---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 12/03/05: 17 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 02:37 AM - Re: With or without DYNON Internal Backup Battery (Michel RIAZUELO) 2. 05:01 AM - Re Do I Need An Ammeter? (Hall effect is very accurate) () 3. 05:20 AM - Re: With or without DYNON Internal Backup Battery (Mickey Coggins) 4. 05:27 AM - Re: With or without DYNON Internal Backup Battery (Gilles Thesee) 5. 09:21 AM - Re: Do I Need an Ammeter? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 6. 09:23 AM - Re: Generator question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 7. 10:01 AM - Re: Master Relay Mount (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 8. 11:33 AM - Re: Re: Do I Need an Ammeter? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 9. 12:04 PM - Re: Master Relay Mount (RV Builder (Michael Sausen)) 10. 12:11 PM - Re: Too-close radio reception (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 11. 03:11 PM - Re: Generator question (Ron) 12. 06:32 PM - Re: Do I Need an Ammeter? (Speedy11@aol.com) 13. 06:58 PM - Re: Do I Need An Ammeter? (Hall effect is very accurate) (Speedy11@aol.com) 14. 07:51 PM - Re: Van's ND alternator failure (Speedy11@aol.com) 15. 09:01 PM - Re: Too-close radio reception (Charlie England) 16. 09:39 PM - Re: Alternator with External Regulator? (Tammy Goff) 17. 10:43 PM - Re: Re: Van's ND alternator failure (David Carter) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 02:37:06 AM PST US From: Michel RIAZUELO Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: With or without DYNON Internal Backup Battery ? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Michel RIAZUELO Thanks to all, In France, an Exprimental Aicraft only fly day VFR. So the only thing really important in the aircraft is the engine (not electrical dependant !) and as long it runs, life is beautiful ! Even in day VFR (over see for instance), a good attitude indicator is a comfortable assistant, I think the DYNON is, but my life will never be DYNON dependant ! So, the internal backup battery seems to be useless. Furthermore it seems to be dangerous for my 7AH HAWKER (Werner, 10 mA during a month correspond to 7.2 AH). Its (only) 2.7 Kg (full charged) perfertly start the ROTAX 912 and give me 2 hours of electrical autonomy. We should suggest to DYNON a quick charging battery based system witch runs at the beginning of flight and do not drain any current when plane is in the hangar ..... Cheers, Michel RIAZUELO F-PMTR rv-9a-online a crit : >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv-9a-online > >Here's my advice on the keep alive: > >I originally wired my D10A using the keep alive power connected to the >battery through a fusible link. Even with up to date software, it >discharged my main battery. > >I have the internal battery, and for some reason, it continued to draw >about 100 mA, even when charged. It sounds like the software bug, but >Dynon is going to check the hardware. I also have a real time clock >problem which may be related. > >The 'fix' was to disconnect the keep alive power, and run the clock on >the internal battery only. No danger of running the main battery down. > >In conclusion, if you have an internal battery, do not connect the keep >alive power. > >Vern Little RV-9A > > >Werner Schneider wrote: > > > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Werner Schneider >> >>Hello Gilles, >> >>just talked with the guy which did the measurement I was wrong, charging >>the depleted internal battery showed 50-70mA >>the keepalive was around 10 mA. Sho with a fully charged battery you >>should be fine for more then a month. >> >>br Werner >> >> >>Gilles Thesee wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee >>> >>>Hi Werner and all, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>the keepalive does recharge the internal battery and there was one >>>>software version with a fault there. Indeed the Dynon does use some >>>>50-70 mA >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>That's enough to run the battery flat within a week. >>>When designing our ship's circuits, the question arose about the panel >>>clock keepalive. I'm happy with my decision to rely on the internal >>>battery instead of running the keepalive from the ship's main battery. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Can I take you also on the Battery tester just living in Switzerland >>>>about 80 minutes away from Grenoble and want to visit my friends from >>>>work, he is flying from LFLG. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>Sure, you're welcome. >>> >>>Regards, >>>Gilles Thesee >>>Grenoble, France >>>http://contrails.free.fr >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:01:24 AM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re Do I Need An Ammeter? (Hall effect is very accurate) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: OK Matt (or any one): I'll bite, how does a hall effect current sensor affect the circuit it's measuring? "I believe it is untrue to say that a sensor has "no" effect on the system being measured." Prove it? My point nit-picky as it was, is the shunt causes a voltage drop, small as it may be; the hall effect does not affect a voltage drop. True? Yes? No? May Be? Angles the size of an electron dancing on the head of a pin? The big advantage is not having a hob-glob of connectors, lugs, nuts and washers. Hall effect: the wire slips thru, no connections. That was implied when I said "A hall effect has no affect on the circuit", no extra connections and no direct connection to the circuit. "one of the fundamental principles of physics that observing a system changes the behavior of the system." As far as observing a system and not affecting it, I guess I was sick that day. It has been a while since my physics class at engineering school, so I'm ready for learn-in. I only got a C in quantum mechanics, and here is why: "present observations can affect the way a photon behaved in the past and suggests that even the past behavior can be determined from present. This is in a way equivalent to changing the past." Matt can you explain black-holes or Wormhole's? I don't believe the theory or relativity either, until some one proves it to me. :-) George :-) From: "Matt Prather" Re: AeroElectric-List: Re Do I Need An Ammeter? (Hall effect is very accurate) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" Hi George, Comment below: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > > the circuit by the voltage drop. A halls effect has no affect on the circuit. > Nit to pick.. I think it's one of the fundamental principles of physics that observing a system changes the behavior of the system. Some methods of observation are less intrusive than others. I will admit that the hall effect sensor intrudes very little on the system we are discussing, but I believe it is untrue to say that a sensor has "no" effect on the system being measured. Regards, Matt- --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 05:20:14 AM PST US From: Mickey Coggins Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: With or without DYNON Internal Backup Battery ? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins > So, the internal backup battery seems to be useless. Furthermore it > seems to be dangerous for my 7AH HAWKER (Werner, 10 mA during a month > correspond to 7.2 AH). Its (only) 2.7 Kg (full charged) perfertly start > the ROTAX 912 and give me 2 hours of electrical autonomy. It does sound kind of strange that a battery keep-alive that basically runs an internal clock would be able to consume so much power. I checked on the Dynon site, and here is what they have to say: http://dynonavionics.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1119818653 Basically, if you have the backup battery, you don't need the keep-alive wire. The backup battery will keep the clock set, and when you run the engine, the backup battery will be re-charged. -- Mickey Coggins http://www.rv8.ch/ #82007 finishing do not archive ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 05:27:38 AM PST US From: Gilles Thesee Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: With or without DYNON Internal Backup Battery ? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee >Basically, if you have the backup battery, you don't need the >keep-alive wire. > > That's the my conclusion about our clock battery/keep alive question two years ago. Regards, Gilles Thesee Grenoble, France http://contrails.free.fr ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 09:21:02 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Do I Need an Ammeter? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 02:10 PM 12/2/2005 -0600, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Earl_Schroeder > > >David, >I guess that is one reason the B&C offers a temperature 'probe' to be >located at the battery terminal.. ;-) > >Not intended to stir the pot but I use a simple indication of current >reference suggested by Jim Weir at Oshkosh many moons ago. Just install >a sensitive volt meter to read the drop across the wire from the >alternator to the bus or from the battery to the bus or use two meters >as I do. Of course it doesn't give accurate current flow [unless you >take the time to calibrate it] but does give an indication if the flow >is more or less than the reference mark you placed [on a previous normal >flight with normal stuff turned on with a FAA approved grease pencil] on >the face of the meter. I find myself glancing at it after the wheels >are tucked away each time I climb out for comparisons. Once it varied >on the high side a bit so I glanced at it more often and found comfort >when it slowly lowered to the normal mark. This was after I made more >than the normal attempts to get the 0-320 to light off so even that was >'normal'. I do have the B&C voltage reg with OV and 'idiot' light for >low voltage warning. The technique cited uses the resistance of the feeder conductors in the same manner as one would use a shunt to deduce current flowing in a wire. Ohms law tells us that for every amp of current flowing through 1 ohm of resistance, we'll see 1 volt of drop. Obviously, we don't want to toss of 1 volt/amp of supply voltage to an accessory so it's practical and prudent to select a much smaller resistor value . . . as small as practical commensurate with our ability to measure and display small voltages. Over 100 years ago, folks were wrestling with technologies compatible with their knowledge, skills, materials and tools to measure tiny currents and indirectly, voltages. See: http://physics.kenyon.edu/EarlyApparatus/Electrical_Measurements/DArsonval_Galvanometer/DArsonval_Galvanometer.html Techniques pioneered by these folks are still in place with the best we know how to do in todays electro-mechanical sensing and display instruments . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Instruments/Loadmeter_2.jpg Over the years, the vast majority of resistive shunt manufacturers and instruments designed to read voltage drops across them settled on 50 mv as a convenient 'standard' consistent with our ability to read and display 50 mv full scale on instruments and the system designer's agreement that tossing off 50 mv in appliance supply voltage was insignificant to his/her purposes the vast majority of the time. Obviously, to get some sense of magnitude and trends for current, absolute calibration may not be a high priority. Having some reasonably repeatable display of the effects of current flowing in a wire (b-lead feeder, battery lead feeder, etc), one can attach a suitably sensitive instrument to each end of the feeder and get a presentation that varies in proportion to current flow in the feeder. If this suits your purposes as in the situation cited by Earl above, great. Be aware, however that calibration of systems using copper shunts is strongly influenced by the temperature coefficient of copper. The Temperature Coefficient of Copper (near room temperature) is +0.393 percent per degree C. This means if the temperature increases 1C the resistance will increase 0.393%. Example: You have 100 feet of 20 gauge wire and its resistance is 1.015 ohms at 20 C (room temp). If the temperature of the wire goes up 10C the resistance will change by 0.0399 ohms (10 degrees * 0.00393 per degree * 1.015 ohms = 0.0399 ohms). The wire resistance will now be 1.015 ohms + 0.0399 ohms = 1.0549 ohms. If you were using the shunt resistance of this length of copper to deduce current flowing in it, a calibration made at room temperature would now be off by about 4%. So we can state that over an operating span of say -10 to +50C, calibration of our instrument will swing over a range of approximately 25 percent. The goals of very few measurement tasks are satisfied with such uncertainties. This condition placed a market requirement upon shunt manufacturers to provide a low resistance, high current resistor that could be calibrated very closely and manufactured from materials having very low temperature coefficients. A metal having moderate volume resistivity and low tempco is called manganin. http://www.goodfellow.com/csp/active/static/A/Manganin.HTML If one studies the configuration of the shunts illustrated below, it's easy to differentiate the strip of manganin resistance material mounted between heavy brass connecting posts. http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Instruments/60-50_Shunt.jpg http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Instruments/20-50_Shunt.jpg http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Instruments/40-40_Shunt.jpg The 40-40_Shunt.jpg is a 40A, 40 mV shunt sold by Vans to go with an instrument they sell. Technically correct but incompatible with any other shunt/instrument combinations. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 09:23:43 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Generator question --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 05:22 PM 12/2/2005 -0800, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron" > >If I am still using the Delco 20Amp generator on my 0200 continental do I >really need the ANL60 with the brass strap? and for my ammeter should I get >a 50MV 20amp shunt and do I really need the OV protect module for a >generator? I am trying to get as close to the Z-19 drawings as I can with >the two batteries. Z-19 is an architeture drawing, not a wiring diagram guaranteed to be suited to any particular task. Yes, sizes of components and features offered by any particular accessory need to be tailored to your design. The output of a 20A machine offer risk during runaway if you have a good battery. You might want to consider an LV/OV indication such as that offered by B*C at: http://bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?6X358218 Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 10:01:08 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Master Relay Mount --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 09:00 PM 12/2/2005 -0800, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DonVS" > >Bob, >Anything new on this issue? Would you use them as delivered or would you >recommend cutting the plastic off? Thanks. Don Nope. Stancor hasn't answered any of several e-mails inquiring about the change. This is at least one frustration I don't have with folks who choose to put up with arcane and no-value-added hoop jumping to sell to the certified world. Nobody is allowed to make a change without telling us and most do not for fear of being shot off the drawings. Hence, stuff that was certified onto some 1960's airplane is still being manufactured in exactly the same way today. I haven't a clue as to why the booties were added. Until we discover or are informed of a good reason for having them on, it's your call. Personally, I'd probably remove them but since they sell these things by the gazillions to other markets, I have to acknowledge that they probably cause no harm either. Bob . . . >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert >L. Nuckolls, III >To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Master Relay Mount > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > >At 11:34 AM 11/23/2005 -0500, you wrote: > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com > > > > > >In a message dated 11/23/2005 10:06:58 A.M. Central Standard Time, > >rv-9a-online@telus.net writes: > > > >Bob, another issue with the booties is that they interfere with torquing > >the mounting bolts. They will crack before the proper torque is > >achieved. I've chucked my B&C contactors for this reason. > > > >Vern Little > >RV-9A > > > > > >Good Morning Vern, > > > >That brings up the question as to how we are determining "proper " torque? > > > >To have the attaching hardware stretched to just short of it's elastic >limit > >is one type of "torque". To squeeze a plastic such as the booties to a > >point where no creeping or cracking is another form of "proper" torque. >If > >elastic stop nuts are used for attachment of the booted device, they > >should hold > >adequately at whatever point is determined to be optimum for the subject > >fastening. > > > >The term "torque to specification" is often used without proper regard to > >what it is that we are trying to accomplish. > > Exactly. When I design joints that have compressibility, I'll > call out an all metal locknut. Drive the threaded fasteners together > such that all the slack is out. Finally I'll specify some amount of > additional rotation beyond the zero-slack point where thread pitch > and rotation set the crush value. > > Stancor's choice of plastic in this instance is truly mystifying. > > Bob . . . > > >-- > > >-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Bob . . . -------------------------------------------------------- < Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition > < of man. Advances which permit this norm to be > < exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the > < work of an extremely small minority, frequently > < despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed > < by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny > < minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes > < happens) is driven out of a society, the people > < then slip back into abject poverty. > < > < This is known as "bad luck". > < -Lazarus Long- > <------------------------------------------------------> http://www.aeroelectric.com ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 11:33:55 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Do I Need an Ammeter? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 10:42 PM 12/2/2005 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com > > > In reference to voltmeters, ammeters, and loadmeters, Bob says: > > I'm not suggesting that one should not have these capabilities > > on the panel. We're bringing a new line of high-quality loadmeters > > and perhaps voltmeters to the market place in a few weeks. > > > I'll only suggest that these devices are adjuncts to active > > notification of low voltage combined with a knowledge > > of battery capacity as it relates to e-bus loads and the > > builder's pre-selected endurance goals. Instrument readings > > are interesting and useful in some venues but nearly useless > > when operations/maintenance are not well planned and things > > under the cowl are having a bad day. >Agree wholeheartedly. Now, assuming I have a low voltage warning at, say >13.0 volts, and an OV protection scheme with associated warning light, I >want to >know how and where is best to take voltage and amperage readings. Here's >what >I want to know about: I want to sense amperage load at the alternator B lead >and the main battery and the standby battery. What is the appropriate >indicator to use for each of those readings (i.e., a plus-minus ammeter or >a positive >indication ammeter (loadmeter?))? Do I need to also sample voltage at each >of those locations or is the voltage the same throughout the electrical >circuit? >The way I understand it (from listening on this list) is that the voltage can >be measured at any location in the entire circuit and that it is the same for >the entire circuit. Amperage loads, however, will vary depending on where >the reading is taken in the circuit. So, a reading at the alternator B lead >could indicate when a new load is added to the circuit (such as pitot heat) >whereas a reading at the main or standby battery will indicate the charge or >discharge being applied to the respective battery. I would find such >information to >be, at the least, interesting. > From what I understand, an acceptable method to sample the load at any one >point in the circuit is by using a hall effect device. I understand a HE >device >can only provide me with an amperage reading - no voltage. >If my understandings are convoluted, then please correct me. However, if >I've understood it correctly, then please tell me how to best obtain the >desired >readings. Correct. Hall effect devices sense the effects of current flowing in the wire without actually taking energy out and wasting it. However, the term 'acceptable' is not terribly relevant in the context of this discussion. ALL methods are acceptable to someone's design goals. You have correctly perceived and illuminated the astute system designers task where goal is to mitigate the technician's tasks when it comes to troubleshooting in the future. Our brothers in the automotive world have done an excellent job with cars having implemented techniques and technologies rooted in ideas over 30 years old. The aviation side has not been so fortunate. Even if the system designer had ideas and skills to put them into production, the present environment for implementing new ideas stonewalls all but the most 'necessary' of new products. We had some discussion about this on the List sometime back where I wrote: -------------------------------------------- Once you're on the ground, likelihood that ammeters and voltmeters as-installed will reveal everything you need to zero in on root cause of failure is remote . . . there are not enough readings available from the rudimentary installations of such displays. (As an example: see alternator system troubleshooting guide in notes of Appendix Z) I've suggested that what ever electrical instrumentation is installed on the panel, the number and kind of measurements displayed will be far short of what's necessary to do a full-up diagnostics evaluation of the electrical system. I've further suggested that INDICATORS displaying present value of any parameter are poor warning devices. In the automotive world, one can plug diagnostic tools into a handy connector and the vehicle spills its guts. Let's consider how something similar might be implemented on an OBAM aircraft. Readers will recall many times that folks have posted calls for assistance diagnosing an electrical system problem here on the list. More often than not, remote assistance for deducing the problem requires DATA . . . voltage and/or current measurements at various points in the system give clues for a divide-and-conquer approach to isolating the problem. The task ALWAYS involves putting your multi-meter probes on various points, usually with the engine running. There are few machines more difficult to troubleshoot than an airplane. What's a mother to do? Take a peek at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdf/Electrical_System_Diagnostics.pdf Here's an approach to adding a diagnostics connector to the airplane during construction. In this case, I've illustrated a couple dozen permanently installed test leads brought out to a 37-pin D-sub connector. A jack panel similar to the one shown on the last page can be plugged into the test connector. One can sit in the right (in flight if needs be) and make voltage measurements in strategic spots to aid in isolating root cause of the problem. With this type of system installed, I can deduce root cause of about any misbehavior down to a few connections, wires, and line-replaceable accessories. The example shown only speaks to electrical system. One might wish to extend test points in other systems out to the same connector. This illustrates my assertion that display of any small number of electrical system parameters on the panel will almost never be adequate for detailed diagnosis of a problem. Further, if real time indicators are also poor warning devices, then I'll suggest that carefully crafted, active notification of failures will guide you to implementation of alternative operating procedures. A few chunks of 22AWG wire and a D-sub connector will permit detailed access to the system under conditions better suited to diagnosis and repair. -------------------------------------------- Somewhere between what's installed on current production aircraft and the full-up approach I suggested above lies the answer to your question. The answers have little to do with whether you use shunted ammeters or hall effect devices, 10-digit research instruments or a $20 RadioShack multimeter. The real considerations are where to I need to peek at a voltage in order to better understand what is NOT working? Design goals for your decisions should consider (1) what measurements am I most likely to have an interest in in the future and (2) how much $time$ am I willing to expend now to save perhaps more $time$ in the future? I can't recall how many times I've stood two feet behind a running prop to get an voltage reading under the cowl. Not difficult but time consuming and less than pleasant. What are you willing to do now so that you can make these kinds of measurements from the relative comfort of the copilot's seat . . . and perhaps even while airborne? One of the new products under development here is a 12-bit, 8-channel data acquisition system along with a graphical user interface that will be compatible with tapping data on just such a diagnostic connector. This product would allow you to plug in, start recording, go fly, duplicate symptom, land, and review the data in the comfort of your shop. The same equipment might be running in behind the seat on a long trip to capture some intermittent but irritating failure event. These are just the kinds of things I do at RAC right now. I get paid big-bux to design, fabricate, install and use operate measurement systems to fix problem airplanes . . . remote sensing systems required to mitigate design deficiencies long since removed from cars. My design goal is to offer tools for under $100 that will let you do things on your airplane that an auto mechanic can now do on your car. Having said all that, I'll have to beg your indulgence for not having offered some simplistic response like, "Install this ammeter here, that voltmeter there and keep a wet finger ready to hold up to the wind." The real answers to your questions are not so simple and they require some thought and learning on your part. Now, if you really WANT a simple answer . . . "Do whatever you've seen done on any other airplane in the present or past and you'll be no worse off than they are . . . but no better either. I'll add that nothing I've seen done to date comes close to being a real service in the task of troubleshooting the airplane." Any and all techniques currently illustrated in the Z-figures fill the bill. Take your pick. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 12:04:12 PM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Master Relay Mount From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" Maybe dissecting one would be of value to show the reason for the change. Michael Sausen -10 #352 Do not archive -----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: Master Relay Mount --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" --> At 09:00 PM 12/2/2005 -0800, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DonVS" > >Bob, >Anything new on this issue? Would you use them as delivered or would >you recommend cutting the plastic off? Thanks. Don Nope. Stancor hasn't answered any of several e-mails inquiring about the change. This is at least one frustration I don't have with folks who choose to put up with arcane and no-value-added hoop jumping to sell to the certified world. Nobody is allowed to make a change without telling us and most do not for fear of being shot off the drawings. Hence, stuff that was certified onto some 1960's airplane is still being manufactured in exactly the same way today. I haven't a clue as to why the booties were added. Until we discover or are informed of a good reason for having them on, it's your call. Personally, I'd probably remove them but since they sell these things by the gazillions to other markets, I have to acknowledge that they probably cause no harm either. Bob . . . >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of >Robert L. Nuckolls, III >To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Master Relay Mount > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > >At 11:34 AM 11/23/2005 -0500, you wrote: > > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com > > > > > >In a message dated 11/23/2005 10:06:58 A.M. Central Standard Time, > >rv-9a-online@telus.net writes: > > > >Bob, another issue with the booties is that they interfere with > >torquing the mounting bolts. They will crack before the proper > >torque is achieved. I've chucked my B&C contactors for this reason. > > > >Vern Little > >RV-9A > > > > > >Good Morning Vern, > > > >That brings up the question as to how we are determining "proper " torque? > > > >To have the attaching hardware stretched to just short of it's > >elastic >limit > >is one type of "torque". To squeeze a plastic such as the booties to > >a point where no creeping or cracking is another form of "proper" torque. >If > >elastic stop nuts are used for attachment of the booted device, they > >should hold adequately at whatever point is determined to be optimum > >for the subject fastening. > > > >The term "torque to specification" is often used without proper > >regard to what it is that we are trying to accomplish. > > Exactly. When I design joints that have compressibility, I'll > call out an all metal locknut. Drive the threaded fasteners together > such that all the slack is out. Finally I'll specify some amount of > additional rotation beyond the zero-slack point where thread pitch > and rotation set the crush value. > > Stancor's choice of plastic in this instance is truly mystifying. > > Bob . . . > > >-- > > >-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Bob . . . -------------------------------------------------------- < Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition > < of man. Advances which permit this norm to be > < exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the > < work of an extremely small minority, frequently > < despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed > < by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny > < minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes > < happens) is driven out of a society, the people > < then slip back into abject poverty. > < > < This is known as "bad luck". > < -Lazarus Long- > <------------------------------------------------------> http://www.aeroelectric.com ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 12:11:13 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Too-close radio reception --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 03:02 PM 11/23/2005 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com > >Have recently been doing some close formation work- Transmissions from >adjacent aircraft are often badly garbled as if the signal into the >antenna is >overloading the radio- same transmissions sound fine when quarter mile >away. Any >explanation and possible "fix"? Pehaps some way to reduce power of signal at >coax connection on back of radio? Other plane always reports my >transmissions >as loud&clear. (Microair 760) Have tried changing relative position of >plane to compensate for antenna location with no obvious affect. > >Mark Phillips - Columbia, TN What you've discovered is the other end of the spectrum for "dynamic range" of a radio receiver. At the lower end, very small analog signals (on the order of 0.1 microvolt) begin to to sink into atmospheric and circuit noise levels and no amount of gain can lift them out of the mud. On the other hand, digital signals can be perhaps two orders of magnitude weaker because of modern digital processing that knows where to look for the edge of a pulse and know that it was there in spite of being surrounded by much larger signals of no interest. GPS operates this way). At the other end of the spectrum, large signals ultimately overload circuits optimized to hear tiny signals and the result is unintelligible audio. The fix is to install install an 10db attenuator in the coax to each airplane's transceiver for use during formation flight. This amount of attenuation will generate a total of 20 db attenuation (10 on xmit, 10 on receive) for all flight members while leaving you fair capability to talk to ground stations (a 5 watt transmitter becomes a 0.5 watt transmitter and a 0.4 microvolt receiver becomes a about a 1 microvolt receiver. Attenuators can be purchased (and must be rated in power for as much or more than your transmitter power output. They are not difficult to build either. I could do a comic book on the project if there's enough interest. Examples of commercial attenuators include: http://www.e-meca.com/rf-attenuator.htm http://www.surplussales.com/RF/RFAtten-2.html Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 03:11:43 PM PST US From: "Ron" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Generator question --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron" Bob, If your suggesting me to consider the LV/OV indicator I assume the generator is not a problem that needs to be shut off as with an alternator. I have already built your two voltage controllers but with the generator I guess I only need an indicator for either lo or high voltage. Thankyou Ron Triano -----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: Generator question --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 05:22 PM 12/2/2005 -0800, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron" > >If I am still using the Delco 20Amp generator on my 0200 continental do I >really need the ANL60 with the brass strap? and for my ammeter should I get >a 50MV 20amp shunt and do I really need the OV protect module for a >generator? I am trying to get as close to the Z-19 drawings as I can with >the two batteries. Z-19 is an architeture drawing, not a wiring diagram guaranteed to be suited to any particular task. Yes, sizes of components and features offered by any particular accessory need to be tailored to your design. The output of a 20A machine offer risk during runaway if you have a good battery. You might want to consider an LV/OV indication such as that offered by B*C at: http://bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?6X358218 Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 06:32:35 PM PST US From: Speedy11@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Do I Need an Ammeter? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com Mike, An excellent summary. Thanks for sending your info. Stan Sutterfield In a message dated 12/03/05 2:58:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes: I found that with my basic running, I pull 13 amps on my all glass panel. I also found that with everything on I can pull 47. So I set the boundaries above and below that. I arrived at these values through my initial flight testing. I can and do often look at the amps to confirm that I suspect is the draw. I have found on occasion that when the number shown, and the number in my head don't match, something is amiss(usually I have failed to do something like turn the aux pump off or whatever.) With a voltage number I would not get that. No matter what I do, 14.1v is what I see. I have alarms for the voltage too. I run 14.1v +-.2 volts and set the alarms accordingly. My summary is that my amps tells me much more than my volts. The number often tells me that I have forgotten something. I suppose that this would not work in a complex G-V. I also suspect that I am much more in tuned with my current draw than most as I an all electric single engine piston 2 seater and I know to the amp what the number should be no matter What Im doing. Obviously both amps and voltage are important but IF I had to prioritize, Id take amps over volts as an indication of whats going on with my electrons. ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 06:58:02 PM PST US From: Speedy11@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Do I Need An Ammeter? (Hall effect is very accurate) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com George, Excellent information - especially the links. Thanks for sharing your info with us. Stan Sutterfield Do Not Archive In a message dated 12/03/05 2:58:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes: Ammeter or no ammeter, I like them and my vote is to put it on the alternator output. I don't care what the battery "current" is, since most of the time it would read a slight charge. If the alternator fails the volt meter is the prime electrical measurement of interest. Really an ammeter on the battery is not too much use in my opinion. Given just one ammeter, how hard the alternator is working, where all electrical power comes from when the engine's running is more important. ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 07:51:44 PM PST US From: Speedy11@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Van's ND alternator failure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com In a message dated 12/03/05 2:58:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes: While I've strongly suggested an idiot light for active NOTIFICATION of low voltage, I'd much prefer automatic and active RESPONSE to over voltage thus negating the value of an ov warning light . . . if present in the system, it would be illuminated for only milliseconds. Bob, Could an OV light be "locked" on until cleared to continue its indication even though the OV condition has been mitigated. That way the pilot would have active indication that required acknowledgement. Then the pilot would have indications of both OV and LV. Stan Sutterfield ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 09:01:17 PM PST US From: Charlie England Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Too-close radio reception --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > snipped > > Attenuators can be purchased (and must be rated in power for > as much or more than your transmitter power output. They > are not difficult to build either. I could do a comic book > on the project if there's enough interest. > > Examples of commercial attenuators include: > >http://www.e-meca.com/rf-attenuator.htm > >http://www.surplussales.com/RF/RFAtten-2.html > > Bob . . . > I'd be grateful. I've got the same problem & I'll bet it's a pretty common problem. The BNC models shown seem to be limited to around 2 watts. If that's total transmitter power, they are inadequate for a panel mount radio. Thanks, Charlie ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 09:39:27 PM PST US From: "Tammy Goff" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator with External Regulator? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tammy Goff" Bob, Thanks, I sort of came to that conclusion and will probably attempt to modify one of the regulators mentioned on the list. I go the "how too" remove the IR but was hoping one of the early GM alternators that are externally regulated might have been found to fit in an RV. Thanks for the info. I am pretty sure I can figure out how to remove the IR. George ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 10:43:21 PM PST US From: "David Carter" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Van's ND alternator failure --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter" If the OVM disconnected the alternator, then the Low Volt Light would be on steady. Wouldn't that be enough active notification, even though coming from a light labeled "Low Voltage or alternator off"? David ----- Original Message ----- From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Van's ND alternator failure > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com > > In a message dated 12/03/05 2:58:01 AM Eastern Standard Time, > aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes: > While I've strongly suggested an idiot light for active > NOTIFICATION of low voltage, I'd much prefer automatic and > active RESPONSE to over voltage thus negating the value > of an ov warning light . . . if present in the system, it > would be illuminated for only milliseconds. > Bob, > Could an OV light be "locked" on until cleared to continue its indication > even though the OV condition has been mitigated. That way the pilot would > have > active indication that required acknowledgement. Then the pilot would > have > indications of both OV and LV. > Stan Sutterfield > > >