replacement cable
from VMS and install it. Ordering a cable from VMS is much easier of the two
choices.
Also tell us a little more about the reboot problem symptoms -- maybe there
is something to be learned from that. Power supply wire to DPU loose?
Voltage drops down during starting and the unit comes back whacky?
Or.......?
OC
PS: I would not hesitate to email support@visionmicrosystems.com or call
David McCluskey (360-714-8203) at VMS for help. I have the very highest
regard for the integrity and capability of the customer service of VMS. I
hope that their joining with JPI does not change that.
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: Aeroelectric List Format |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 8/5/05 10:33:08 AM Central Daylight Time,
emjones@charter.net writes:
> The Aeroelectric list is handicapped by many operational limitations, such
> as no graphics attachments, no video clips, short display times (seven days
> goes zooming by), obscure formatting restrictions, etc.
>>>>
Then there are those of us who cannot or do not wish to pay exhorbitant fees
for fast access for these "enhancements", accessing additional content only as
desired- I personally find the service most useful and valuable (not to
mention paid for by voluntary contributions) and prefer to not "look a gift-horse
in the mouth". If I don't like the ride, I can always trade for another pony,
but will have to pay the requisite price- hitting the del key costs a few
milliseconds at most!
(No offense, Eric, but I'd never even know you or your products existed if it
weren't for the A-list!)
Thanks to Matt for the -lists and Bob for the AEC (available unencumbered by
cables & keyboard)
Respectfully,
Mark Phillips & PLEASE do not archive non-OBAM related editorials!
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:Real data on OVP/etc (disinterested?) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 03:00 PM 8/4/2005 -0700, you wrote:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jack Eckdahl"
><jeckdahl@sjrwmd.com>
>
>George: The alternator that failed was a Nippon Denso, 60 amp,
>internally regulated. I'm not sure that my experience should cause
>others to avoid this unit. I know that hundreds of airplanes are flying
>successfully with them. However, if you read Bob's most recent post,
>you might decide to avoid all internal regulated alternators.
>
Hi Jack:
> "Jack Eckdahl" wrote:
>However, if you read Bob's most recent post, you might decide to avoid
all internal >regulated alternators.
No Sir, I still think internally regulated alternators (ND in particular)
are a fine choice, without an adding on an OV protection device (crow bar).
By fine choice I mean safe & reliable. It is lighter, cheaper, simpler and
less expensive than an external regulated alternator. There is nothing
wrong with a crow bar, not with standing the little technical minutiae.
I have a great respect for Bob's opinions, which are based on his
knowledge, experience, standard aerospace practices and certification
regulations, which is all-good.
To make an analogy: Lets make a stew by cooking-up several pounds of
knowledge & experience. Than add an ounce of spice called opinion. The
whole flavor of the stew is influence and changed by that opinion. The
taste is still good, but it's a different flavored stew than if you used a
different spice (opinion). That does not mean a stew with another spice
(opinion) is bad.
Bob has strong opinions, and is the guru of electrons who gives out design
advice thru this forum, seminars and his book. He has to believe and
understand the info he gives out. I don't blame him for not supporting IR
alternators. He does not have detailed info on the design or can he
control it. However that does not make IR alternators a poor choice or
dangerous.
It depends on your paradigm . . .
In fact it is superior in many ways to the method of DC power generation
Bob campaigns. Bob does not talk to the advantages of the IR alternator,
but to be fair he does not say it is bad. He just cant recommend it, and
given the choices he must pick one idea and back-up that one idea he feels
is best overall for most applications. Thats OK.
Pick your spice, make your stew, eat and enjoy. If you get indigestion it
is your own fault. I don't criticize other Cooks for using curry spice.
Bob says a crow bar and external VR is the best way to go; he has good
reasons to recommend it; he is comfortable with it. He knows how it works
or should work. Bob is not comfortable with IR regulators because he can't
control the field directly, in other words he does not trust the IC chip
and the one field driver transistor. Plus he has always used external
voltage regulators at work. Fair enough.
Which is not an opinion sir. Nor is it a preference for anyone's
stew. For the past 70+ years, folks flying airplanes have had
switches on the panel that offer (1) absolute control over all sources
of power in the aircraft and (2) has a remote probability of a failure
that propagates across multiple systems. The FAA requires that I
work within that paradigm when offering up new systems for certification.
I do trust the IC chip and drive transistor. Why? They are proven in
millions of cars, trucks and industrial equipment, including a good lot of
kit planes as well. You can't get the FAA to certify an alternator on this
basis, but again who cares if you have a kit plane.
I'm completely mystified by this statement. How does the fact that
the FAA will or will not bless any particular reasoning make it
an automatic no-brainer for someone building his own airplane?
This isn't about regulations or opinions, it's about design goals
that satisfy the paradigm under which the owner/operator of the
end product. 99+ percent of OBAM airplane builders are comfortable
with and most understand the paradigm that controls how certified
airplanes operate.
Do you have data about how the various IR alternators operate such
that you can DEMONSTRATE that anything with ND's name on it will
operate in the paradigm that applies to the vast majority of airplanes
flying? If not, then your recommendation is not backed up by
demonstrable and consistent performance characteristics and is,
in fact, purely a preference for a different taste in your
bowl of stew.
Now, we can come forward with any number of new ideas. The e-bus
was launched from the pages of the AeroElectric Connection over a
dozen years ago. I sincerely hope that folks are taking advantage of
this new paradigm no because you or I had any opinions about it.
I hope builders incorporate this feature because they
understand and appreciate its value. It's my job to instill
understanding, not to convince anyone of anything.
The electronic and auto industry has studied and tested these electronic
components, like the ones inside a ND alternator, i.e., transistors and IC
circuits. They have a known failure time in the millions of hours.
No argument there. None-the-less, folks continue to
come forward with their failure experiences. Not a "current
generation ND alternator? Don't know. Not a stock
regulator? Don't know. Would a well considered ov
protection system of ANY flavor have saved the day?
Probably . . . likelihood of dual failures in same
system on same flight are extremely rare. At least
one customer with the b-lead contactor and OVM-14
crowbar module has written to me expressing relief
that the system was in place when his IR alternator
went tits up.
The big hang up with Bob and others is the one drive transistor (external
to the IC) could short out and by-pass the IC chips control of the
alternator. How likely is this? The chance is slim to none, and is proven
every day when millions of these alternators work with out fail, day after
day, year after year, 100s and 1,000s of hours every year.
But do you agree that the risk is not zero? In fact,
one of our brothers here on the list reported such an
incident recently. If I were trying to convince someone
of anything, I could have wished that Jack's failure would
have occurred two hours out, at night, over mountains
and took out a bunch of radios to boot. When one is looking
for propaganda fodder, the sweat-drenched, nail-biting
stories are much more useful. Gee Jack, you let us down.
I think a ND alternator with IR, without an added on crow bar, has the
right spices for my stew (electrical system) and is delicious.
Please consume it in good health.
Bob bases his design philosophy in part on a thought process of "how could
you certify this?" Well if you have an experimental you don't care or need
a certified accessory. I agree an IR alternator is hard if not impossible
to certify with the FAA as is, without spending mega dollars doing it. So
the inertia of the industry is to stay with what you know, externally
regulated alternators. You can't certify an accessory based on field
service history in cars and kit planes alone, but it sure speaks to its
reliability. Good enough for me and many other builders.
You absolutely missed the point. Again, this has nothing
to do with how much this system would please or displease
me, the FAA or anyone else. It has everything to do with
operating within the paradigm (which the FAA happens to
like - as do the vast majority of OBAM aircraft builders).
Bob works in the certified field; this is his line of work and influences
his opinion. Not that there is anything wrong with that. However if you
think FAA certified makes something better, you might consider a 1950's
Delco or Ford Prestolite automotive generator and mechanical points voltage
regulator are FAA certified on aircraft! Is that better than a small light
Denso alternator with IR? Bob's crow bar is not certified.
B&C alternators & regulators are not certified. Does that make them bad?
NO. There is no magic to FAA certification. We have the freedom to use
Denso alternators in our kit planes, an in my opinion we should exercise
that option, not that Bob's baseline system is bad. I just don't think it
automatically should be the De facto design.
You remind me of individuals who have a lot of opinions
about a book they've never read. The crowbar OV
protection system IS certified sir, several times over. I've
stated this numerous times in this thread. All of B&C'S many
STC'd installations of both belt and pad driven alternators
use the LR/SB series regulators all of which have crowbar
ov protection.
No disrespect to Bob, and sorry if that offends anyone.
You couldn't offend me if you tried. I won't permit it.
You do amaze me with your lack of understanding
as to what the real issues . . .
Why has Bob's crow bar experienced premature trips? Stuff happens. I read
about the capacitor fix and understand why it helped. It seems to me, as an
electronics amateur, whenever you have transient conditions (dv/dt), throw
a good old capacitor in the mix. It always seems to mellow a circuit out.
(mellow - a non-technical term for filter to dampen transient voltage
spikes.) When in doubt put a capacitor in. (kidding)
This isn't about ov protection. It's about control.
Does your ND alternator of choice turn ON and OFF
at the flip of a switch? Once it's in operation,
can it be turned OFF? Do all alternators with the
ND brand on them operate in this manner? How does
one insure at the parts counter that the alternator
being considered will operate within the currently
accepted paradigm?
If not, then you're proposing a new paradigm. Which is
fine . . . but be prepared to explain it in sufficient
detail that everyone knows the physics upon which your
recommendations are based . . . and they understand and
accept the new paradigm. This has nothing to do with
opinions, only facts and customer perceptions of value
in the proposed paradigm.
There is never a 100% guarantee any device, including a simple crow bar or
a ND alternator will always work as designed. Simple things like a crow bar
& circuit breaker should work as Bob would point out. The same applies to
Denso alternators. However the idea propagated that a Denso failure means a
colossal OV condition is not valid. The usual Denso failure mode is
passive, by just dying.
That's a no-brainer sir. 99% of all failures in all
systems are passive. That's what keeps FBOs in business
fixing all those things that broke and didn't bring the
airplane down (or put the pilot into a situation he
couldn't handle). The vast majority of accidents do not
involve systems failures of any kind.
People want a 100% guarantees about everything in life and what they put on
their aircraft. Keep it simple; consider a stand alone Denso as an elegant
simple solution. Consider that crow bar could fail passively and not work
when needed without the pilot being aware of it. Bob said this is unlikely.
BINGO. I agree a simple crow bar should work, with emphasis on should. Same
with a Denso alternator, it is unlikely you will have an OV condition. At
least the ND alternator has a built in fault light (which will indicate
many faults). Nothing is perfect. Take a chance on life
A romantic philosophy sir, but even the greatest of
chance-takers took great pains to understand the territory
into which they planned to venture.
> "Jack Eckdahl" wrote:
>George: The alternator that failed was a Nippon Denso, 60 amp, internally
regulated.
Jack: I recall under peculiar conditions you observed your ND alternator
going to 16 volts. Also with the ALT switched off it produced power after
starting the engine. The technique of turning the alternator on after start
was your normal procedure. Obviously something was different than before,
since it always worked well and would not make power until switching it on.
You also noted that voltage varied 13 to 16 with load. By using a normal
procedure of manually switching the alternator ON after starting and OFF
before shut down, you forced an abrupt ON/OFF thru the regulator. This is
known to cause grief. (Read below-The IC chip inside the alternator is a
microprocessor and its internal protections only work if it is powered
during engine start and stop.)
I recall pointing out sources for brand new 60 amp ND alternators to you.
Not sure what you ended up doing but assume you are flying around FHD with
your new ND alternator. My prediction is if you stop the practice of
switching the alternator ON/OFF manually and get a NEW 60 amp ND
alternator, you will have a lifetime of trouble free alternator service
(with out crow bar). Odds are in your favor. The only other recommendation
I have is add a cooling blast tube to the rear of the alternator, and avoid
continuous operations above +30 amps. Heat is the killer of semi-conductors.
ND alternators have an IC chip that provides many safety and fault
protection functions including OV protection. In fact this microprocessor
chip may have thousands of transistors VS. a Plain-Jane external VR with 2
or 4 transistors. Therefore doing abrupt things repeatedly stresses the
chip overtime. It just was not designed to be used like that. You got away
with it for a while, but eventually is started to fail (with out dramatic
affect I might add).
This would be amusing if it weren't so serious. In one breath
you extol the virtues of a "brand new" ND alternator while
in the next, you cite the value of de-rating to 30 amps,
supplying cooling air, modifying operating techniques that
don't bother the alternator on a C-172 but might be stressful
on the brand new ND . . .
The IC chip also provides soft starts and load dump protection. SOFT START
means a large demand will not cause the alternator to instantaneously slam
full open but will ramp up to avoid a voltage overshoot. LOAD DUMP
protection, keeps voltage variation to a min with a large drop in load.
You cite facts not in evidence. The LR series regulators
were tuned to provide the slightly under-damped servo response
for step functions in both command and load. It's a classic
taks for tailoring servo response. If the internal regulator were
so whippy, LOAD DUMP ISSUES WOULD NOT EXIST. It's a regulator's
inability to control the worst case load reduction that
causes the high energy voltage transient.
When I say load dump I don't mean dropping the B-lead abruptly with an OV
relay, I mean turning the landing lights OFF. I would like to see a
two-transistor external voltage regulator do this.
Come on over to B&C . . . I'll show you one.
The typical IR is more advanced than the typical ER.
What's this mean? It's got 10-100x the transistors and they're
all on a chip instead of soldered to a board. There are features
that the older designs don't have but none of these things
point to any "better" performance with issues you've cited.
Paul's http://www.periheliondesign.com/suppressors.htm may solve the
problem of killing a healthy ND alternators when a nuisance trip of a
B-lead OV relay opening while the alternator is under load. Who knows, it
can't hurt.
It's Eric's product as I recall, not Paul's. Further, it has
nothing to do with nuisance tripping. It illustrates a means
by which an IR alternator can be CONTROLLED irrespective
of the reason for controlling it. OV protection is but one
more layer on a system that's already several layers deep.
However my electrical system design philosophy (the stew I am cooking) is
to keep it simple. I assume the chance of my alternator going into a real
out-O-control OV condition from a drive transistor short is so small I
accept. Just like I accept my single engine will continue to turn and my
single wing spar will not fail in flight. (Sometimes these also fail, but
we maintain them and fly within limits to assure they get us back on the
ground safely.)
You're entitled to accept any paradigm you wish. Just be
sure your audience understands the paradigm shift when
the proposed system does not operate like the one in
a C-172.
There has been much rhetoric about the dangers of IR alternators and the
evil of that one field drive transistor. The theory is the transistor
failure inside the IR bypasses the OV protection of the IC chip. This in
turn causes the mother of all OV conditions. Not to beat the horse to death
(which is a bloody caucus being picked at by vultures at this point), but
this scenario is a theory NOT born out by the proven reliability in
service. No car or kit plane I know of has ever had this condition from my
research. I looked high and low and found nothing, nada, zip, zero. I am
not saying it has never happened or cant happen (it can in theory), but
there is no proof or documentation it has. If we are going to get
scientifically rigorous, than we need the data, otherwise it is ignorant,
to use Bobs words.
This is not rhetoric to state that if the transistor shorts,
the alternator takes off for the moon. It is not rhetoric to
state that some IR alternators cannot be externally controlled
for normal operations, much less for recovery after a failure.
These are called deductions based on failure mode effects analysis.
Show me any cases of a ND alternator having a real honest to goodness
(documented) shorted field drive transistor resulting in an over-voltage
condition, urban legend aside. Sporadic OV module problems are much more
prolific than the non-existent alleged alternator run-a-way.
Numerous folks have experienced failures of IR alternators. Some
of them were ND alternators. Since we might expect to be in
communication with perhaps 5% of the OBAM community, it's not
a stretch to suggest that 3 hard failures I'm aware of over
the past 8 years has been repeated 20X for the community at
large.
The voltage problem (16 volts) you had was far from a wild run-a-way.
Voltage Run-a-way elicits thoughts of a train going down the mountain with
no brakes, terror, panic, destruction and emotion. That is why when you tie
the BAT master and ALT together, so the alternator is turned on
automatically (i.e., DPST switch). If you need to shut the ALT down,
manually pull the CB.
Jack's experience was not mitigated by the fact that
his alternator was "not in a wild run-away" . . . the
battery was the only thing standing between his
failed alternator and all the other electro-whizzies
in his airplane. If the battery had been used up
or even disconnected, the voltage would rise much
faster and much higher.
See:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Alternator_Failures.pdf
. . . also, role of the battery in an ov event starting
at "Rev B" on page 6 of:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Crowbar_OV_Protection/DC_Power_System_Dynamics_C.pdf
> "Jack Eckdahl" wrote:
>I'm not sure that my experience should cause others to avoid this unit.
In my opinion using a ND alternator as is, provides an acceptable risk
while gaining a lighter, simpler and cost effective electrical power
source. Everything in aviation has risk, and the outcome depends on how you
manage these risks. Bob says that crow bar failure is not likely. BINGO!!
I am saying run-a-way voltage in a ND alternator is not likely. Again my
opinion aside, facts like the field service history of ND alternators
indicate their IR alternator are pretty darn good. I dont think the
Japanese ND engineers that designed these devices are ignorant. (The auto
industry is very aware of OV and has lots of electronics to protect.)
Jack: If you replaced your rebuilt alternator with a new one, assuming you
have stopped flipping the alternator ON an OFF manually, you will be fine.
The BAT master should turn the ALT on simultaneously (i.e., DPST switch).
If you need to disable the alternator pull the CB.
> "Jack Eckdahl" wrote:
>I know that hundreds of airplanes are flying successfully with them.
I have no idea about aftermarket rebuilds or second tier replacement parts
VS. OEM parts from ND. ND alternators can be bought new easily at
discounted price if you shop around. The medium frame 60 amp ND's are more
readily available as a rebuild, but they can be bought new if you look.
Okay, you've fenced your paradigm in a bit tighter. You
seem to be suggesting that only a "brand new ND" alternator
is suited to operation in your proposed paradigm. Which
part number? Will it offer positive ON/OFF control via
the little wire out the back?
Compare the price of a B&C and an over the counter stock 60 amp ND
alternator. The whole B&C kit $820: alternator, regulator and brackets. If
you buy a New ND alternator ($180 retail, $120 discounted), brackets and
parts (approx $40-$60), your cost is about $250, the cost of Vans 60 amp ND
alternator kit (with a rebuilt alternator). The B&C cost 3 to 4 times more.
Is it worth the cost? It all depends on you opinion. Nothing wrong with
spending the money but dont expect 100% reliability from the B&C, even on a
dark and stormy night.
This isn't about reliability. It's about failure mode
effects. If the B&C goes south, it shuts down passively
and lights the light. Then we bring "plan B" on line
and continue the flight in comfort. This may not conform
to your idea of component reliability, but it does
conform to my idea of SYSTEM reliability.
Despite the B&C advertisements, balanced rotor and all, there is no
proof, data or facts that the B&C system will achieve superior reliability
over the stock ND alternator.
If you're looking for component reliability, you're
correct. If you're looking for system reliability,
my data is backed up by FMEA supported by 15 years
of field history and a lot of experience in conducting
such studies.
However if you are talking about reliability of a B&C or Stock ND
alternator set-up against certified 1950 and 60s technology factory
aircraft electrical systems, than yes, they are both way more reliable than
the old certified stuff.
Now in theory may be B&C is better, but it cant be proven.
So let's "assume" that it isn't?
The reason it cant be proven is the data or statistics are not available.
The reason for that is no one is tracking it. Does B&C contact all
customers with a service bulletin when a problem is found? That would be
nice. If you point to a ND alternator problem, like the one above, than you
can point to several B&C problems.
Until a couple of years ago, I was tightly coupled to
B&C's field experience with their products. I worked out of
their booth at OSH 12 straight years. I've talked to
thousands of B&C customers (both happy ones and unhappy ones)
Our warranty was "no unhappy customers" . . . EVERY customer
was encouraged to bring any problem back to B&C for resolution.
You're assertion with respect to pointing at B&C's problems
is wishful thinking on your part sir. I've been there
and it was my job to design products with a high degree
of SYSTEM reliability and to quickly resolve what few
problems did arise.
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III Wrote:
>Which only illustrates the ignorance of our customers promulgated by your
rhetoric and Van's equally ignorant advice.
Bob: I like to think they we have a different opinion not ignorant.
Quote: (snip) ignorance of our customers (snip) and Vans equally ignorant
advice.
You just called everyone ignorant Bob. With all due respect that sounds
condescending and insulting. May be you meant something else, but I take
umbrage to that. No one likes to be called ignorant.
I'm sorry, but you've just demonstrated your own shortfall
for understanding of the issues and facts upon which your
dissertation is based. Call it what you will . . .
Do you talk to Van.
I have talked to Van many times. I've asked to do a weekend seminar
for their staff like I did for Lancair. I'm going to do
one in their neighborhood and HOPE some of their staff will
attend. I may have to specifically invite them and/or offer
free tuition.
I think your crow bar is great as a simple cheap solution to protecting
alternators with external regulators, which need protection, but not on IR
alternators, which is designed to work without any other OV protection.
I'll suggest that you know nothing about design details
and philosophy of anyone's built in regulators . . . nor
are you privy to schematics upon which one bases a failure
mode effects analysis.
Van recommends NOT installing an OV module on the 60amp ND alternator,
because it can and does cause damage to them. Bob's comment and use of the
word *ignorance* in describing Van's and Paul's opinion is dogmatic.
They BLAME the ov system for killing an alternator when
if fact, root cause for the failure comes from attempts
to CONTROL the alternator. The alternator with a b-lead
contactor is vulnerable to the same kind of failure whether
or not OV protection is a part of the control system.
Again, call it what you will . . .
I don't know Van personally but I have met him and talked to him several
times over the last 15 years, building two of his kits. He is a very smart
conservative guy, and has a degree in engineering, as I do. From Van's
stand point ND alternators have been damaged with crow bar trips. Why did
Bob call the man ignorant? Whether intentional or accidental, a crow bar
trip can damage an ND alternator. This fact is bore out by the induced
failure Jack had, described above.
I've talked to Van at OSH and at several fly-ins.
You betcha. When it comes to airframes, engines and flight
controls, I am ignorant. I also don't know squat about brain
surgery or particle physics. Van's forte' is demonstrably NOT
founded in the physics and practice of fabricating electrical
systems. His "kit" drawing is 1950's C-172 in which he has
substituted a modern, IR alternator. "Ignorance" is not a
pejorative but an accurate description of demonstrable
fact.
We dont know what data Van is working on. The man after all has over 4200
planes flying of his design and been in the kit plane market for 30 years,
which gives him a little creditability. To call his opinion or Paul's
opinion ignorant is not sensible. Everyone has the best intention here, and
their suggestions are safe and reasonable in my opinion, whether you or I
agree or not.
I agree with Vans opinion that you should NOT use an OV module with an IR
alternator, but I also agree with Bob. If you feel that you cannot rely on
an IR and it's on-board OV protection than go with a crow-bar-ed external
VR alternator. An external VR adds complexity, wiring, cost and weight and
scheduled maintenance and testing, but it works.
I can accept the IR and the minimal risk alleged that there is a
statistical possibility, albeit unlikely, the field driver transistor can
short. My decision to use an IR alternator and no crow bar gives me a
light, simple, compact, cheaper system requiring no maintenance and
testing. Plus parts are available nationwide over the counter at thousands
of auto part stores and auto electric shops. Of course a NEW alternator is
better than an overhauled one, but on a trip if you did have a problem, you
could buy one across the street from the airport at Auto-parts-R-us, with a
warranty. My old home airport had a large import auto salvage yard with in
walking distance from my hanger.
Therefore Van's advice is not ignorant or Pauls flavor of opinion less
valid than Bob's, technical minutia aside. Bob can't guarantee the crow bar
will never have a false trip or fail passively. He can't do it. Go ahead
and say unlikely, but never say never. Like wise, Nippon Denso can't
guarantee a high voltage failure, but ND engineers do know about OV. They
understand OV and designed their product to minimize the chance of it
happening. From the field service history in cars and experimental planes,
ND did a great job. There are other alternator brands, some better than
others, but in my opinion the ND is probably the best.
Which part number?
The ND alternator with an IR is designed as a stand-alone unit. The
interaction of and value of an OV module (crow bar) with an IR alternator
is of dubious value. If the OV module can never false trip, than you will
never damage the alternator. However that is not how it works in the real
world. If Paul's B-lead suppressor works than that might be an option,
allowing a safer way to incorporate a crow bar type device (Bob's or
Paul's) safely on a ND alternator.
Adding a crow bar to an IR alternator is really an effort in belt and
suspenders. If you try to have your cake and eat-it to, you may end up with
the worst of both worlds. Dont mix and match systems. (Too much spice in
one stew is bad.)
Accept the fact what ever you do, when you fly a plane, especially one you
build with systems you designed, you are risking life and limb NO MATTER
WHAT YOU DO.
Except that we CAN design an electrical system that will
NEVER be a link in the chain of events contributing to
a catastrophe
A single pilot in a single engine airplane is more risky than driving a car
crazy folks behind the wheel sharing the same road. I firmly believe you
can beat the General Aviation odds, but that might mean more pilot
training, not more electrical gadgets. The pilot is the most dangerous
thing in the plane, not the voltage regulator. Build your plane to fly with
out it.
Voltage regulators are not the issue. Alternators you
cannot control are the issue.
I think it is fair to disagree, right? I say go with an IR alternator with
no extra OV protection. My best advice is design your systems as simple as
possible, while still getting the job done. Have a back-up, but be reasonable.
George, the boat sailed and you weren't on it. You have
misinterpreted my words and seem to have totally missed
the concepts of failure tolerant design. You've
demonstrated a lack of understanding of many simple
You've also misstated simple facts. You've yet to demonstrate
the need for supplying folks with the most universal
concepts in the discipline being discussed.
I don't think it's helpful to offer designs that depend
on selection of a particular brand and part number of
an alternator (which you have yet to identify).
Put any name on it you wish sir, but it doesn't change the
outcome.
I'm reminded of the words of a wise philosopher who stated
"When the best-you-know-how-to-do is compromised to
placate those who would offer anything less, only less-
than-the-best wins." Please fly your airplane in good
health but I must continue to base my recommendations on
the best I know how to do whether or not you understand
or embrace it.
Bob . . .
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Control input |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>I have an FFA-approved Jeppessen flight simulator and the controls are far
>too sensitive . . . the slightest input results in huge flight attitude
>changes. Jeppessen no longer sells or supports the simulator, and we've
>been unable to locate the author of the software so that we could get a
>patch written. We've tried all the "tricks" and existing inputs, and have
>managed to slow it down somewhat, but far from enough.
>
>During efforts to correct the problem, I found that the control inputs
>function through a variable rheostat; Apparently the greater the control
>input, the more current flows through the rheostat. Which leads me to
>wonder if perhaps we might be able to solve our problem by use of a
>resistor ahead of the reheostat; perhaps even a variable resistor so we
>could experiment.
>
>I'd very much appreciate your thinking.
Thank you for the kind words . . .
Is it a rheostat (2-wire) or potentiometer (3-wire)
connection? If the latter, it's easy to add resistance
to both ends of the pot to scale the output voltage.
If it's a 2-wire, then you need a smaller pot and some
added series resistance to change the scale factors.
But yes, you're perceptions of a possible solution by
adjusting the resistor networks are correct. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/temp/pot_scaling.gif
Bob . . .
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aeroelectric List Format |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Phil Birkelbach <phil@petrasoft.net>
That's funny, I thought that Bob was giving away the updates to his
book. I guess I must have imagined that. I reckon you could write your
own book and give it away for nothing, but it doesn't seem fair to ask
someone else to give away their hard work.
Yahoogroups has most of the features that you have described. There is
nothing stopping you from starting one of those or creating your own
internet resource. I guess I don't see the point of just complaining
about this resource, if you think there is a better way then "get after it".
Godspeed,
Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
RV-7 N727WB - Finishing Up
http://www.myrv7.com
Eric M. Jones wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
>
>When the Federal government and IBM were struggling in court a decade ago, IBM's
defense strategy was to send truckloads of documents to the government prosecutors.
When the prosecutors asked for the slightest clarification on any point,
IBM would ask for a geological amount of time to answer the question, then
responded with more truckloads of documents. IBM kept this up until the government
simply gave up and went away.
>
>This is to illustrate that all methods of argument are not equal, and some lead
nowhere. I suspect that this "public email list server" has its structural limits,
and we have exceeded them mightily.
>
>So what to do....? I suspect that the Aeroelectric Connection (or its clone) should
be turned into a free document that can be edited continuously online like
Wikipedia or other open source documents. Although one could charge for the
subscription, the consensus seems to be that free subscriptions and paid advertising
works better.
>
>Good textsbooks like the Aeroelectric Connection remain unread for the most part
since people absorb what they find of most interest at the moment. Books also
freeze a particular technical viewpoint, and the technology is changing too
fast for this to be the medium of choice.
>
>The Aeroelectric list is handicapped by many operational limitations, such as
no graphics attachments, no video clips, short display times (seven days goes
zooming by), obscure formatting restrictions, etc.
>
>The wonders of the internet allow magical connections between people. We aren't
doing it yet and as a result problems with discourse follow. The list is tiresomely
repetitive, running the same debates on and on, just because the medium
makes it so easy to forget all the arguments previously posted. I could suggest
just numbering the arguments like the old joke about the comedian convention.
Mr. X and Mr. Y lashing each other about load dump, "Well, that's old # XY-LD135Z.
I thought we resolved that....let's see....two years ago? Let's put on
our thinking caps (the beanie with the little propeller on it), and seek a better
answer.
>
>Regards,
>Eric M. Jones
>www.PerihelionDesign.com
>113 Brentwood Drive
>Southbridge MA 01550-2705
>(508) 764-2072
>
>"What the West really has to offer is honesty. Somehow, in the midst of their
>horrid history, the best among the Gaijin learned a wonderful lesson. They
>learned to distrust themselves, to doubt even what they were taught to believe
>or what their egos make them yearn to see. To know that even truth must be
>scrutinized, it was a great discovery...."
> -- David Brin, "Dr. Pak's Preschool"
>
>
>
>
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re:Real data on OVP/etc (disinterested?) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Hi Bob,
...
snipped a bunch
...
I have no idea about aftermarket rebuilds or second tier replacement parts
VS. OEM parts from ND. ND alternators can be bought new easily at
discounted price if you shop around. The medium frame 60 amp ND's are more
readily available as a rebuild, but they can be bought new if you look.
Okay, you've fenced your paradigm in a bit tighter. You
seem to be suggesting that only a "brand new ND" alternator
is suited to operation in your proposed paradigm. Which
part number? Will it offer positive ON/OFF control via
the little wire out the back?
I have an idea...
Most people probably have access to a local auto parts retailer which has
an alternator test machine (with a motor and belt drive, etc). It seems
like it would be a simple task to pick an alternator off the shelf and
take it to the bench and test this aspect of performance using their
machine. It might take a bit of convincing of the salesperson to let you
come to the back room and play with their machine. It should be easy to
rig up a jumper from the control lead pigtail that could be disconnected
and then grounded once the machine is up and running.
Remember to tell the salesperson that the alternator is being installed in
an off-road vehicle.
Admittedly, that the alternator can be turned off via the control lead
doesn't obviate the need for an OVP circuit. Even so, it does make it
simple to be able to install an electrical system that a Cessna driver
could operate without fear of damage.
Regards,
Matt-
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: | Ferrels for use in screw connectors |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DonVS" <dsvs@comcast.net>
Bob or anyone who knows,
I have a new AFS 2500 engine monitor and it has screw type connectors. I
like the unit and want to use it. Does using a ferrel on each wire make
this device less likely to have problem connections? TIA. Don VS
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aeroelectric List Format |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
Do Not Archive
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Phil Birkelbach phil@petrasoft.net
>>So what to do....? I suspect that the Aeroelectric Connection (or its
>>clone) should
be turned into a free document that can be edited continuously online like
Wikipedia or other open source documents. Although one could charge for the
subscription, the consensus seems to be that free subscriptions and paid
advertising
works better.
>That's funny, I thought that Bob was giving away the updates to his
book. I guess I must have imagined that. I reckon you could write your
own book and give it away for nothing, but it doesn't seem fair to ask
someone else to give away their hard work.
>Yahoogroups has most of the features that you have described. There is
nothing stopping you from starting one of those or creating your own
internet resource. I guess I don't see the point of just complaining
about this resource, if you think there is a better way then ......
Phil, et al...
I didn't mean Bob should not be paid for his labors. I meant -- if Bob chose
to give away the book and have advertising on the site it might be a plus
for all concerned. He would probably make out better too--and the book would
update itself.
I see you are one of the "love it or leave it" ilk. Well, mine is the
"improve it if possible" ilk
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
"Never be afraid to tell the world who you are."
- Anonymous
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: Aeroelectric List Format |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Joseph Larson <jpl@showpage.org>
Hmm. The original idea is interesting and different, but I'm not
sure it's better. Wiki allows for multiple authors quite nicely, but
I don't know that it's remotely as convenient for an ongoing
conversation such as the ones we have in this mailing list.
There might be room for both concepts to coexist.
-Joe
On Aug 5, 2005, at 2:38 PM, Eric M. Jones wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
> <emjones@charter.net>
>
> Do Not Archive
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Phil Birkelbach
> phil@petrasoft.net
>
>
>>> So what to do....? I suspect that the Aeroelectric Connection (or
>>> its
>>> clone) should
>>>
> be turned into a free document that can be edited continuously
> online like
> Wikipedia or other open source documents. Although one could charge
> for the
> subscription, the consensus seems to be that free subscriptions and
> paid
> advertising
> works better.
>
>
>> That's funny, I thought that Bob was giving away the updates to his
>>
> book. I guess I must have imagined that. I reckon you could write
> your
> own book and give it away for nothing, but it doesn't seem fair to ask
> someone else to give away their hard work.
>
>
>> Yahoogroups has most of the features that you have described.
>> There is
>>
> nothing stopping you from starting one of those or creating your own
> internet resource. I guess I don't see the point of just complaining
> about this resource, if you think there is a better way then ......
>
> Phil, et al...
>
> I didn't mean Bob should not be paid for his labors. I meant -- if
> Bob chose
> to give away the book and have advertising on the site it might be
> a plus
> for all concerned. He would probably make out better too--and the
> book would
> update itself.
>
> I see you are one of the "love it or leave it" ilk. Well, mine is the
> "improve it if possible" ilk
>
> Regards,
> Eric M. Jones
> www.PerihelionDesign.com
> 113 Brentwood Drive
> Southbridge MA 01550-2705
> (508) 764-2072
>
> "Never be afraid to tell the world who you are."
> - Anonymous
>
>
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: Aeroelectric List Format |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Frank & Dorothy <frankvdh@xtra.co.nz>
> I suspect that the Aeroelectric Connection (or its clone) should be
turned into a free document that can be edited continuously online
I don't see that working.
1. How do you ensure quality? i.e. if its freely editable, then anyone
can add any misunderstanding or inaccuracy or urban myth to it.
2. What about liability? For me in NZ, its not a big issue. But you're
in the litigious USA. Perhaps you post something slightly inaccurate, or
maybe it is accurate but not well explained. It's used by someone
building a Lancair IV which subsequently has an electrical failure,
crashes, and kills all aboard. Will the lawyers come after you? Will you
be giving away information to help someone else if it means risking
financial ruin?
3. Some time ago, I tried to run something similar... I called it "The
Bunny's Guide to RV Building" (RV being a Vans RV-6 aircraft). As I
built my RV, I added photos and text (some my own, a fair amount
extracted from the RV-list archives), specifically aiming it at being an
improvement on Vans' manual. The model I worked with was that I
maintained the web pages, and asked people to email me with
improvements, additions, etc. I got lots of feedback saying what a great
resource it was. But I only got about half a dozen submissions in about
6 years. I'm not sure why it didn't work.
4. What we have now works. I've bought a copy of Bob's book, and I think
it is good value. Why change?
5. Advertising-supported web sites just mean that readers pay for the
content to someone else. You pay in wasted bandwidth and wasted time.
6. Books don't update themselves. A significant part of authoring is
editing.
7. To some extent, the archives at Matronics are "the book writing
itself". But without the editing!
Me, I'm of the "think about what you're planning before destroying
something" ilk.
Frank
>I didn't mean Bob should not be paid for his labors. I meant -- if Bob chose
>to give away the book and have advertising on the site it might be a plus
>for all concerned. He would probably make out better too--and the book would
>update itself.
>
>I see you are one of the "love it or leave it" ilk. Well, mine is the
>"improve it if possible" ilk
>
>Regards,
>Eric M. Jones
>
>
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: Aeroelectric List Format |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Eric M. Jones wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
<emjones@charter.net>
>
>When the Federal government and IBM were struggling in court a decade
ago, IBM's defense strategy was to send truckloads of documents to the
government prosecutors. When the prosecutors asked for the slightest
clarification on any point, IBM would ask for a geological amount of time
to answer the question, then responded with more truckloads of documents.
IBM kept this up until the government simply gave up and went away.
I've seen this technique used many times. I used to work in
the railroad accident investigation and analysis business.
Asking for (or delivering) more pounds of paper than could
be considered useful is common ploy used by both sides but
usually when there are truths to be keep hidden.
>
>This is to illustrate that all methods of argument are not equal, and
some lead nowhere. I suspect that this "public email list server" >has its
structural limits, and we have exceeded them mightily.
How so? Can you elaborate a bit?
>
>So what to do....? I suspect that the Aeroelectric Connection (or its
clone) should be turned into a free document that can be edited
continuously online like Wikipedia or other open source documents. Although
one could charge for the subscription, the consensus seems to be that free
subscriptions and paid advertising works better.
You're certainly free to mount that kind of effort . . .
>
>Good textsbooks like the Aeroelectric Connection remain unread for the
most part since people absorb what they find of most interest at the
moment. Books also freeze a particular technical viewpoint, and the
technology is changing too fast for this to be the medium of choice.
Depends on the text. Physics books printed in 1945 are just as
accurate for the presentation of simple ideas as a physics book
printed today. Of course, the transistor and plasma display weren't
talked about in '45 but superconductivity was. The simple
understood.
Further, I STILL prefer a printed book for random access of
tid-bits from lots of data. Catalogs are good examples where
looking at the whole printed page where you get side-by-side
comparison of similar products. It's also difficult to
match portability of the printed book. I've had a lot of
requests NOT to bind the book . . . the 3-ring format
lays nicely flat on the workbench.
I don't see the printed book going away soon.
>
>The Aeroelectric list is handicapped by many operational limitations,
such as no graphics attachments, no video clips, short display times (seven
days goes zooming by), obscure formatting restrictions, etc.
This presumes that significant numbers of participants
have a desire/need to exchange multimedia items. Matt needs
to be careful too about both data volumes and risks for
transmission of malicious files. I have a website where
I can easily publish quick illustrations. Matt has provided
a photo-upload service (that same service would handle sketches
scanned as .gif files). I suspect that few of the 1200 or
so folks who subscribe to this List would ever upload a
modern graphic so that still leaves us with a hand-full
of people who would communicate with visuals more complex
than text.
>
>The wonders of the internet allow magical connections between people. We
aren't doing it yet and as a result problems with discourse follow. The
list is tiresomely repetitive, running the same debates on and on, just
because the medium makes it so easy to forget all the arguments previously
posted.
Yup, happens in boardrooms and meetings all over the
world every day. At the core of any successful venture
there are a cadre of holders-of-tribal-knowledge who
provide instant random access to historical perspectives.
We used to have a lot of them a RAC but every time one
of them retires, a series of meetings somewhere in the
plant become a little less guided by simple-ideas from
the past.
Further, the List is like a classroom . . . a new set of
participants every "semester". One might rightly
be disappointed if discussions ARE NOT repeated. A discussion
never repeated is a discussion that has become either
irrelevant -OR- has ceased to grow the collective knowledge
of those who watch/participate.
How many times does the average physics professor get to
present an introduction to superconductivity over his/her
teaching career? Now, as engineers, we should expect to
become bored and impatient when it's been too long since
we discussed the next greatest thing. But as a teacher, I
see more value in the AeroElectric List as a classroom for
simple-ideas than as a showroom for the latest inventions.
I could suggest just numbering the arguments like the old joke about the
comedian convention. Mr. X and Mr. Y lashing each other about load dump,
"Well, that's old # XY-LD135Z. I thought we resolved that....let's
see....two years ago? Let's put on our thinking caps (the beanie with the
little propeller on it), and seek a better answer.
I've told folks for years that the 'Connection is as
much their creation as it is mine. The past few months
discussions will be strong drivers in updates of the
regulator, ov and alternator chapters. In fact, I might
just update those three chapters.
I'd be interested in your thoughts. I've been pondering
ways to turn this activity into a retirement business
and bail out of the certified rat-race. Thoughts have
included a series of how-to-videos, seminars-on-a-DVD,
a hands-on super-seminar where the attendees "wire up"
a whole system, etc.
By the way, Dee and I are going to be in Plymouth weekend
of 13/14. I'll invite you to sit in on all or
any part of the seminar . . . we'll be staying over Sunday
night because of ticketing hassles so perhaps we could
do some useful plotting for the future.
Bob . . .
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: Ferrels for use in screw connectors |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 11:27 AM 8/5/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DonVS" <dsvs@comcast.net>
>
>Bob or anyone who knows,
>I have a new AFS 2500 engine monitor and it has screw type connectors. I
>like the unit and want to use it. Does using a ferrel on each wire make
>this device less likely to have problem connections? TIA. Don VS
Depends on what the "ferrel" does. If it adds insulation
support, it might be a useful thing to do. I doubt that quality
of the connection goes up where the screw mashes down on
something hoping to maintain electrical integrity. I had
one reader suggest that you crimp the smaller diameter molex
pins (.062") onto each wire and then put the pin into the
screw-clamp. This would certainly help provide mechanical
support for vibration resistance . . . but probably won't
help with electrical integrity.
Bob . . .
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: Aeroelectric List Format |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
> There might be room for both concepts to coexist.
I agree. I enjoy the interactive conversations coming
into my mailbox, and I like how easy it is to search
the Matronics lists. What would be great is a FAQ
that could be both a starting point for new members
of the list, and a place to point someone when they
ask a question that has been hashed to death.
In fact, I'm pretty sure we have already discussed
this issue, and someone wrote a kind of FAQ, but
I can't even recall where it is.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
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: | Re: Power/ground terminal blocks |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 10:07 AM 8/5/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Ruse <steve@wotelectronics.com>
>
>Thanks for the input Bob. The fuseblock suggested by Kevin is exactly
>what I'm
>looking for. My system will be most similar to "Z-29". Just a very basic
>battery-only system. My plane has no starter or alternator, although I
>may add
>a wind generator at some point in the future. I will only be powering my GPS,
>Intercom, and COMM radio from a battery, via something like the
>fuseblock Kevin
>suggested. I will also provide a spare 12v jack, as well as a ground charging
>jack.
>
>Thanks for the input,
You're welcome. Sounds like you got a good handle on it!
I'd never considered the fact that Z-29 might be the whole
enchilada. Good luck with your project.
Bob . . .
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: | Ferrels for use in screw connectors |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DonVS" <dsvs@comcast.net>
Bob,
I goofed on the spelling of ferrules. Please see
www.alliedelec.com/catalog/pf.asp?FN=101.pdf. The AFS2599 uses a screw
connector where the screw moves a jaw like device together. I thing that
the ferrules and this type of closure device should be adequate. Any
thoughts? Thanks. Don
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
L. Nuckolls, III
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ferrels for use in screw connectors
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 11:27 AM 8/5/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DonVS" <dsvs@comcast.net>
>
>Bob or anyone who knows,
>I have a new AFS 2500 engine monitor and it has screw type connectors. I
>like the unit and want to use it. Does using a ferrel on each wire make
>this device less likely to have problem connections? TIA. Don VS
Depends on what the "ferrel" does. If it adds insulation
support, it might be a useful thing to do. I doubt that quality
of the connection goes up where the screw mashes down on
something hoping to maintain electrical integrity. I had
one reader suggest that you crimp the smaller diameter molex
pins (.062") onto each wire and then put the pin into the
screw-clamp. This would certainly help provide mechanical
support for vibration resistance . . . but probably won't
help with electrical integrity.
Bob . . .
Message 32
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aeroelectric List Format |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
The problem with an FAQ is that it requires a fair amount of maintenance,
and then people often still won't dig into it before posting a question.
Bob's book is actually the FAQ, if you ask me. And he maintains it, and
doesn't charge very much for it.
A rather sadistic idea: Make the interface to the list an 'ask jeeves'
system. Only allow people to post questions after they have gone through
the motions of searching the archive. Just kidding (mostly).. :)
Bob's analogy that this list is like a classroom is one which gives me
mental peace. I rather like that way of thinking about it.
Regards,
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins
> <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
>> There might be room for both concepts to coexist.
>
> I agree. I enjoy the interactive conversations coming
> into my mailbox, and I like how easy it is to search
> the Matronics lists. What would be great is a FAQ
> that could be both a starting point for new members
> of the list, and a place to point someone when they
> ask a question that has been hashed to death.
>
> In fact, I'm pretty sure we have already discussed
> this issue, and someone wrote a kind of FAQ, but
> I can't even recall where it is.
>
> --
> Mickey Coggins
> http://www.rv8.ch/
> #82007 finishing
>
>
Message 33
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Aeroelectric List Format |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Phil Birkelbach <phil@petrasoft.net>
At no time did I say "Love it" nor did I say "Leave it." I am of the
"if you don't like it then do something better and quit bitching about
it" ilk.
I don't disagree that there are improvements that could be made, but I
don't have the will nor the time to make them. I appreciate what we have
and look forward to all the forward thinking ilks to "get-r-done," but
so far it seems that what Bob has done is what we have and complaining
about it does nothing to improve it.
Godspeed,
Phil Birkelbach - Houston Texas
RV-7 N727WB - Finishing Up
http://www.myrv7.com
Eric M. Jones wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
>
>Do Not Archive
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Phil Birkelbach phil@petrasoft.net
>
>
>
>>>So what to do....? I suspect that the Aeroelectric Connection (or its
>>>clone) should
>>>
>>>
>be turned into a free document that can be edited continuously online like
>Wikipedia or other open source documents. Although one could charge for the
>subscription, the consensus seems to be that free subscriptions and paid
>advertising
>works better.
>
>
>
>>That's funny, I thought that Bob was giving away the updates to his
>>
>>
>book. I guess I must have imagined that. I reckon you could write your
>own book and give it away for nothing, but it doesn't seem fair to ask
>someone else to give away their hard work.
>
>
>
>>Yahoogroups has most of the features that you have described. There is
>>
>>
>nothing stopping you from starting one of those or creating your own
>internet resource. I guess I don't see the point of just complaining
>about this resource, if you think there is a better way then ......
>
>Phil, et al...
>
>I didn't mean Bob should not be paid for his labors. I meant -- if Bob chose
>to give away the book and have advertising on the site it might be a plus
>for all concerned. He would probably make out better too--and the book would
>update itself.
>
>I see you are one of the "love it or leave it" ilk. Well, mine is the
>"improve it if possible" ilk
>
>Regards,
>Eric M. Jones
>www.PerihelionDesign.com
>113 Brentwood Drive
>Southbridge MA 01550-2705
>(508) 764-2072
>
>"Never be afraid to tell the world who you are."
>- Anonymous
>
>
>
>
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! --
|