Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:43 AM - Re: PC680 Life (luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky))
2. 05:30 AM - Re: PC680 Life (Alex Peterson)
3. 05:30 AM - Master Relay Mount Part 2 (sjhdcl@kingston.net)
4. 05:39 AM - Re: PC680 Life (Alex Peterson)
5. 06:23 AM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 35 Msgs - 12/11/05 (Mark & Lisa)
6. 06:38 AM - Re: PC680 Life (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 06:45 AM - Re: PC680 Life (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 06:49 AM - Re: Master Relay Mount Part 2 (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
9. 07:06 AM - Re: PC680 Life (William)
10. 07:08 AM - Re: PC680 Life (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 07:28 AM - Re: Master Relay Mount Part 2 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 07:43 AM - Re: PC680 Life (John Huft)
13. 09:13 AM - main battery contactor, hidden security issue (Werner Schneider)
14. 09:21 AM - Re: Modern ND external voltage (Dear Bob, stop it ) ()
15. 09:34 AM - headphone wiring (Jim Stone)
16. 10:05 AM - Re: 24v starter in 14v airplane (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
17. 10:08 AM - Re: headphone wiring (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
18. 10:54 AM - GPS driving two instruments (Gianni Zuliani)
19. 10:59 AM - Re: headphone wiring (Dan Checkoway)
20. 11:11 AM - Re: headphone wiring (Charlie England)
21. 11:15 AM - Re: headphone wiring (Jim Stone)
22. 11:26 AM - Re: Re: Modern ND external voltage (Dear Bob, stop it ) (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
23. 11:28 AM - Re: GPS driving two instruments (Dave Morris \)
24. 12:10 PM - Re: Modern ND external voltage (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
25. 12:15 PM - Re: GPS driving two instruments (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
26. 12:17 PM - Battery Life (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
27. 12:19 PM - Re: PC680 Life (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
28. 12:23 PM - Re: Master Relay Mount Part 2 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
29. 12:36 PM - Re: GPS driving two instruments (D Wysong)
30. 12:41 PM - Re: GPS driving two instruments (Craig Payne)
31. 12:43 PM - Re: GPS driving two instruments (Dave Morris \)
32. 12:47 PM - Re: Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level Probes P-300C (Mark R Steitle)
33. 12:58 PM - Re: GPS driving two instruments (Craig Payne)
34. 01:01 PM - Re: Internally Regulated Alternator Update? (sportav8r@aol.com)
35. 01:13 PM - Re: Re: Modern ND external voltage (Dear Bob, stop it ) (Harold)
36. 01:39 PM - Re: Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level Probes P-300C (Joseph Larson)
37. 01:56 PM - Re: Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level Probes P-300C (Matt Prather)
38. 01:57 PM - Re: GPS driving two instruments (D Wysong)
39. 02:14 PM - Re: Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level Probes P-300C (Mark R Steitle)
40. 02:25 PM - Re: headphone wiring (John Schroeder)
41. 02:29 PM - Re: Re: Modern ND external voltage (Dear Bob, stop it ) (Matt Prather)
42. 02:41 PM - Re: Internally Regulated Alternator Update? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
43. 02:48 PM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 35 Msgs - 12/11/05 (Lee Logan)
44. 02:53 PM - Re: Z14-8 OR -20 Architecture (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
45. 02:54 PM - Re: Re: Modern ND external voltage (Dear Bob, stop it ) (John Schroeder)
46. 03:26 PM - Re: headphone wiring (Dan Checkoway)
47. 03:29 PM - Re: Z14-8 OR -20 Architecture (Dan Checkoway)
48. 04:01 PM - Re: Battery Life (Alex Peterson)
49. 04:21 PM - Re: Battery Life (Gilles Thesee)
50. 04:27 PM - Re: Battery Life (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
51. 04:31 PM - Re: Z14-8 OR -20 Architecture (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
52. 04:48 PM - Re: Clarification of Crimper Procedure (Bill Schlatterer)
53. 05:04 PM - Re: GPS driving two instruments (Frank)
54. 05:49 PM - Re: Clarification of Crimper Procedure (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
55. 06:18 PM - Popular Mechanics - 1 Week Sport Pilot School (Jim Pellien)
56. 06:53 PM - Re: Internally Regulated Alternator Update? (sportav8r@aol.com)
57. 07:41 PM - Re: Z14-8 OR -20 Architecture (DonVS)
58. 08:08 PM - Re: Internally Regulated Alternator Update? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
59. 10:01 PM - Re: Modern ND external voltage (Charlie and Gert) ()
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
Alex, how did you determine that 12.4 V equates to 65% charge? How many volts
was it putting out new? I don't ever recall seeing over 13V on mine. The mid
12s is where mine stays at now and I keep a battery tender on it at the hangar
pretty much all the time.
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson"
>
>
> What sorts of longevity are folks getting out of the Odyssey PC680
> batteries? Mine is two years old and after sitting overnight (with only the
> aircraft's clock draining it) the voltage is only 12.4 volts, corresponding
> to about a 65% charge. The hobbs time for that two years is about 325
> hours. The charging voltage during operation is consistently 14.2 volts.
>
> Alex Peterson
>
> RV6-A N66AP 698 hours
>
> Maple Grove, MN
>
>
>
>
>
>
Alex, how did you determine that 12.4 V equates to 65% charge? How many volts was
it putting out new? I don't ever recall seeing over 13V on mine.The mid 12s
is where mine stays at now and I keep a battery tender on it at the hangar pretty
much all the time.
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Alex Peterson" alexpeterson@earthlink.net
-- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson"
<ALEXPETERSON@EARTHLINK.NET>
What sorts of longevity are folks getting out of the Odyssey PC680
batteries? Mine is two years old and after sitting overnight (with only the
aircraft's clock draining it) the voltage is only 12.4 volts, corresponding
to about a 65% charge. The hobbs time for that two years is about 325
hours. The charging voltage during operation is consistently 14.2 volts.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 698 hours
Maple Grove, MN
FAQ,
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
>
> Do you have a means for cap-checking the battery?
>
> Bob . . .
No... is this applying some load and monitoring voltage vs time?
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 698 hours
Maple Grove, MN
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: | Master Relay Mount Part 2 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sjhdcl@kingston.net
I recently ordered a replacement master relay. My old one (2 months old)
has the hard black pastic boots on it as discussed a few weeks ago. The
orginal one came from B&C Specialty. The replacement from Aircraft Spruce
is exactly the same.
Just for info. I tried removing the platic boots and it was nearly
impossible without a grinder. Heated them up and they seemed fine. Torqued
bolts and it also torqued properly. While I am interested in the reasons
for the design change it now seems to be distributed from many vendors and
I suspect the change is simply cosmetic. I still would prefer the metal
tabs.
Steve
RV7A #2
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>
> Alex, how did you determine that 12.4 V equates to 65%
> charge? How many volts was it putting out new? I don't ever
> recall seeing over 13V on mine. The mid 12s is where mine
> stays at now and I keep a battery tender on it at the hangar
> pretty much all the time.
>
> lucky
Lucky, from their website. I can't paste the chart in here, but draw a
straight line between:
10% charge = 11.7v
100% charge = 12.8v
and you'll closely have the curve.
There is a very thorough pdf describing these batteries at (including the
charge vs voltage):
http://www.odysseybatteries.com/files.htm and click technical manual, I
believe.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 698 hours
Maple Grove, MN
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: AeroElectric-List Digest: 35 Msgs - 12/11/05 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark & Lisa" <marknlisa@hometel.com>
Bob,
You said:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
> First, I note that you've left off the ANL limiters called out
> in the original drawing. It's important that these be present
> so that no combination of stuck contactors can cause a battery
> to see a hard fault. Worked an MU-2 in-flight fire accident that
> began with just such an incident. They series two 24v batteries
> for a 48v starter and stuck contactors very nearly cost passengers
> and crew their lives.
Thanks for that catch, I thought I'd faithfully transferred everthing...
Another reason to have someone proof your (mine especially) work!
> What size batteries are you planning? If a pair of 17 a.h. then
> may I suggest that getting both batteries to drive the e-bus
> adds complexity you'll probably never need? Get the e-bus loads
> down to a minimum . . . when and if main battery looks like it
> won't make it (it should if you've done your e-bus operations
> homework) then re-close normal ops battery contactors to bring
> the aux battery back to finish up the job . . . and in any case,
> close the normal ops contactors once the airport is in sight
> so that you have every watt-second on board available for
> approach to landing.
I am planning to use 17ah batteries. I'd considered your suggestion above,
but was wondering if there was a simple way I couldn't see to "rewire it" so
I could have my cake and eat it too.
What do you think of eliminating the e-bus entirely? I can load shed down
to approx 4 amps. By eliminating the e-bus I'll have to keep the two
contactors on so add another 2 amps for a total emergency load of 6 amps.
With two 17ah batteries that should give me somewhere in the neighborhood of
two hours flight time. Since my plan is always to land immediately in the
event of an alternator failure I should be golden. Am I missing something
important?
> I'd recommend staying with the 2-10 battery/alternator switch
> so that there's always a battery on line to stabilize the
> alternator.
I'm not sure about this recommendation. As configured, I can't start
without the DC master switch on (no power thru the aux battery switch to
power the aux battery contactor). The only time I'd turn off the DC master
inflight is in the event of an alternator failure. My plan is to use a
three-position keyed ignition switch. Pos 1 = OFF, Pos 2 = DC MSTR ON, Pos
3 (mom) = STARTER ENGAGE. Does this sound reasonable?
Mark & Lisa Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 17
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 12:49:42 PM PST US
> From: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
> <craig@craigandjean.com>
>
> >> phenolic
>
> I thought his connector was ceramic. How hot does the pitot tube
> get at the
> wing and will a phenolic-one hold up? Yes, I see that they are using it on
> newer heated pitots. Just a little concerned.
>
> -- Craig
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
> Gray
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray"
> --> <Bruce@glasair.org>
>
> http://www.aircraftspruce.com/pdf/catalog/Cat06363.pdf
>
> Upper right, phenolic connector.
>
> Bruce
> www.glasair.org
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf
> Of Bob White
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bob White <bob@bob-white.com>
>
>
> I've posted some photos of the pitot tube and connector at:
> http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-tube-a.jpg
> http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-con-side.jpg and
> http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-con-end.jpg
> Sorry, the connector photos are a little blurry.
>
> I also found the following on the side of the connector:
> "Part No. 39A3638 Assem No. 39A3637" and on the other side, the same
> assembly no. and "Part No. 29A3639"
>
> Thanks,
> Bob W.
>
> On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 18:52:32 -0700
> "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com> wrote:
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
> <craig@craigandjean.com>
> >
> > Can you post a picture of the tube and the connector somewhere? (the
> e-mail
> > list software throws away any attachments you try to send directly to
> > the members of the list).
> >
> > -- Craig
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
> White
> > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question
> >
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bob White <bob@bob-white.com>
> >
> > I purchased a homebuilt with a heated pitot tube. It has a two pin
> > connector, which looks like it's made from a white ceramic material,
> > that
> is
> > broken. Anyone have any suggestions for where I can find a
> > replacement connector. I don't know what brand it is.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bob W.
> >
>
> --
> http://www.bob-white.com
> N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (Projected engine start - maybe next week)
> Custom Cables for your rotary installation -
> http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 18
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 12:57:14 PM PST US
> From: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
> <craig@craigandjean.com>
>
> Based on the Sport Pilot oral exam I took today (and sorta
> passed) I can say
> that neither a VSI or a turn coordinator are required for *VFR* flight.
>
> -- Craig
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne
> Sweet
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet"
> --> <w_sweet@comcast.net>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <BobsV35B@aol.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 12/9/2005 10:07:55 P.M. Central Standard Time,
> > w_sweet@comcast.net writes:
> >
> > The basic T-configuration (ASI, AI, Altimeter, and DG) with the two
> > support
> > instruments N&B or TC and VSI. At least that is what we called them a
> > couple
> > of decades ago.
> > Wayne
> >
> >
> > Sounds reasonable, but the VSI is not even a required
> instrument for IFR
> > flight!
> >
> I didn't know that. I assumed it was since every "store" bought
> airplane I
> have flown or seen has one. I would not like to fly IFR without
> one. I use
> it to hold altitude (when not on A/P) vice the altimeter, since
> it will tell
>
> immediately a deviation is happening before the altitmeter announces I've
> screwed up.
>
> Wayne
>
>
> > Happy Skies,
> >
> > Old Bob
> > AKA
> > Bob Siegfried
> > Ancient Aviator
> > Stearman N3977A
> > Brookeridge Air Park LL22
> > Downers Grove, IL 60516
> > 630 985-8503
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 19
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 01:22:21 PM PST US
> From: Bob White <bob@bob-white.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bob White <bob@bob-white.com>
>
> Hi Craig,
>
> It looks like ceramic to me, but the previous owner had repaired it by
> securing the top and bottom broken pieces with nylon tiewraps so I
> don't think it gets hot enough that phenolic would be a problem. In
> fact, I could make one out of phenolic pretty easily. If I don't have
> any luck with epoxy, I might try that.
>
> Bob W.
>
>
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:46:02 -0700
> "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com> wrote:
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
> <craig@craigandjean.com>
> >
> > >> phenolic
> >
> > I thought his connector was ceramic. How hot does the pitot
> tube get at the
> > wing and will a phenolic-one hold up? Yes, I see that they are
> using it on
> > newer heated pitots. Just a little concerned.
> >
> > -- Craig
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
> > Gray
> > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question
> >
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce Gray"
> > --> <Bruce@glasair.org>
> >
> > http://www.aircraftspruce.com/pdf/catalog/Cat06363.pdf
> >
> > Upper right, phenolic connector.
> >
> > Bruce
> > www.glasair.org
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf
> Of Bob White
> > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question
> >
> >
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bob White <bob@bob-white.com>
> >
> >
> > I've posted some photos of the pitot tube and connector at:
> > http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-tube-a.jpg
> > http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-con-side.jpg and
> > http://www.bob-white.com/pitot-con-end.jpg
> > Sorry, the connector photos are a little blurry.
> >
> > I also found the following on the side of the connector:
> > "Part No. 39A3638 Assem No. 39A3637" and on the other side, the same
> > assembly no. and "Part No. 29A3639"
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Bob W.
> >
> > On Thu, 8 Dec 2005 18:52:32 -0700
> > "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com> wrote:
> >
> > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
> > <craig@craigandjean.com>
> > >
> > > Can you post a picture of the tube and the connector somewhere? (the
> > e-mail
> > > list software throws away any attachments you try to send directly to
> > > the members of the list).
> > >
> > > -- Craig
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> > > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
> > White
> > > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> > > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question
> > >
> > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bob White <bob@bob-white.com>
> > >
> > > I purchased a homebuilt with a heated pitot tube. It has a two pin
> > > connector, which looks like it's made from a white ceramic material,
> > > that
> > is
> > > broken. Anyone have any suggestions for where I can find a
> > > replacement connector. I don't know what brand it is.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Bob W.
> > >
> >
> > --
> > http://www.bob-white.com
> > N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (Projected engine start - maybe next week)
> > Custom Cables for your rotary installation -
> > http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> http://www.bob-white.com
> N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 (Projected engine start - maybe next week)
> Custom Cables for your rotary installation -
> http://www.roblinphoto.com/shop/
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 20
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 01:29:50 PM PST US
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Clarification of Crimper Procedure
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls,
> III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 12:57 PM 12/11/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
> ><craig@craigandjean.com>
> >
> >So after reading all this I *think* that in Bob's opinion there
> is no known
> >source or make & model of a reliable and below $200 crimper. True or not?
> >
> >-- Craig
>
> Gee . . . I hope my words didn't seem to imply that at all.
> There are LOTS of terminal/tool/wire combinations that will
> produce satisfactory terminations for your airplane. The "trick"
> is do deduce the combination . . . and for most of you, to get
> the right combination without having to research all the "Tinker-
> Toys" in the box.
>
> If B&C is selling the same tool I sold them some years go and
> you use AMP PIDG terminals from B&C or anyone else, that combination
> WILL provide satisfactory terminal installations on Tefzel wire.
> This is EXACTLY the thrust of the article at
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
>
> The notion delivered here was that the $40 tool illustrated
> was a satisfactory substitute for the $600 tool also
> illustrated.
>
> To save the research time, buy a tool from somebody like
> Steinair or B&C where there's a good chance that they've
> done the research for you. Even so, it's a good thing to buy
> some extra terminals, crimp them on various pieces of wire
> and do the pull tests and physical examinations described in
> the articles. If the tool doesn't do what you need, both
> of these folks are intently interested in knowing about it
> and making it right with you.
>
> Our friend Phil purchased a perfectly good AMP tool that will
> NOT properly install PIDG terminals on Tefzel wire. It's
> all in the dies - not all dies install all terminals as
> I showed in:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/JST_Samples_2.jpg
>
> where perfectly qualifiable, PIDG style terminals from another
> manufacturer looked like crap when installed with the $40
> tool.
>
> All these exercises suggest there is no substitute
> for understanding what the tool is supposed to accomplish
> and having the curiosity to determine if your purchase
> fulfills those goals.
>
> I can put perfectly good crimps on a PIDG terminal with
> a $10 hardware store tool -OR- my $600 t-head tool.
> You only need to understand how each tool performs and
> take the time to learn how it is used - or as cited in
> Phil's case above above, how it cannot be used.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 21
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 01:49:38 PM PST US
> From: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>
> FWIW my used single engine cessna pitot quickly stabilized at about 7
> amps in free room temperature air on a 12 volt battery. I can't remember
> whether the heater was marked 12 volts but 7 amps sounded reasonble to
> me. I'm assuming a low speed aircraft without other ice protection
> simply doesn't need 200+ watts to operate in snow or an occasional cloud
> breaking procedure. It was interesting to note that the unit actually
> has a small water drain hole incorporated at the point where the air
> passage turns up vertical.
> Ken
>
> >>It is a 14 volt system, and the plane has been flying since 1979. I
> >>think before I plunk down $88 for a new connector, I will try a high
> >>temp epoxy repair on this one. It would be nice to know I have the
> >>correct voltage though.
> >>
> >>What current draw should I expect putting 12 V on a 24 V unit? I'm a
> >>little suspicious of the current ratings shown on the Spruce catalog
> >>page. The 12 V one is shown pulling 10A and the 24V one 15A. OTOH, the
> >>Falcon Pitot tubes on the same page are shown pulling 7A and 3.5A for
> >>12V and 24V respectively and is said to be AN5812 compliant.
> >>
> >>Bob W.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Deducing pitot heater characteristics on the bench is
> > not difficult but it involves a bit more than simply hooking
> > it up to a battery and measuring the current. Pitot heaters
> > have a strikingly positive temperature coefficient. They also
> > have widely variable abilities to move heat from the heater
> > element to the surface of the tube where ice needs to be
> > shed.
> >
> > I did an article last winter on techniques I've used to
> > peer into the inner workings of a pitot tube from the outside.
> > See:
> >
> >http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Pitot_Heater/Gauging_Pitot_Heate
> r_Performance.pdf
> >
> > For your investigation, I'd recommend you prepare a small
> > coffee can with a mixture of water and crushed ice. Hook the
> > tube up to a battery and measure both voltage and current
> > through the tube while you stir the tube in the ice-bath.
> >
> > Measure voltage right at the tube's heater terminals.
> >
> > The tube should draw something on the order of 200 - 250
> > watts. If you have a 28v tube, running it on 14 volts will
> > not produce nearly so high a number.
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 22
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 02:29:59 PM PST US
> From: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Clarification of Crimper Procedure
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
> <craig@craigandjean.com>
>
> OK, I am away from home but will take a close look when I get home. I
> actually have two crimping tools: one from B&C and another from Stein Air.
> From a superficial glance they appear to be the same tool.
>
> -- Craig
>
> -----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: Clarification of Crimper Procedure
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> --> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 12:57 PM 12/11/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
> ><craig@craigandjean.com>
> >
> >So after reading all this I *think* that in Bob's opinion there is no
> >known source or make & model of a reliable and below $200
> crimper. True or
> not?
> >
> >-- Craig
>
> Gee . . . I hope my words didn't seem to imply that at all.
> There are LOTS of terminal/tool/wire combinations that will
> produce satisfactory terminations for your airplane. The "trick"
> is do deduce the combination . . . and for most of you, to get
> the right combination without having to research all the "Tinker-
> Toys" in the box.
>
> If B&C is selling the same tool I sold them some years go and
> you use AMP PIDG terminals from B&C or anyone else, that combination
> WILL provide satisfactory terminal installations on Tefzel wire.
> This is EXACTLY the thrust of the article at
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
>
> The notion delivered here was that the $40 tool illustrated
> was a satisfactory substitute for the $600 tool also
> illustrated.
>
> To save the research time, buy a tool from somebody like
> Steinair or B&C where there's a good chance that they've
> done the research for you. Even so, it's a good thing to buy
> some extra terminals, crimp them on various pieces of wire
> and do the pull tests and physical examinations described in
> the articles. If the tool doesn't do what you need, both
> of these folks are intently interested in knowing about it
> and making it right with you.
>
> Our friend Phil purchased a perfectly good AMP tool that will
> NOT properly install PIDG terminals on Tefzel wire. It's
> all in the dies - not all dies install all terminals as
> I showed in:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/JST_Samples_2.jpg
>
> where perfectly qualifiable, PIDG style terminals from another
> manufacturer looked like crap when installed with the $40
> tool.
>
> All these exercises suggest there is no substitute
> for understanding what the tool is supposed to accomplish
> and having the curiosity to determine if your purchase
> fulfills those goals.
>
> I can put perfectly good crimps on a PIDG terminal with
> a $10 hardware store tool -OR- my $600 t-head tool.
> You only need to understand how each tool performs and
> take the time to learn how it is used - or as cited in
> Phil's case above above, how it cannot be used.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 23
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 03:15:32 PM PST US
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Clarification of Crimper Procedure
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls,
> III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 03:26 PM 12/11/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
> ><craig@craigandjean.com>
> >
> >OK, I am away from home but will take a close look when I get home. I
> >actually have two crimping tools: one from B&C and another from
> Stein Air.
> > From a superficial glance they appear to be the same tool.
> >
> >-- Craig
>
> I suspect they are. That particular tool has a huge
> following in the wild . . . it's made by at least 4
> different manufacturers I know of . . . all of them
> in Taiwan. I'd tried to locate a source closer to the
> manufacturer to see if I could bring these tools to
> the OBAM market at a better price.
>
> The answer was, you betcha! All I had to do was pop
> for 10-20 thousand tools and I could get them really
> cheap!
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 24
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 03:18:46 PM PST US
> From: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Clarification of Crimper Procedure
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
> <craig@craigandjean.com>
>
> <quote>
> Gee . . . I hope my words didn't seem to imply that at all.
> There are LOTS of terminal/tool/wire combinations that will
> produce satisfactory terminations for your airplane. The "trick"
> is do deduce the combination . . . and for most of you, to get
> the right combination without having to research all the "Tinker-
> Toys" in the box.
>
> If B&C is selling the same tool I sold them some years go and
> you use AMP PIDG terminals from B&C or anyone else, that combination
> WILL provide satisfactory terminal installations on Tefzel wire.
> This is EXACTLY the thrust of the article at
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
>
> <end quote>
>
> I guess what is confusing is reconciling the quote from 2004
> below with the
> analysis in the article at the above link:
>
> <quote>
> Hmmm . . . I noted that in my evaluation of the tool a couple
> of weeks ago. I sent the tool back to B&C and copied them
> on the note suggesting that the dies were installed into the
> tool backwards (you can remove them and re-install the
> other direction).
>
> However, I noted further that the tool put the crimps
> too far apart on a PIDG terminal. Further, the insulation
> grip did not close a red terminal down on 22AWG Tefzel. See
> the following photos. I cannot recommend that tool. See
> following pictures on my website.
> <end quote>
>
> I read this as saying that the was *some* tool from B&C that you
> decided you
> couldn't recommend. But the linked article describes a tool (possibly from
> B&C) that was acceptable. Again I am away from home and can't examine the
> crimp tools I have.
>
> -- Craig
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 25
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 03:39:34 PM PST US
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Internally Regulated Alternator Update?
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls,
> III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>
> >Bob,
> >
> >Any recent updates on the "internally regulated alternator"?
> >
> >I know that you were not recommending it's use on an "all electric
> >airplane with dual electronic ignition", which is the
> configuration of the
> >plane I am building.
>
> Not at all. The modern internally regulated alternator
> is a great piece of hardware that offers excellent value
> over most 60's certified alternators flying today. Your
> choice of alternators has nothing to do with whether or
> not you have electronic ignition, EFIS, or any other
> modern feature.
>
> Depending on WHICH IR alternator you choose, you may not
> have 100%, absolute control over it's output which
> does not satisfy traditional design goals.
>
> Further, depending on WHICH IR alternator you choose,
> you may not be able to add a convenient form of
> OV protection which is also a traditional design
> goal.
>
> Finally, depending on WHICH IR alternator you choose,
> the act of turning it on and OFF at inopportune times
> may damage the alternator's regulator.
>
> Having offered this, there are thousands of OBAM
> aircraft flying wherein the builder has not included
> these points in satisfaction of his own design goals
> either because he has considered them insignificant
> or doesn't understand them well enough to make a
> well considered decision. None-the-less, a vast
> majority of these aircraft ARE flying trouble free.
>
> However, from time to time, we're made aware of
> installations where the builder wishes he had
> considered and adopted the traditional design
> goals. It's a small percentage to be sure . . .
> but then catastrophic runaway failures in the
> certified ships also constitutes a small percentage
> of all failures.
>
> Bottom line is that we will be able to offer a means
> by which any internally regulated alternator can
> be integrated into your airplane under the traditional
> design goals. In the mean time, drive on with whatever
> installation instructions come with your alternator
> of choice knowing that modifying the system will be
> easy and inexpensive at a later time. I've been trying
> to get the next few pages of "Understanding Alternators"
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/alternators/UA/Alternators_1.html
>
>
> published but things are really busy around here this
> time of year.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 26
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 04:01:27 PM PST US
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Clarification of Crimper Procedure
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls,
> III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>
> >
> >
> >I guess what is confusing is reconciling the quote from 2004
> below with the
> >analysis in the article at the above link:
> >
> ><quote>
> > Hmmm . . . I noted that in my evaluation of the tool a couple
> > of weeks ago. I sent the tool back to B&C and copied them
> > on the note suggesting that the dies were installed into the
> > tool backwards (you can remove them and re-install the
> > other direction).
> >
> > However, I noted further that the tool put the crimps
> > too far apart on a PIDG terminal. Further, the insulation
> > grip did not close a red terminal down on 22AWG Tefzel. See
> > the following photos. I cannot recommend that tool. See
> > following pictures on my website.
> ><end quote>
> >
> >I read this as saying that the was *some* tool from B&C that you
> decided you
> >couldn't recommend. But the linked article describes a tool
> (possibly from
> >B&C) that was acceptable. Again I am away from home and can't examine the
> >crimp tools I have.
>
> B&C tried another tool supplier some time back and
> it did stir up a bit of a kerfuffle because folks
> noted that it didn't seem to put the PIDG terminals on
> right. I got a sample tool from B&C and confirmed the
> problem which was written up in the thread you cited.
> B&C has long since corrected the deficiency.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 27
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 04:17:16 PM PST US
> From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Clarification of Crimper Procedure
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming"
> <lhelming@sigecom.net>
>
> not true.
>
> Indiana Larry, RV7 Tip Up SunSeeker 77 hours
>
> "Please use the information and opinions I express with
> responsibility, and
> at your own risk."
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Clarification of Crimper Procedure
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
> > <craig@craigandjean.com>
> >
> > So after reading all this I *think* that in Bob's opinion there is no
> > known
> > source or make & model of a reliable and below $200 crimper.
> True or not?
> >
> > -- Craig
> >
> > -----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: Clarification of Crimper Procedure
> >
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> > --> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
> >
> > At 11:04 PM 12/9/2005 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker"
> >><retasker@optonline.net>
> >>
> >>You are confused.
> >>
> >>The wire goes in at the larger opening end, but is crimped at the
> >>other, smaller end.
> >>
> >>I.e. shove the wire into the open end of the terminal to be crimped,
> >>which is opposite the actual ring, faston, etc. end of the terminal.
> >>The end the wire goes in is where the insulation gets crimped (the
> >>larger die opening) and the end nearest the ring, faston, etc. is where
> >>the wire gets crimped (the smaller end).
> >>
> >>Dick Tasker
> >
> > Correct. The confusion arises mostly because folks don't make
> > a distinction between the two tasks for closing a terminal
> > onto a "wire" when the wire is made up of two parts: conductor
> > and insulation. I've been writing about a 'wire grip' and 'insulation
> > grip' but unless the reader picks up on the difference between
> > 'wire' as a product or 'wire' as a component of that product. The
> > explanation is unclear. I'll modify my writing accordingly.
> >
> > We've had discussions on the list about various tools offered
> > to the building commuinity for application of terminals. Here's
> > one:
> > -------------------------------------
> > Snipits from thread of November 2004
> > -------------------------------------
> > Hmmm . . . I noted that in my evaluation of the tool a couple
> > of weeks ago. I sent the tool back to B&C and copied them
> > on the note suggesting that the dies were installed into the
> > tool backwards (you can remove them and re-install the
> > other direction).
> >
> > However, I noted further that the tool put the crimps
> > too far apart on a PIDG terminal. Further, the insulation
> > grip did not close a red terminal down on 22AWG Tefzel. See
> > the following photos. I cannot recommend that tool. See
> > following pictures on my website.
> >
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/P255.jpg
> >
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/P256.jpg
> >
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/P257.jpg
> >
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/P258.jpg
> >
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/P259.jpg
> >
> >
> >>Are any of the interchangeable dies for crimping coax cable?
> >
> >
> > Yes . . . but die-sets were more than half
> > cost of tool and taking time to change them out
> > was a bit of a pain. All my tools are dedicated to
> > a single task.
> > There was another thread concerning a Cleveland tool someone purchased
> > Sept
> > 2004
> >
> >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" <dreel@cox.net>
> >>
> >>I sent the WTC380 to you on Monday via priority mail Bob. I tried to
> >>tell you by replying to the sender but the mail was returned
> >>undeliverable. I sent crimp examples to Buzz at Cleveland who was also
> >>very interested in knowing if there was a problem with their product.
> >
> > Got it today. Short story is that failure to grip a 22AWG wire
> > at all was because terminal was in tool backwards. Unlike the
> > tools B&C sells with symmetrical dies, this tool is placement
> > specific as to insertion of terminals. But even after you get the
> > terminal in the right way, there's a bit of a problem. See:
> >
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/CLEVELAND60A.jpg
> >
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/CLEVELAND61A.jpg
> >
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/CLEVELAND65A.jpg
> >
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/CLEVELAND66A.jpg
> >
> > Bottom line is that this tool was designed for use with
> > PVC wire having larger outside diameter than Tefzel and
> > in spite of its very nicely formed die set, just doesn't
> > close the insulation grip adequately on a PIDG terminal.
> >
> > I'd appreciate it if you would forward a copy of this
> > message to Buzz. Your tool is on the way back . . .
> >
> > -----------
> >
> > Paul is correct in that you cannot rely on the statements of tool and
> > terminal manufacturers to insure compatibility of products - ESPECIALLY
> > when
> > the tool manufacturer and terminal manufacturer are different
> folks. These
> > pictures illustrate one example of what might be called a
> fairly universal
> > tool.
> >
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/67A.jpg
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/678.jpg
> >
> > These pictures are the business end of a t-head AMP tool I bought almost
> > exactly 40 years ago. It features an adjustable insulation grip die set.
> > Most of my AMP tools have adjustable insulation grip dies although the
> > t-head has the widest range.
> >
> > Lot cost tools like the one that started this thread never have
> adjustable
> > insulation grip dies . . . so one needs to be more selective.
> >
> > When I offered the low cost tool for the first time about
> > 6 years ago, I tested the tool with AMP PIDG terminals on
> tefzel wire and
> > found the combination adequate. About a year ago, I got some samples of
> > terminals from JST in Japan. These are mil-qualified but when
> tested with
> > the tool I sold, produced results I didn't want to sell.
> > See:
> >
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/JST_Samples_2.jpg
> >
> >
> > The upper terminal was a JST, the lower is AMP PIDG.
> > I was disappointed because the JST terminals were about half the cost of
> > PIDG . . .
> >
> > The idea behind the shop notes at:
> >
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/crimptools.html
> >
> > was to reinforce the simple ideas about successful terminal
> installation.
> > Unless you're using tools mated to terminal by the same
> manufacturer, it's
> > a
> > good idea to be treat the combination with suspicion until you confirm
> > that
> > the terminals, tool and wire are suited for the task. It's not
> difficult
> > if
> > you take time to understand what's needed.
> > --------------- End of Past Threads --------------------------
> >
> > Okay down to the question at hand: Phil sent me his AMP tool for
> > evaluation. This picture illustrates the features of the
> die-set for this
> > tool along with proper insertion of terminals for installation.
> >
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/AMP_1.jpg
> >
> > I found that this tool produces consistent and adequate grips on the
> > CONDUCTORS of all sizes of wire that are covered by the red/blue/yellow
> > PIDG
> > terminals. I cannot explain why Phil was not getting consistent
> grips on
> > his
> > 22AWG applications except that the terminals must not have been
> inserted
> > and
> > centered in the dies as shown in this photo set.
> >
> > Now the down side: This tool does not close the INSULATION grip
> > sufficiently
> > to grab the smaller Tefzel wires. This was a problem noted with
> one of the
> > tools above in:
> >
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Crimp_Tools/CLEVELAND65A.jpg
> >
> > This tool would be just fine for 99.9% of all commercial work
> where fatter
> > PVC insulation was used on the wires.
> >
> > This investigation reenforces words I've offered about matching the
> > tool/terminal/wire combinations you plan to use. Even when (as in this
> > case)
> > terminals and tool are both by AMP . . . the combination does
> not produce
> > adequate installations for Phil's airplane wherein the wire of choice is
> > 22759/16 Tefzel.
> >
> > Now, if I were working a job in the field and this was the only
> > terminal/tool combo available for the task. One could consider putting
> > 1/2"
> > hunks of heatshrink on the ends of the stripped wires before
> installing a
> > terminal.
> > This would "fatten" up the insulation sufficiently to achieve a good
> > insulation grip with PIDG terminals in this tool. However, I
> wouldn't want
> > to wire a whole airplane with this technique.
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 28
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 05:18:25 PM PST US
> From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: PC680 Life
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson"
> <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
>
> What sorts of longevity are folks getting out of the Odyssey PC680
> batteries? Mine is two years old and after sitting overnight
> (with only the
> aircraft's clock draining it) the voltage is only 12.4 volts,
> corresponding
> to about a 65% charge. The hobbs time for that two years is about 325
> hours. The charging voltage during operation is consistently 14.2 volts.
>
> Alex Peterson
>
> RV6-A N66AP 698 hours
>
> Maple Grove, MN
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 29
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 05:31:06 PM PST US
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Pitot tube question
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls,
> III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 04:46 PM 12/11/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
> >
> >FWIW my used single engine cessna pitot quickly stabilized at about 7
> >amps in free room temperature air on a 12 volt battery. I can't remember
> >whether the heater was marked 12 volts but 7 amps sounded reasonble to
> >me. I'm assuming a low speed aircraft without other ice protection
> >simply doesn't need 200+ watts to operate in snow or an occasional cloud
> >breaking procedure. It was interesting to note that the unit actually
> >has a small water drain hole incorporated at the point where the air
> >passage turns up vertical.
> >Ken
>
> Actually, the free air bench test is at one extreme end
> of the tube's operating curve. On page 2 of
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Pitot_Heater/Gauging_Pitot_Heater
> _Performance.pdf
>
> we note that the free air bench test for the
> AN5814-1 settles out at about 9A for a power dissipation
> of 117 watts. However, the tube never operates there.
> On your airplane, there's always ambient slip stream which
> takes heat out of the tube and lowers it's resistance.
> Therefore, except while sitting on the ground, you'll never
> see running currents below 9A with this particular tube.
>
> Further down the curve we see an ice-bath current draw of
> 16A for a total of 208 Watts. This is the other extreme for
> operation which you'll never see . . . for very long. If
> your airplane is picking up ice fast enough to drive the
> pitot tube down to this resistance level, you have only
> minutes to stay airborne anyhow and de-icing the pitot
> tube is the last of your concerns.
>
> Some data I gathered on a batch of 28V pitot tubes shows
> a similar loading in an ice-bath. See:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Pitot_Heat_R_Raw_Data.pdf
>
> and averaged at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Pitot_Heater_R_Plot.pdf
>
> Here all 5 samples were close to 250 watts in the ice bath
> and they too dropped to the 100 watt neighborhood in free air.
>
> These data were the foundation for my suggestion that the
> pitot tube in question should draw something in the 200w
> range in stirred ice when operated at its rated voltage.
>
> Virtually all the pitot tubes I've worked with have on or more
> drain holes. In fact, location of the drain holes can be critical
> to tube performance in the icing test tunnel.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 30
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 06:04:25 PM PST US
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
> From: "Folbrecht, Paul" <PFolbrecht@starkinvestments.com>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Folbrecht, Paul"
> <PFolbrecht@starkinvestments.com>
>
> Congrats on sorta passing. Can you legally sorta fly an LSA now?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of
> Craig Payne
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
> <craig@craigandjean.com>
>
> Based on the Sport Pilot oral exam I took today (and sorta
> passed) I can say
> that neither a VSI or a turn coordinator are required for *VFR* flight.
>
> -- Craig
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 31
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 06:21:11 PM PST US
> From: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
> <craig@craigandjean.com>
>
> Hopefully I will drop the "sorta" from the oral part on Tuesday
> and do well
> on the check-ride that same day. After that (and after I
> finishing mating my
> Zenith 601XL with its Corvair engine) I can really start learning how to
> fly.
>
> -- Craig
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Folbrecht, Paul
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Folbrecht, Paul"
> --> <PFolbrecht@starkinvestments.com>
>
> Congrats on sorta passing. Can you legally sorta fly an LSA now?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of
> Craig Payne
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Glass Cockpit Options
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne"
> --> <craig@craigandjean.com>
>
> Based on the Sport Pilot oral exam I took today (and sorta
> passed) I can say
> that neither a VSI or a turn coordinator are required for *VFR* flight.
>
> -- Craig
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 32
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 07:07:04 PM PST US
> From: Earl_Schroeder <Earl_Schroeder@juno.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: PC680 Life
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Earl_Schroeder
> <Earl_Schroeder@juno.com>
>
>
> Alex Peterson wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson"
> <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
> >
> >What sorts of longevity are folks getting out of the Odyssey PC680
> >batteries?
> >
> >
> My PC680 is about a year old and still works fine. Bob says I don't
> need to connect a 'battery tender' in the hangar but I always do... band
> aid approach. Earl
> Do not archive..
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 33
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 07:57:34 PM PST US
> From: "DonVS" <dsvs@comcast.net>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Z14-8 OR -20 Architecture
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DonVS" <dsvs@comcast.net>
>
> Bob,
> I have a couple questions on the Z13 setup. If I run a battery buss with:
> two P-mags, my primary EFIS, one nav/com, the transponder and the audio
> panel
> is there any benefit to having an E-buss? Except for the audio panel the
> entire collection is independently switched. Everything else in the
> electrical system is on the "main" buss. Is this a robust system or am I
> missing something? Operation would be , alt fails and low voltage light
> comes on, switch alt and battery off (one 799-2-10 switch),
> continue for the
> exact same duration as with an E-buss??. I might also add an SD8
> witch will
> extend the duration. Please help me understand what is wrong with this
> design if it is not a smart or feasible plan. Thanks in advance. Don
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 34
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 08:32:51 PM PST US
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: PC680 Life
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls,
> III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 07:14 PM 12/11/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson"
> ><alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
> >
> >What sorts of longevity are folks getting out of the Odyssey PC680
> >batteries? Mine is two years old and after sitting overnight
> (with only the
> >aircraft's clock draining it) the voltage is only 12.4 volts,
> corresponding
> >to about a 65% charge. The hobbs time for that two years is about 325
> >hours. The charging voltage during operation is consistently 14.2 volts.
>
> Do you have a means for cap-checking the battery?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 35
> ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 11:42:50 PM PST US
> From: Speedy11@aol.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Do I Need an Ammeter?
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
>
> Bob,
> Thanks for your response.
> The original post did reference using an ammeter but the thread
> got diverted
> along the way.
> So, it appears that I accomplish the most with the least by
> simply inserting
> 22AWG wires in with my wire bundles and access them as needed to take
> necessary readings. That makes perfect sense to me and it is the
> approach I will
> take.
> Thanks for the advice.
> Stan Sutterfield
>
>
> In a message dated 12/06/05 3:00:49 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
> I can see how you could perceive my answer as a run-around.
> Allow me to clarify. The most I can recommend now is to
> install a system not unlike that which I've illustrated
> and NO sensors. When and if a problem arises in any system
> where you'd like some remote measurement abilities, then
> the wires and connector will be in place. You'll need
> a test jack box and a voltmeter to plug into your
> cabin mounted test connector. You may even want to
> add some spare wires so that hall effect or temperature
> SENSORS might be added at test-time.
>
> I've suggested the test connector and simple harness with
> plenty of wires in it because it's easy and inexpensive
> to install while the airplane is being built. The
> existence of this connector makes future testing much
> easier because you can add stuff as needed to attack
> the problem at hand. Going beyond that now assumes
> a lot we don't know until some problem arises.
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 07:29 AM 12/12/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson"
><alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
>
>
> >
> > Do you have a means for cap-checking the battery?
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
>No... is this applying some load and monitoring voltage vs time?
Exactly. Exemplar tools include this product by West Mountain Radio
http://westmountainradio.com/CBA_ham.htm
It lets you put a load on your battery equal to your
e-bus loads and measure exactly how long it will run
the goodies.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 07:38 AM 12/12/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson"
><alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
> >
> > Alex, how did you determine that 12.4 V equates to 65%
> > charge? How many volts was it putting out new? I don't ever
> > recall seeing over 13V on mine. The mid 12s is where mine
> > stays at now and I keep a battery tender on it at the hangar
> > pretty much all the time.
> >
> > lucky
>
>Lucky, from their website. I can't paste the chart in here, but draw a
>straight line between:
>
>10% charge = 11.7v
>100% charge = 12.8v
>
>and you'll closely have the curve.
>
>There is a very thorough pdf describing these batteries at (including the
>charge vs voltage):
>
>http://www.odysseybatteries.com/files.htm and click technical manual, I
>believe.
I need to ask the question again of folks in the know about
batteries but I think those voltages are based on a battery
that still got most of its capacity left. As the capacity droops,
the shape of that voltage vs. percentage of charge changes
too. I can't remember who said it . . . I've talked with too
many battery peddlers to keep it all straight.
Bottom line is that you're never wrong to suck all the juice
out and measure it. This is especially important when your
e-bus loads are greater than the 20-hour discharge rate
on the battery. A battery's apparent capacity goes down as
the load goes up.
E.g., you get 17 a.h. out at 0.85 amps load and perhaps
only 14 a.h. out with a 3 amp load. The capacity check needs
to be run as close as practical to your e-bus loads to
be a true measure of the battery's ability.
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: | Master Relay Mount Part 2 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
I've been giving this some thought and I wonder if they have received some reports
of units not working because of inconsistent grounding where people try
to ground it through the case contact rather than the terminal. Might be simply
a way to force people to ground the relay properly to get consistent operation.
Just a SWAG on my part.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Mid fuse bulkheads
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of sjhdcl@kingston.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Master Relay Mount Part 2
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sjhdcl@kingston.net
I recently ordered a replacement master relay. My old one (2 months old) has the
hard black pastic boots on it as discussed a few weeks ago. The orginal one
came from B&C Specialty. The replacement from Aircraft Spruce is exactly the
same.
Just for info. I tried removing the platic boots and it was nearly impossible without
a grinder. Heated them up and they seemed fine. Torqued bolts and it also
torqued properly. While I am interested in the reasons for the design change
it now seems to be distributed from many vendors and I suspect the change is
simply cosmetic. I still would prefer the metal tabs.
Steve
RV7A #2
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William" <wschertz@ispwest.com>
I strongly believe that the 12.4V does not represent 65% of the Battery
CAPACITY. The open circuit voltage has a very poor correlation to the actual
capacity of the battery and is decidedly non-linear. Think of it this way:
The capacity of a battery is proportional to how *much* unreacted battery
couple material is left on the electrodes, and how *well* the material can
be accessed at a given load being drawn from the battery. A fully charged
battery has all the battery-couple material available, and initially it is
very easily accessed because it is at or relatively near the surface of the
electrode. As the battery discharges, some of the 'spent' material is in the
way of accessing the remaining unreacted material, so the ability to sustain
the current under load is degraded, and the voltage output of the battery
(under load) drops off -- the higher the load, the faster it drops.
Now lets consider the open circuit (or very low load with only the clock
load) condition. Now the voltage is set by whether there is *any* accessible
unreacted battery couple materials available. As long as some exists, you
will have an open-circuit voltage of about 12.4 volts, even if you have very
little capacity remaining in the battery. If the battery is truly
discharged, imposing a very small load will cause a rapid decline in
voltage, i.e. it cannot support a current withdrawal.
The voltage readings above 12.4 volts are usually due to small amounts of
other electrochemically acitive materials in the battery that don't
contribute much to actual capacity. I believe that there may be a semantic
difference between battery capacity and 'state of charge' that Odessy is
describing on page 17 of their manual, but to determine the real capacity
left, you will need to do a discharge at constant current, and measure the
time as shown in the tables on page 10.
Bill Schertz
KIS Cruiser # 4045
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: PC680 Life
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson"
> <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
>
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>>
>> Alex, how did you determine that 12.4 V equates to 65%
>> charge? How many volts was it putting out new? I don't ever
>> recall seeing over 13V on mine. The mid 12s is where mine
>> stays at now and I keep a battery tender on it at the hangar
>> pretty much all the time.
>>
>> lucky
>
> Lucky, from their website. I can't paste the chart in here, but draw a
> straight line between:
>
> 10% charge = 11.7v
> 100% charge = 12.8v
>
> and you'll closely have the curve.
>
> There is a very thorough pdf describing these batteries at (including the
> charge vs voltage):
>
> http://www.odysseybatteries.com/files.htm and click technical manual, I
> believe.
>
> Alex Peterson
> RV6-A N66AP 698 hours
> Maple Grove, MN
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:38 AM 12/12/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><nuckollsr@cox.net>
> >
> >No... is this applying some load and monitoring voltage vs time?
>
> Exactly. Exemplar tools include this product by West Mountain Radio
>
>http://westmountainradio.com/CBA_ham.htm
>
> It lets you put a load on your battery equal to your
> e-bus loads and measure exactly how long it will run
> the goodies.
Forgot to mention. This can also be used in the
zero-load mode to check the performance of battery
chargers. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/schumacher_3.jpg
Here's some data I gathered with it to compare
performance of various 9v batteries. (you need to
save these files to disk and then print them . .
they don't show up much detail on the screen).
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/9vBatteryTests.jpg
A really nice tool. I'm about to order another one
for use out at RAC.
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: | Master Relay Mount Part 2 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:49 AM 12/12/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)"
><rvbuilder@sausen.net>
>
> I've been giving this some thought and I wonder if they have received
> some reports of units not working because of inconsistent grounding where
> people try to ground it through the case contact rather than the
> terminal. Might be simply a way to force people to ground the relay
> properly to get consistent operation. Just a SWAG on my part.
None of the versions I'm aware of depend on
case ground for operation.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
version=3.0.3
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Huft <aflyer@lazy8.net>
>
> Bottom line is that you're never wrong to suck all the juice
> out and measure it. This is especially important when your
> e-bus loads are greater than the 20-hour discharge rate
> on the battery. A battery's apparent capacity goes down as
> the load goes up.
>
What is the reduction of the life of the battery when you run it flat? I
imagine it depends on the construction of the battery...cranking type?
Deep cycle?
John
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: | main battery contactor, hidden security issue |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Werner Schneider <glastar@gmx.net>
Dear all,
I was discussing recently with a guy which has NO main battery contactor
(CB setup) about his setup and he did ask me something which I could not
answer light heartily.
The main battery contactor which is supposed to switch off the big juice
in case of an emergency landing is switched through a cable going to
ground. Now imagine your setup in a metal airplane and you crash, is
there not a certain danger, that you break the cable going to the
contactor and short it to ground, this switching on the main battery
contactor and voila you have a bomb named battery in your crashing plane
able to deliver several 100 Amps.
This argument let me think and I would appreciate the insight of you
folks on the list about that scenario?
Kind regards
Werner (Glastar with main battery contactor behind my seat)
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Modern ND external voltage (Dear Bob, stop it |
)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING
ABOUT BOB
Bob, I offered someone advise on ND alternators designed for
external voltage regulators. They come in two flavors, OLD and BIG.
The old ones have poor cooling and bearing design (Van's 35amp is an
old ND). The new ones (1992-2001) are BIG and come in 70 to 120
amp plus range. They are all big and heavy. The 70 amp units have
mounts widely offset from the case. The 117/120 amp units are more
common and some have more compact mounts, some not.
AT NO TIME DID I SAY DON'T DO IT, YOU CAN'T DO IT, YOU
SHOULD NOT DO IT. I than offered to get him a new alternator at
COST, about 1/3rd to 1/2 of the part store he talked about. How terrible of me.
Helping people, what was I thinking? You don't support or care about I-VR
alternators Bob, but some do. I get notes of thanks for my help and info, which
you are unable or unwilling to post or allow to be posted with out all this
consternation.
YOU HAVE SOME BIG BRASS ONES. YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM
TELLING PEOPLE WHAT YOU THINK, OR THEIR FAULTS OR FAULTS
OF A PRODUCT, BUT GOSH DARN IT DON'T CRITICIZE BOB.
MY RESPECT FOR YOU IS DIMINISHED WITH
EVERY HYPOCRITICAL THING YOU SAY, AND I DON'T CARE WHAT
YOU THINK, SO SHUT UP.
MY REPLY TO CHARLIE WAS NOT ABOUT YOU, TO YOU, FOR YOU
or FOR YOUR BENEFIT. IT WAS FOR CHARLIE'S BENEFIT. THE
WORLD DOES NOT REVOLVE AROUND YOU BOB.
IF SOMEONE AS A PROBLEM WITH ME OFFERING THEM AN
ALTERNATORS FOR 1/2 PRICE THAN THEY CAN WRITE ME OR
COMPLAIN TO MATRONICS.
AS FAR AS THE SIZE OF THE LARGE ND's, IT IS MY OPINION THEY
ARE TOO LARGE TO FIT, AT LEAST IN RV's, WHICH I HAVE BUILT
TWO AND WORKING ON A THIRD. IF THAT IS NEGATIVE SO BE IT.
I WAS TRYING TO HELP BOB, SO DEAL WITH IT.
YOU ARE CLEARLY OFFENDED BY MY TONGUE IN CHEEK "GASP"
COMMENT?
I WROTE: "60-80 amp units are a good choice but they are all GASP! Internal
regulated."
YOU WROTE:
>Time: 07:59:14 AM PST US
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>Subject: Re: Modern ND external voltage
>George, you're digressing from informative dissertation to
>unkind rhetoric and propaganda. Nobody has EVER argued with
>you over the demonstrated reliability of the modern alternators.
>As I've stated many times, I have clients who embrace certain
>traditional design goals which tend to be reinforced by data
>we get on real field failures of the IR alternators. You may
>personally brush these incidents aside in your personal design
>decisions. I must object to your backhanded references to
>folks who have suffered these failures and have brought their
>stories forward (warts and all) to help raise our level of
>understanding. This atmosphere chases folks away.
If anyone searches the archives about internal VR alternators, it is
indeed like a Liberal Democrat being interviewed on Fox News. It just is a
shout down with you Bob. You think you are "Fair and Balanced" but you a
steeped in some serious dogma and opinions. It was common "wisdom" on this
list you run that I-VR's had not OV protection are recent as this year. A typical
subtle comment from you sound like this: "The so called (ND) OV protection"
You don't know squat about it so shut-up, and your theory of why an OV
could happen is wrong and never prove to ever have happened, ever.
By the way, if you don't think ND alternators or I-VR alternators in
general have been vilified and miss information spread on this forum,
read the archives. It was just a year ago people said ND alternators
don't have OV protection with out dispute. Here is a typical statement
YOU made:
>"(6) While the probability of regulator failure in cars is exceedingly
>low, it is not zero. We have heard of ANECDOTAL stories of unhappy,
>high-dollar events taking place in airplanes after failure of internally
>regulated alternators."
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Crowbar_OV_Protection/Crowbar_C.pdf
WHAT EVENT , WHAT HAPPENED? If someone made a comment
like that about ANECDOTAL stories against your "paradigm" on this
forum you would have a S%#t hemorrhage.
What a hypocrite, don't ask people for data unless you have some Bob. I used
the word anecdotal on this forum once, you chewed me a new one and called
me names. What a tool.
YOU chase people away. In just the last year you have chased away
at least 3 people. You have taken pot shots at others and companies that don't
even post. Here is a short list:
SkyTec,
Ex-buss,
Jim Weir RST Engineering
Greg Ritcher Blue Mountain Avionics,
Van's Aircraft (specifically Richard VanGrunsven),
SDS (simple digital systems)
Niagara Air-parts (alternator kit)
The latter one, Niagara, you picked on their installation instructions that state
low RPM and high loads puts a strain on the alternator. YOU
WENT ON AN ON about what is strain? "This does not help
understanding by using words like strain!" However you are happy to
throw out words like Paradigm with nothing else? You fool no one Bob,
you are faking it 1/2 the time. You say anything to cast dispersions.
I suggest if you don't understand what overloading an alternator at low
RPMS and the word STRAIN means you read my write up on how alternator
basics work so you understand this strain concept, posted on this list on
Nov 8, 2005: "Alternators Basics: Regulators & OV"
That thing you did with Greg Richter, of Blue Mountain Avionics is a
darn shame. You wrote a manifesto on how ignorant Greg Richter of
Blue Mountain Avionics is and posted a DANGER warning on your web
site like a Terror Alert. You got some BIG brass ONES. Bob you are the
king of calling people ignorant. Bob I would work on your own tacit. I
mean you go BOTH barrels when you are after someone you don't like.
That is OK; You made it a habit of attacking me, so the feeling is mutual.
I just think you are jealous. You could not make an EFIS/Autopilot
system if your life depended on it. Not to mention your attack on
SkyTec starters; you had NO CLUE of what you where talking about.
When you got called on it, a Gentleman would have apologized; but you
just talked in circles and make more excuses like you always do, like
when a crow-bar or a B&C regulator breaks or malfunctions.
Talk about rude and negative and just bombastic lambasting, you are
the king. I find it ironic people who develop complex products like VHF
radios, EFIS and autopilots and full digital fuel / ignition controls, several
1000 times more complex than the B&C voltage regulator, are criticized by
you. You have no problem attacking and being critical of others, while
you can't take any yourself. You are a small jealous person.
You are a true hypocrite. You "constantly interrupt informative
dissertations" to take snide, condescending, backstabbing pot shots at
people, including me, but I usually let it go. You drop little wise
comments about me and others embedded in post weeks later. What a
little chicken thing to do. I read them and ignored them. It's a petty
"paradigm" you live in. Give it a break.
You call people ignorant outright or (dangerous) idiots in so many
(many) words. So please shut up with the lecture dear Sir, you are the
most abrasive argumentative person on the web, in my humble opinion.
The problem you seem to have is people expressing their opinion, and if
it's different than yours, like suggesting using an I-VR alternator, you are
offended and make personal attacks. This is your modus-operandi.
People just get sick of you. GET OVER IT. STICK WITH FACTS. You
can't because you don't have any, just your old tired ideas and opinions.
Get something new to say. WE GOT IT External VR's period, done OK.
>I've oft suggested that it's just as important for builders
>to share their failures as it is to share their successes. Knowing
>what DOES NOT work is as valuable as knowing what DOES.
>It keeps us from re-inventing the same mistakes over and over
>again. But folks at risk for being targets of derisive comments
>and unkind behaviors will not be inclined to be forthcoming.
>With this case in particular, you've had no conversation with
>the individual and have know knowledge of details of the event
>or the investigations that have been launched because of his
>willingness to share.
You are such a ...... The guy from SDS had a forced landing in his RV-
6A from an honest mistake and shared his mistake on his web site. You
where tipped off and read it, and you wrote a self righteous, smug
pompous editorial, tearing him a new one with a bunch of "EXPERT"
opinion. How much do you fly? How many truly innovative things
have you done? A voltage regulator and crow bar are not sophisticated
or original. You are such a double talking hypocrite. Well SDS heard
and read what you wrote. You should have read his reply about you
on his web site, after he got wind of your uninformed petty little
analysis. He WAS PISSED and rightly so. Again you gave your typical
know it all high and mighty armchair expert crud. Don't you dare accuse
me of anything you hypocrite. You don't like me because I call your bull.
Anyone who wants to see how to conceive, execute and flight test
ideas should check SDS's web site out:
http://www.sdsefi.com/air9.html
You are correct I did not talk to this individual (RV-4 guy). You also did
not try to find out what went wrong with the regulator. YOU HAVE NO
INTEREST IN understanding and promoting I-VR's, despite you claim of
impartiality.
I have offered to obtain manufactures assistance in evaluating failed regulators
thru, X-ray, test equipment and even component by component analysis to
anyone who is interested. Bob is not interested, he just wants to sell some more
crow bars. What do you make Bob, about $20-$30 apiece?
New custom ND regulators are coming that will meet the "paradigm" of design
Bob claims to know or poses (fake).
You miss lead people and promote your own agenda, while saying you
are so open minded. I got into a pissing match with you on another
email where I suggested people wire and use the alternators WARNING
light, and remote voltage sense (with facts to back-up my opinion). The
ND alternator does have Hi/Lo voltage warning on many models. You
made some snide comments and listed guesses why it may not work in a reply
about the warning light. I am tired of YOU, but not tired of promoting my
opinion in a positive productive way despite your personal attacks.
THE RECENT EVENT OF THE RV-4 GUY WHO BLEW HIS BATTERY
UP (MOSTLY HIS FAULT BY THE WAY), had more detail and
credibility than I have heard before. No doubt it happened, but some
how we let the VR just get thrown in the trash? If it was a B&C regulator
would you just thrown it in the trash? NO. If you tell me it is unlikely
your B&C regulator could not fail or allow an OV, ever, you will be
telling a big fat fib.
Again show a total lack of commitment in improving the understanding
the use of internal VR's in airplanes. You just don't care, but that is
fine. BUTT OUT please, some of the rest of us care and want to know
what really happened. I guess it is too late to get the VR from this event. By
the
way as a +10,000 ATP pilot, 3 jet type ratings, my sense of smell is not the
most important one sense as a pilot, but lets blame the alternator or battery.
You have no plan or desire to develop I-VR use in planes. THAT's FINE
BUT STOP interfering with those who are improving the understanding.
I don't want an aeroelectric certificate of achievement on my wall, I have
enough diplomas and certificates already.
The RV-4 Gentleman went cruising around the countryside for
an undetermined amount of time, with the voltmeter pegged, despite the
smell of something acidic, for an additional undetermined amount of
time, kept flying, until he saw the voltmeter. This is NOT an alternator
problem. If he had followed "golden rules" he would have had NO
problem.
HERE IS A NEWS FLASH:
ND alternators have OV protection set to 17 volts (varies by model).
There was some serious electrolyte-boiling going on at 17 VOLTS, BUT
ON HE FLEW, ON AND ON AND ON, with ACIDIC SMELL AND ALL.
The pilot was contributory and really the prime reason to blowing up the
battery. If the alternator warning light was wired in (as I recommend) he
would not have had a problem, in my opinion of course. I am sure you
disagree, since I wrote about the warning light. Your reply was a three-
page reason why it would not work and a dig at me. Fact is you don't
know daddy, yet you open your mouth with opinions, no facts, again.
Folks the warning light is designed to work with any reasonable expect
regulator failure.
*************************************************************
IF I CAN MAKE ONE POINT AND GET ACROSS TO YOU - Fact ND
alternators do have a warning lights that will give them immediate
indication Low of OV. Also ND alternators have OV protection, e.g. 17
volts. HOWEVER TO TAKE ADVANTAGE YOU MUST WIRE AND
OPERATE THE ALTERNATOR AS IT WAS INTENDED. OK
*************************************************************
>May I suggest that whacking at anyone like this is counter-
>and perhaps even mean spirited? Please offer your data and
>logic with the goal of advancing our understanding and refrain
>from such personal attacks when you know so very little
>about them. There's a big difference between noting some level
>of ignorance as a matter of fact and hurling a label of ignorance
>at someone just because they disagree with you.
>Bob.
May I suggest you shut up please.
I find that you and the above comment to be ridiculous and offensive. You are
very vindictive and hostel, so for you to point at anyone is ridiculous. Once you
got someone's NUMBER, you will attack, nag, nit-pick and bugger them until
they leave the list. You do it over and over and over. The difference with me is
I don't care what you think about me. My mission is tp help people, who want to
use the ND alternator to it's best advantage and reliability.
There you go with the "Please offer your data and logic". No Bob you
offer data and logic, with out the word paradigm please. Most of the time
you make it up or make excuses. I have lots of data. You don't know
me. I have talked to several engineers from manufactures and auto
electronics makers and suppliers. Since I am an engineer I can
understand and discuss the details of how these devices work. I would
love to share them with you, but NO DOUBT you will write some
SNIPPY little comments and remarks. YOU are just not interested in
anyone's opinion but your own, so why bother.
The folks that want to know more write me. Together we are coming up
with our own "Paradigm". This forum is not suitable for new ideas
because of one person, YOU. Why not just butt out and leave the
internal regulator stuff to others. You don't understand them, you don't
want to understand them and you make negative comments all the time. YOU
Sir are the one that needs to shut up and let us who have the intent of helping
and learning do that, with out your hindrance.
"whacking at anyone like this is counter-productive"
MY point, BOB, STOP IT WITH PERSONAL ATTACKS? You are
confused with yourself ?
"hurling a label of ignorance at someone"
Bob you are being stupid now. STOP IT. I NEVER SAID OR IMPLIED
ANYONE WAS IGNORANT, but it is clearly your cup of tea BOB. YOU
CALL EVERY ONE IGNORANT (who disagrees). If someone tells you you
are great an brilliant, you are like a little school girl, weeeeeee. Grow up.
Well let me use your words: You are an ignorant hypocrite. You
called Richard VanGrunsven ignorant. WHY? He disagrees with you. He does
not what you to "TEACH" his staff your brilliant ideas. The man has the most
popular designs and a worldwide business. Trust me he is smart enough to
grasp the concepts of DC circuits. Van by the way has an engineering degree,
and last time I mentioned I also had an engineering degree, you and a few of
you little buddies spouted off.
Apparently engineers are stupid or in competent and the "trade
school" technicians are superior, is what I got out of it. Whatever,
Jealousy? Although I don't work as an engineer any more as an airline
pilot, when I did practice engineering, my consulting fees earned
me well over 100 grand a year. So say what you want about engineers.
BOB THE HYPOCRITE
Bob is loose and fast with the facts. He lets others make outrageous,
unsupported negative claims and statements as long as it supports his opinion;
but if someone makes a counter-point or opinion he demands facts, data and
test. That is hypocrisy.
He makes a claim ND alternators have a weak point or single failure
point ( the field driver transistor). However in the RV-4 case and others it has
never been shown to be the cause? In fact it is obvious the RV-4
alternator still was functioning and was not a GASP! :-0 a Runway! Oh
NO! Once a guy had a problem much more benign with no battery
puff or avionics damage. Bob implied it was a RUNAWY. Hardly it peaked
at 16 volts and would drop with load. The reason was the pilot messing
with turning the IGN lead ON/OFF under load. Again pilot induced failure.
Yes there was an issue with the RV-4, it did happen, but not like you
will no doubt portray it in the future to sell your wares. Your cover and
fake act of your so called impartial nature is blown.
The RV-4 regulator was just tossed in the trash. However I feel the regulator
did what it needed to do, it went into OV protection and stayed there until the
pilot finally woke up and turned it off, with the IGN wire of all things?
Hummmmm Again missed opportunity in understanding of the how, why and
what makes an internal VR work. A real engineer would have looked into this
further.
Instead of making this a Forum to understand I-VR's for those who
use them, it is a beat down anti-ND internal VR forum. I mean if Bob
would just butt out on the subject we would be better off. He has no
motivation to support internal regulators. In the future custom VR's for
homebuilts will be developed and will be definitively better than any external
regulator/crowbar set up. It is coming whether Bob likes it or not.
Even http://plane-power.com/ has an internal VR with an add on OV module all
self contained. Would it not be nice to take a new $100-$150 ND and make a
little conversion, still using the I-VR and add another layer of OV protection
for those who want it? It can be done obviously. I might even offer kits or
whole alternators? If not I will be sure to share my research to help others at
no
cost.
There has NEVER been an OV with a ND alternator per the theory that
Bob says can happen, or at least verified. The above was another mild
case of OV, compounded by an inattentive pilot.
Bob rambles on about the "paradigm of aircraft design". You know one
of those "paradigm statements", the ones that mean nothing and sounds
important. When someone figures out what Bob's "paradigm" is, let me
know. I know he thinks it sound impressive but communicates nothing,
at least to me.
On this Forum in just the last year or so it was common belief and
repeated often, I-VR alternators (ND in particular) have no OV
protection, and it went unchallenged. WRONG. I like to think my input
has added to the discourse of what an internal VR is. Bob single
handily is the "spreader" of innuendo and rumor which gives you financial
gain, Fact. He is not an impartial scientist/engineer he paints his self as, clearly.
Bob is a bully and makes people afraid to ask questions or make
comments that differ from your opinion. He either personally attack
them, like you do me, or beat them down with a line by line diatribe of
how right he is.
I LOVE the fact
Bob calls people ignorant OUTRIGHT all the time, but he tells me I
did it? Shut-up Bob with your trite little accusations and look in the mirror,
Sir.
I don't know what drives him? I know he loves to argue that is clear.
Clearly your personality needs to be RIGHT and needs to be
told vigorously how right you are by others.
People might say, hey George you are criticizing Bob's personality. Well
that is true. However Bob feels the NEED to impinge other people and
myself. I guess to feel BIG he needs to be-LITTLE others. Instead of
making his point with data or facts he attacks and tries to discredit. Sad.
I ignore 90% of this crud, but this time, it was just uncalled for and so
hypocritical it demanded a response.
ALL I CARE ABOUT IS IMPROVING THE USE AND RELIABILITY OF
I-VR ND ALTERNATORS. Improving understanding of installation
and operations of I-VR's and helping others with the same interest is my
goal. Part of this is dispelling the myths BOB perpetuates.
All I can say is I noticed people are more likely lately to ask questions
like Charlie. IT IS OK TO USE AN I-VR ND ALTERNATOR. I would like to
think I have a positive affect on the discourse of the subject. I also thought
Bob
was mellowing and being more careful not to be so overbearing and
demonstrative, but I guess you can't teach an old (mean) dog to be nice.
It's great you have your opinion and I respect that. The problem I
have is hypocrisy, vitriol, urban legend that Bob condones, allows and
perpetuate, but that is old news and water under the bridge.
My ONLY goal is to educate people about the limitations of I-VR's. They
are different than any externally regulated alternator and require to be
wired and operated different, that's all ALL FOLKS! Geeeeeeee I also
think it was nice of me to offer a new alternator at cost.
I really don't give a good gosh darn what you think of me Bob.
Sincerely George.
Last word: "GOLDEN RULES: of using an internally regulated alternator
do the following:
>Don't overload the alternator*
>Assure you have a good battery
>Do NOT turn it on and off under load
>Have a good Hi/Lo volt warning system or light
>Cool Alt (shield fm external high temp sources/cooling air)
>Buy new or original ND alternator, one of original ND parts best
>Have way to isolate the alternator that does not rely on the IGN lead
>Operate the ND alternator as it was designed (original application)
>Wire the ND alternator exactly as it was designed (original application)
*(wire the alternators warning light in)
**(use a CB in the panel to manually isolate the b-lead if needed)
***Load about 70% continuous of rated power max
**** Do not use external OV module / crow bar with a relay in the b-lead
unless you can assure 100% it will never falsely trip.
"Good DAY SIR, I said GOOD DAY" :- 0 George
---------------------------------
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | headphone wiring |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
I have the standard stereo headphone jack from B&C and I noticed it has just two
solder terminals. My garman audio panel (340) wiring diagram calls for three
wires, L- phones, R- phones and Lo. Can someone tell me if I have the wrong
jack or where the Lo gets connected?
Thanks in advance,
Jim
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: 24v starter in 14v airplane |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Mark,
When you respond to someone's comments you need to trim away THE REST
of the irrelevant materials in the Digest Dump of the day's postings.
At 08:20 AM 12/12/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark & Lisa" <marknlisa@hometel.com>
>
>Bob,
>
>You said:
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> > First, I note that you've left off the ANL limiters called out
> > in the original drawing. It's important that these be present
> > so that no combination of stuck contactors can cause a battery
> > to see a hard fault. Worked an MU-2 in-flight fire accident that
> > began with just such an incident. They series two 24v batteries
> > for a 48v starter and stuck contactors very nearly cost passengers
> > and crew their lives.
>
>
>Thanks for that catch, I thought I'd faithfully transferred everthing...
>Another reason to have someone proof your (mine especially) work!
>
>
> > What size batteries are you planning? If a pair of 17 a.h. then
> > may I suggest that getting both batteries to drive the e-bus
> > adds complexity you'll probably never need? Get the e-bus loads
> > down to a minimum . . . when and if main battery looks like it
> > won't make it (it should if you've done your e-bus operations
> > homework) then re-close normal ops battery contactors to bring
> > the aux battery back to finish up the job . . . and in any case,
> > close the normal ops contactors once the airport is in sight
> > so that you have every watt-second on board available for
> > approach to landing.
>
>
>I am planning to use 17ah batteries. I'd considered your suggestion above,
>but was wondering if there was a simple way I couldn't see to "rewire it" so
>I could have my cake and eat it too.
>
>What do you think of eliminating the e-bus entirely? I can load shed down
>to approx 4 amps. By eliminating the e-bus I'll have to keep the two
>contactors on so add another 2 amps for a total emergency load of 6 amps.
>With two 17ah batteries that should give me somewhere in the neighborhood of
>two hours flight time. Since my plan is always to land immediately in the
>event of an alternator failure I should be golden. Am I missing something
>important?
>
>
> > I'd recommend staying with the 2-10 battery/alternator switch
> > so that there's always a battery on line to stabilize the
> > alternator.
>
>I'm not sure about this recommendation. As configured, I can't start
>without the DC master switch on (no power thru the aux battery switch to
>power the aux battery contactor). The only time I'd turn off the DC master
>inflight is in the event of an alternator failure. My plan is to use a
>three-position keyed ignition switch. Pos 1 = OFF, Pos 2 = DC MSTR ON, Pos
>3 (mom) = STARTER ENGAGE. Does this sound reasonable?
We could carry this conversation out for days and not
really advance the ideas or provide you with truly useful
data. First, recall that the likelihood of having ANY
major electrical failure in your airplane fitted with
modern materials is a tiny fraction of that suffered
by certified ships. Electrical failures in certified
ships are in turn a tiny fraction overall system
failures that precipitate accidents. Finally, mechanical
failures are a tiny fraction of triggering events
for any of the total numbers of accidents. It follows
therefore that anything we discuss along these lines
isn't going to make a useful difference in system
reliability.
My best recommendation is try to keep it simple. Reduce
the numbers of ways that controls can be mismanaged and
produce undesirable results. The z-figures have been crafted
with these goals in mind. Adding or deleting features
requires some consideration that I don't have time to
offer right now. We've discussed all the upsides/downsides
of not using the 2-10, using key switches, etc but none
of those discussions illuminated a compelling reason
to modify the z-figures. Just make your decisions with
a level of awareness: Does the change really add value
to an already robust, trouble-free system or are you
stroking a quest for the "ultimate" configuration even
though the feature has a very remote probability of
improving on the outcome of your day.
Bob . . .
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: headphone wiring |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 12:33 PM 12/12/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
>
>I have the standard stereo headphone jack from B&C and I noticed it has
>just two solder terminals. My garman audio panel (340) wiring diagram
>calls for three wires, L- phones, R- phones and Lo. Can someone tell me
>if I have the wrong jack or where the Lo gets connected?
>Thanks in advance,
B&C sells monophonic headphone jacks. You need a stereo
headphone jack.
See type 12B on
http://www.switchcraft.com/products/pdf_files/jack-85b_schematic.pdf
http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T053/0284.pdf
and
http://www.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail?Ref=195145&Row=253420&Site=US
Bob . . .
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: | GPS driving two instruments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gianni Zuliani" <gz@comgz.com>
Hi Bob and group,
has anybody connected a GPS (in my case it is a King Skymap IIIC) to an
autopilot (in my case a Trio a/p) and to a fuel computer (in my case a JPI
FS-450) at the same time?
I've tried to connect both listener devices to the GPS data out pin, but I'm
finally (after lots of investigations with the nice guys at Trio) suspecting
that this is the reason of their autopilot's malfunctions.
Any clue from this esteemed group on how to make the right connection?
Gianni Zuliani
Long-Ez >> Stag-Ez >> Stag-EzR
http://www.comgz.com/tristar.htm
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: headphone wiring |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
You have mono jacks. You most likely want stereo jacks.
Also be sure to use the 20dB boost function on Music1 your GMA-340.
Essential amplification with any entertainment imho.
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D (721 hours)
http://www.rvproject.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: headphone wiring
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Stone"
> <jrstone@insightbb.com>
>
> I have the standard stereo headphone jack from B&C and I noticed it has
> just two solder terminals. My garman audio panel (340) wiring diagram
> calls for three wires, L- phones, R- phones and Lo. Can someone tell me
> if I have the wrong jack or where the Lo gets connected?
> Thanks in advance,
> Jim
>
>
>
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: headphone wiring |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Jim Stone wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
>
>I have the standard stereo headphone jack from B&C and I noticed it has just two
solder terminals. My garman audio panel (340) wiring diagram calls for three
wires, L- phones, R- phones and Lo. Can someone tell me if I have the wrong
jack or where the Lo gets connected?
>Thanks in advance,
>Jim
>
Odds are, it isn't stereo. I've never seen one that didn't have a solder
terminal for the ground (Lo). You can tell for sure by looking at the
construction of the jack itself. Plug your stereo headphone plug into
the jack. You should see one leg of the jack touching the tip of the
plug & another leg touching the 'ring' of the plug between the tip &
barrel of the plug. The 'barrel' of the jack provides the ground (Lo)
connection to the barrel of the plug. Each should have a solder terminal.
Charlie
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: headphone wiring |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Stone" <jrstone@insightbb.com>
Thanks Bob,
I called B&C and found out they changed to the stereo jack a couple of years
ago and apparently left the picture of the mono jack on their web site. My
jacks are 2-3 years old. Mistery solved, 2 stereo jacks on order.
Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: headphone wiring
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 12:33 PM 12/12/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Stone"
>><jrstone@insightbb.com>
>>
>>I have the standard stereo headphone jack from B&C and I noticed it has
>>just two solder terminals. My garman audio panel (340) wiring diagram
>>calls for three wires, L- phones, R- phones and Lo. Can someone tell me
>>if I have the wrong jack or where the Lo gets connected?
>>Thanks in advance,
>
> B&C sells monophonic headphone jacks. You need a stereo
> headphone jack.
>
> See type 12B on
>
> http://www.switchcraft.com/products/pdf_files/jack-85b_schematic.pdf
>
> http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T053/0284.pdf
>
> and
>
> http://www.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail?Ref=195145&Row=253420&Site=US
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
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: Modern ND external voltage (Dear Bob, stop |
it )
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 12/12/05 11:25:46 AM Central Standard Time,
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com writes:
> I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT
>>>>>
George, once again you have planted another tumor in the Matronics archives
of your increasingly incredible vitriol. Too bad. What really stinks is that
Bob will most likely go over your opus detail by detail in a polite,
proffesional manner and you will attack him again, likely without a do not archive
anywhere...
Thank you, whoever invented the delete key.
With sincerest apologies to the A-list,
Mark Phillips (yes, I have a real name and not afraid to use it)
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: GPS driving two instruments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
If those are NMEA-183 RS-232 serial outputs, then you can't just wire them
together if you want a reliable connection. It's been a long time since
I've looked, but Black Box used to make devices that would take one RS-232
input and send it to multiple outputs. I think you're going to need
something along those lines.
Dave Morris
At 12:51 PM 12/12/2005, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gianni Zuliani" <gz@comgz.com>
>
>Hi Bob and group,
>has anybody connected a GPS (in my case it is a King Skymap IIIC) to an
>autopilot (in my case a Trio a/p) and to a fuel computer (in my case a JPI
>FS-450) at the same time?
>I've tried to connect both listener devices to the GPS data out pin, but I'm
>finally (after lots of investigations with the nice guys at Trio) suspecting
>that this is the reason of their autopilot's malfunctions.
>Any clue from this esteemed group on how to make the right connection?
>Gianni Zuliani
>Long-Ez >> Stag-Ez >> Stag-EzR
>http://www.comgz.com/tristar.htm
>
>
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: Modern ND external voltage |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:19 AM 12/12/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>
>I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT BOB
I'm talking about "The pilot who flew around with his head
in the clouds while he cooked his battery".
You have mistaken a simple request to not take personal
whacks at individuals and transformed it into a broad
criticism of the real data in your post.
<snip>
>If anyone searches the archives about internal VR alternators, it is
>indeed like a Liberal Democrat being interviewed on Fox News. It just is a
>shout down with you Bob. You think you are "Fair and Balanced" but you a
>steeped in some serious dogma and opinions. It was common "wisdom" on this
>list you run that I-VR's had not OV protection are recent as this year. A
>typical
>subtle comment from you sound like this: "The so called (ND) OV protection"
>
>You don't know squat about it so shut-up, and your theory of why an OV
>could happen is wrong and never prove to ever have happened, ever.
George, I've never shouted at any one other than to EMPHASIZE a
particular word. Okay, if my "theory" is replaceable by a better
one, what do you propose? When folks loose DO-160 qualified items
to some transient condition on the bus that is fixed by replacing
an alternator or the regulator inside the alternator, what failure
mode are you suggesting is a more powerful theory?
Further, what would be your suggestion for how a builder can
protect himself from suffering similar events in the future?
Do recall correctly that you advocate a high voltage warning
joined with a pullable breaker in the b-lead. If my recollection
is correct, is this not an MANUALLY operated equivalent
to the AUTOMATIC approach embodied in the traditional design
goals? How are we different otherwise?
>By the way, if you don't think ND alternators or I-VR alternators in
>general have been vilified and miss information spread on this forum,
> read the archives. It was just a year ago people said ND alternators
>don't have OV protection with out dispute. Here is a typical statement
>YOU made:
>
>
> >"(6) While the probability of regulator failure in cars is exceedingly
> >low, it is not zero. We have heard of ANECDOTAL stories of unhappy,
> >high-dollar events taking place in airplanes after failure of internally
> >regulated alternators."
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Crowbar_OV_Protection/Crowbar_C.pdf
>
>
> WHAT EVENT , WHAT HAPPENED? If someone made a comment
>like that about ANECDOTAL stories against your "paradigm" on this
>forum you would have a S%#t hemorrhage.
And I stand by that statement. I have read the spec sheets
that claim and even illustrate ov protection in the various
internally regulated products. I have offered the fact that
traditional design goals and regulatory requirements for
OV protection cannot be met by what purveyors of
IR alternators claim is ov protection. They share a common
sense path. It follows that potential for faults in the sense
path for CONTROL makes it a poor sense path for PROTECTION.
The FAA won't let me do it, my boss won't let me do it and
I believe there are good engineering reasons for not doing it.
>What a hypocrite, don't ask people for data unless you have some Bob. I used
>the word anecdotal on this forum once, you chewed me a new one and called
>me names. What a tool.
>
>YOU chase people away. In just the last year you have chased away
>at least 3 people. You have taken pot shots at others and companies that
>don't
>even post. Here is a short list:
>
>SkyTec,
I've never argued with the value of a SkyTec product. I have
suggested that there were failures happening for reasons easy
to fix (I had a box full of failed parts here to look at).
I made the statement that the B&C was the BEST starter out
there . . . not unlike the notion that Cadillac may be the
best in comparison with a Chevy . . . I've never owned a Caddy
but I've owned lots of Chevy's . . . they're good value. I'd
probably buy a SkyTec if I had some good place to spend the
extra dollars.
>Exp-buss,
He joined us on a list at one time or another and could or
would not answer a single question. The biggest one being
how the dollars spent for his product produces a better performing
system with a lower cost of ownership than switches and fuseblocks.
He refused to participate in any such conversations.
>Jim Weir RST Engineering
Jim has never been on the List to my knowledge. He hangs out
on Usenet. Jim's a cool head. We've met many times and attended
some meetings together. I talked with him about the Microair
products several years ago and quoted his article on Microair
on my website. The only disagreement with Jim's products concerns
the use of ferrite beads over the coax of his antenna kit.
I've DEMONSTRATED in the lab the fact that these beads add
no value to the antenna's performance and can be deleted.
We've never had any discussion on the matter and I cannot
imagine that he's been "chased off" over it.
>Greg Ritcher Blue Mountain Avionics,
Greg's inability to join in constructive conversation was
well demonstrated in posts which shall remain on my
website. His words (or lack of them . . . he can't answer
a question either) speak for themselves.
>Van's Aircraft (specifically Richard VanGrunsven),
Van has never been on the list. I've spoken with Van
perhaps 4-5 times at various events around the country
and he was NEVER disposed to talk about electrical
systems in any context beyond, "If it's good for a
C-172, it's good for an RV." His electrical system
drawings and kits reflect this philosophy. The philosophy
is not bad, just no better than what's been flying for
the past 70 years.
Yes, I've cited a degree of ignorance on the part
of Van's staff with respect to electrical systems and
I stand by the assessment. It's a matter of Van's
policy and management decisions which are just fine.
It probably doesn't hurt the sale of his marvelous kits
one bit and nobody hopes for his success more than I.
>SDS (simple digital systems)
Didn't remember this one. Just called SDS and made
the personal acquaintance of Mr. Ross Farnham. I got
a quick review of the incident from him and assured him that
as a fellow designer and supplier of products to customers
I had an intense interest in good science. I apologized for
any lack of decorum I might have exhibited.
We agreed that his input to the List or me directly
was gratefully solicited. I was pleased to have him accept
my apology and I hope we can look forward his sharing
of experience and considered judgement.
I've found the exchange in my OUT box from last February
and plan to sort through it. I'll follow up with a properly
crafted post here on the List.
>Niagara Air-parts (alternator kit)
>
>The latter one, Niagara, you picked on their installation instructions
>that state
>low RPM and high loads puts a strain on the alternator. YOU
>WENT ON AN ON about what is strain? "This does not help
>understanding by using words like strain!" However you are happy to
>throw out words like Paradigm with nothing else? You fool no one Bob,
>you are faking it 1/2 the time. You say anything to cast dispersions.
The idea that energizing an alternator at high RPM puts
an extra ordinary strain on anything is simply not supported
by the physics. One of many goals for the documents in progress
right now is to dispel such inaccuracies with demonstrable data.
<snip>
>You are such a ...... The guy from SDS had a forced landing in his RV-
>6A from an honest mistake and shared his mistake on his web site. You
>where tipped off and read it, and you wrote a self righteous, smug
>pompous editorial, tearing him a new one with a bunch of "EXPERT"
>opinion. How much do you fly? How many truly innovative things
>have you done? A voltage regulator and crow bar are not sophisticated
>or original.
Never claimed they were . . . just functional and certifiable
under traditional design goals. If I'm ever harshly critical
of anyone, it's unintentional (I don't even have a mean streak
for you George!) and I'll take any opportunity to rectify it. Thank
you for bringing the incident with Ross to my attention.
<snip>
>I have offered to obtain manufactures assistance in evaluating failed
>regulators
>thru, X-ray, test equipment and even component by component analysis to
>anyone who is interested. Bob is not interested . . .
George, didn't you see my goal to forward any devices
I can lay my hands on? In fact, the guy who offered the
original post on a internal regulator failure says
he'll check with his overhaul shop and see if we can
collect some failures for you to examine.
> . . . he just wants to sell some more
>crow bars. What do you make Bob, about $20-$30 apiece?
I don't make a dime. I don't sell them.
> <snip>
>
>
>THE RECENT EVENT OF THE RV-4 GUY WHO BLEW HIS BATTERY
>UP (MOSTLY HIS FAULT BY THE WAY), had more detail and
>credibility than I have heard before. No doubt it happened, but some
>how we let the VR just get thrown in the trash?
WE didn't throw anything in the trash. HIS OVERHAUL
MECHANIC threw it in the trash just like he throws ALL
worn/failed components in the trash. What else can we
expect without taking special pains to retrieve the parts?
> If it was a B&C regulator
>would you just thrown it in the trash? NO.
Most people don't because B&C can REPAIR these devices and
is intently interested in knowing what failed with an
eye toward product improvements.
> If you tell me it is unlikely
>your B&C regulator could not fail or allow an OV, ever, you will be
>telling a big fat fib.
He ADMITS it was his fault that he didn't look at the voltmeter
sooner and cites the early thought processes that kept the flags
from going up.
<snip>
>There has NEVER been an OV with a ND alternator per the theory that
>Bob says can happen, or at least verified. The above was another mild
>case of OV, compounded by an inattentive pilot.
A "mild case" ???? Internal pressures so high that the
cell separators parted in tension all across the face of
the battery?
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery/Odyssey_OV_1.jpg
I guess I'll have to ask for your calibration point on "mild".
The battery has been shipped to Concord for a teardown and
I expect to have photos and a narrative to share in the not
too distant future.
<snip>
>
>I LOVE the fact
>Bob calls people ignorant OUTRIGHT all the time, but he tells me I
>did it? Shut-up Bob with your trite little accusations and look in the
>mirror, Sir.
>
I think the OUT box of my email client is more revealing.
Out of 3008 sent items going back to March of 2002, the
word "ignorant" appears 11 times. 5 of those 11 times,
folks are alluding to their own state of knowledge on some
matter. Of the remaining 6, it's you and I discussing the
lack of knowledge on the part of individuals at Van's as
manifested by some of the advice they are giving. I think
this hardly qualifies for "calls people ignorant OUTRIGHT
all the time."
>My ONLY goal is to educate people about the limitations of I-VR's. They
>are different than any externally regulated alternator and require to be
>wired and operated different, that's all ALL FOLKS!
George, I agree with 99% of everything you've ever said
about the performance and value of the IR alternator.
The only thing we seem to disagree on are the traditional
design goals outlined by lots of other folks. They've been
embraced by still more folks who are my customers. Why are
you so upset that I'm attempting to deliver to a customer's
wishes for his own project?
> Geeeeeeee I also
>think it was nice of me to offer a new alternator at cost.
I guess I missed that . . . I already have an alternator
provided by a generous reader mounted on a test stand and
belted to a 2 h.p. DC motor.
I'm building a controller for the motor and I need to get
a set of speed/torque curves so that we can measure h.p.
input to the alternator. If the need for another alternator
comes up in the future, I'd be pleased to take you up on
your offer.
Bob . . .
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: GPS driving two instruments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 01:27 PM 12/12/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\""
><BigD@DaveMorris.com>
>
>If those are NMEA-183 RS-232 serial outputs, then you can't just wire them
>together if you want a reliable connection. It's been a long time since
>I've looked, but Black Box used to make devices that would take one RS-232
>input and send it to multiple outputs. I think you're going to need
>something along those lines.
Most 232 outputs will drive multiple inputs. I have a data acquisition
system where I've paralleled up to 10 devices on a 9600 baud 232 line
with no measurable loading of the output signal. It's easy to check.
'Scope the signal with one load, then with all loads. It's likely that
you'll see very little change and as long as it stays above 2-3 volts
pk-pk, it will work fine over the short runs in your airplane.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:43 AM 12/12/2005 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Huft <aflyer@lazy8.net>
>
>
> >
> > Bottom line is that you're never wrong to suck all the juice
> > out and measure it. This is especially important when your
> > e-bus loads are greater than the 20-hour discharge rate
> > on the battery. A battery's apparent capacity goes down as
> > the load goes up.
> >
>
>What is the reduction of the life of the battery when you run it flat? I
>imagine it depends on the construction of the battery...cranking type?
>Deep cycle?
A battery's service life is roughly proportional to total
quantity of watt-seconds transferred. I.e., numbers of
cycles. Somewhere in the engineering data for every
battery are data describing how many deep cycles
(100%->5%->100% etc) a battery can deliver before the
capacity drops to 80% of rated. Depending on the product,
this can be anywhere between 80 and perhaps 200 cycles.
Since cranking an engine takes perhaps 4-5% of the battery's
total energy, it follows if the battery is never called upon
to do an e-bus support task -AND- the battery is never inadvertently
discharged -AND- the battery is recharged under the best
practical protocols one can expect an exemplary service life.
One has to trade off variables in battery construction
to optimize life under deep discharge -OR- high rate
discharge. You can't optimize both. The Odyssey is optimized
for high discharge (lots of thin plates). Therefore, one
can logically expect deep discharges accompanied with
extend stays in a discharged state to be more abusive
than if it were optimized for deep discharge (i.e. golf cart
and trolling motors).
When you run a battery down, it's important to recharge it
as soon as practical. Deep discharges followed by extended
stays in the discharged state is like smoking . . . each
event is purported to reduce service life by some finite
amount. In the case of batteries, the LONGER you let it
set in a discharged state, the greater the damage to
the battery's service life. Let a new battery sit discharged
very long and it becomes an almost new but quite
useless battery.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:03 AM 12/12/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William" <wschertz@ispwest.com>
>
>I strongly believe that the 12.4V does not represent 65% of the Battery
>CAPACITY. The open circuit voltage has a very poor correlation to the actual
>capacity of the battery and is decidedly non-linear. Think of it this way:
>
<snip>
>The voltage readings above 12.4 volts are usually due to small amounts of
>other electrochemically acitive materials in the battery that don't
>contribute much to actual capacity. I believe that there may be a semantic
>difference between battery capacity and 'state of charge' that Odessy is
>describing on page 17 of their manual, but to determine the real capacity
>left, you will need to do a discharge at constant current, and measure the
>time as shown in the tables on page 10.
>
>Bill Schertz
A well considered, credible post sir. Thanks!
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: Master Relay Mount Part 2 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:29 AM 12/12/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sjhdcl@kingston.net
>
>I recently ordered a replacement master relay. My old one (2 months old)
>has the hard black pastic boots on it as discussed a few weeks ago. The
>orginal one came from B&C Specialty. The replacement from Aircraft Spruce
>is exactly the same.
>
>Just for info. I tried removing the platic boots and it was nearly
>impossible without a grinder. Heated them up and they seemed fine. Torqued
>bolts and it also torqued properly. While I am interested in the reasons
>for the design change it now seems to be distributed from many vendors and
>I suspect the change is simply cosmetic. I still would prefer the metal
>tabs.
Thanks for the post. I have to believe there is not much if
any harm for the booties being in place. I'm REALLY curious
as to why they were added but I just don't have the time
to navigate the phone-maze for getting in touch with whoever
made the decision.
Now the interesting thing to watch is if Cole_Hersee adds
booties to their contactors. Then we'll KNOW there's some
kind of sinister conspiracy afoot :-)
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: GPS driving two instruments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Wysong <hdwysong@gmail.com>
Hi Gianni -
I'm assuming your GPS output line is RS-232 (serial). If so, then you
can't drive more than one receiver directly. Here's a gadget that might
work for you:
http://www.bb-elec.com/product_family.asp?familyid=32
This will receive data from your GPS (hooked to the Master Port) and
transmit it out two pipes -- one to your autopilot (Slave Port 1) and
the other to your fuel computer (Slave Port 2).
D
---------------
Gianni Zuliani wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gianni Zuliani" <gz@comgz.com>
>
> Hi Bob and group,
> has anybody connected a GPS (in my case it is a King Skymap IIIC) to an
> autopilot (in my case a Trio a/p) and to a fuel computer (in my case a JPI
> FS-450) at the same time?
> I've tried to connect both listener devices to the GPS data out pin, but I'm
> finally (after lots of investigations with the nice guys at Trio) suspecting
> that this is the reason of their autopilot's malfunctions.
> Any clue from this esteemed group on how to make the right connection?
> Gianni Zuliani
> Long-Ez >> Stag-Ez >> Stag-EzR
> http://www.comgz.com/tristar.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | GPS driving two instruments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
It is possible that he is confusing the relative direction of the "in" and
"out" RS232 ports. Here is a simple test - if you disconnect either of the
two "listening" does the other on work?
-- Craig
-----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: GPS driving two instruments
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
--> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 01:27 PM 12/12/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\""
><BigD@DaveMorris.com>
>
>If those are NMEA-183 RS-232 serial outputs, then you can't just wire
>them together if you want a reliable connection. It's been a long time
>since I've looked, but Black Box used to make devices that would take
>one RS-232 input and send it to multiple outputs. I think you're going
>to need something along those lines.
Most 232 outputs will drive multiple inputs. I have a data acquisition
system where I've paralleled up to 10 devices on a 9600 baud 232 line
with no measurable loading of the output signal. It's easy to check.
'Scope the signal with one load, then with all loads. It's likely that
you'll see very little change and as long as it stays above 2-3 volts
pk-pk, it will work fine over the short runs in your airplane.
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: | Re: GPS driving two instruments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
You'll have to tie all the signal grounds together, too. I don't know if
that presents a problem in your particular configuration or not.
Dave Morris
At 02:14 PM 12/12/2005, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>At 01:27 PM 12/12/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\""
> ><BigD@DaveMorris.com>
> >
> >If those are NMEA-183 RS-232 serial outputs, then you can't just wire them
> >together if you want a reliable connection. It's been a long time since
> >I've looked, but Black Box used to make devices that would take one RS-232
> >input and send it to multiple outputs. I think you're going to need
> >something along those lines.
>
> Most 232 outputs will drive multiple inputs. I have a data acquisition
> system where I've paralleled up to 10 devices on a 9600 baud 232 line
> with no measurable loading of the output signal. It's easy to check.
> 'Scope the signal with one load, then with all loads. It's likely that
> you'll see very little change and as long as it stays above 2-3 volts
> pk-pk, it will work fine over the short runs in your airplane.
>
> 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: | Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level |
Probes P-300C
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R Steitle" <mark.steitle@austin.utexas.edu>
John,
I have a progress report concerning the EI capacitive fuel probes, the
7805 voltage regulators, and the BMA EFIS/1.
This weekend I finished up the fuel lines and connected everything up so
I could put fuel in my wing tanks. Using mogas, I added a gallon at a
time, calibrating the AD output for each gallon. I stopped at 10
gallons. Once calibration points were entered in the E/1 calibration
screen, the fuel gauges read as they should. So, I can report that the
Princeton Electronics converters are not necessary with the BAM E/1 as
long as you use the high frequency channels for fuel levels. In the
next week or two I will be adding 100LL to the other wing tank so as to
compare the readings with mogas vs. 100LL.
One other thing that I was able to verify. I had installed the GEMS
ELS-1100 solid-state fluid level sensors at the 7-gallon point in each
wing tank to serve as an independent 30-minute low fuel warning
indicator. When adding fuel, the LED was illuminated until the level
hit approx 7+ gallons where it went out. This will be totally
independent of the EFIS/1 gauges. Between the two tanks, it will
provide a 1 hour warning. So, if I pay attention to the bright red
LED's on the panel, I shouldn't be running out of gas anytime soon.
Mark S.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Schroeder
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronics International Capacitive
Fuel Level Probes P-300C
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder"
<jschroeder@perigee.net>
Mark -
Looks like you rolled your own votage regulator(s). Could you just use
one
of the LM-7805's for feeding both probes?
Do you have a schematic?
We bought the modules direct from Todd at Princeton Electronics and I
doubt if they will take them back because they have been installed and
electrically set to the zero point. I'll ask, however.
One plan that comes to mind is to keep the modules if they cannot be
returned, and use them for the 5 volts out to the probes. The signal
wires
would then be pinned to the hi freq ports on the EFIS - like you did.
With
this solution, assuming that it all works, we would not have to
calibrate
the modules with a full tank (loaded by the quarter tank) and then
calibrate the EFIS by 2 gallon increments. Seems that we would reduce
the
error potential by 50% by dispensing with the module calibrations.
Any thoughts?
Cheers,
John
Lancair ES: Painting
On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 15:15:51 -0600, Mark R Steitle
<mark.steitle@austin.utexas.edu> wrote:
> Yes, I used the LM-7805 voltage regulators to get the 5v needed for
the
> EI capacitive probes. I urge you to try using them without the
> Princeton modules by hooking the output lead from the each fuel probe
to
> one of the h/f inputs on the EFIS/1, configure for proper voltage and
> calibrate.
--
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: | GPS driving two instruments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
I believe this device is only needed if you care about sending to, and
receiving from multiple RS232 devices. Note that this device can select what
the master is listening to based on a number of methods:
"The first device to send captures the data path, locking out the other
lines. Data flow may also be software controlled using the RTS line. Data
from the host PC is sent to all attached devices."
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of D Wysong
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GPS driving two instruments
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Wysong <hdwysong@gmail.com>
Hi Gianni -
I'm assuming your GPS output line is RS-232 (serial). If so, then you can't
drive more than one receiver directly. Here's a gadget that might work for
you:
http://www.bb-elec.com/product_family.asp?familyid=32
This will receive data from your GPS (hooked to the Master Port) and
transmit it out two pipes -- one to your autopilot (Slave Port 1) and the
other to your fuel computer (Slave Port 2).
D
---------------
Gianni Zuliani wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gianni Zuliani" <gz@comgz.com>
>
> Hi Bob and group,
> has anybody connected a GPS (in my case it is a King Skymap IIIC) to an
> autopilot (in my case a Trio a/p) and to a fuel computer (in my case a JPI
> FS-450) at the same time?
> I've tried to connect both listener devices to the GPS data out pin, but
I'm
> finally (after lots of investigations with the nice guys at Trio)
suspecting
> that this is the reason of their autopilot's malfunctions.
> Any clue from this esteemed group on how to make the right connection?
> Gianni Zuliani
> Long-Ez >> Stag-Ez >> Stag-EzR
> http://www.comgz.com/tristar.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 34
| 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: Internally Regulated Alternator Update? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
Maybe I snoozed through it, but are there any extant suggestions on WHICH IR alternator
might be a bolt-on replacement for Van's 35 amp relic and allow control
of output and be compatible with current OV control schemes as per Z-14 (or
is it -13, the all-electric on a budget) which I am preparing to implement this
month on my plane?
Thanks, Bob. And Merry Christmas. It IS a busy time of year, isn't it!
-Bill B
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Internally Regulated Alternator Update?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
>Bob,
>
>Any recent updates on the "internally regulated alternator"?
>
>I know that you were not recommending it's use on an "all electric
>airplane with dual electronic ignition", which is the configuration of the
>plane I am building.
Not at all. The modern internally regulated alternator
is a great piece of hardware that offers excellent value
over most 60's certified alternators flying today. Your
choice of alternators has nothing to do with whether or
not you have electronic ignition, EFIS, or any other
modern feature.
Depending on WHICH IR alternator you choose, you may not
have 100%, absolute control over it's output which
does not satisfy traditional design goals.
Further, depending on WHICH IR alternator you choose,
you may not be able to add a convenient form of
OV protection which is also a traditional design
goal.
Finally, depending on WHICH IR alternator you choose,
the act of turning it on and OFF at inopportune times
may damage the alternator's regulator.
Having offered this, there are thousands of OBAM
aircraft flying wherein the builder has not included
these points in satisfaction of his own design goals
either because he has considered them insignificant
or doesn't understand them well enough to make a
well considered decision. None-the-less, a vast
majority of these aircraft ARE flying trouble free.
However, from time to time, we're made aware of
installations where the builder wishes he had
considered and adopted the traditional design
goals. It's a small percentage to be sure . . .
but then catastrophic runaway failures in the
certified ships also constitutes a small percentage
of all failures.
Bottom line is that we will be able to offer a means
by which any internally regulated alternator can
be integrated into your airplane under the traditional
design goals. In the mean time, drive on with whatever
installation instructions come with your alternator
of choice knowing that modifying the system will be
easy and inexpensive at a later time. I've been trying
to get the next few pages of "Understanding Alternators"
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/alternators/UA/Alternators_1.html
published but things are really busy around here this
time of year.
Bob . . .
Message 35
| 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: Modern ND external voltage (Dear Bob, stop |
it )
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Harold" <kayce33@earthlink.net>
I'm not knowledgeable about a great deal of what is put forth in this forum,
but this I know WE NEED NO MORE NAME CALLING AND ATTEMPTS TO PUT SOMEONE
DOWN. I'm all for a rational discourse in which each person is able to (all
by his/herself) to accept or reject or even ask for a clarification of a
concept or suggestion for the electrical system of ones aircraft. Enough of
this . I did see a lot of this type of garbage on the Eggenfellner site a
few years ago and we surely need none of this I'm better than you, or see my
degree or how much money I made. It should end now( I hope)
Harold,still a bit away from my system, RV9A fuselage
Message 36
| 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: Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level |
Probes P-300C
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Joseph Larson <jpl@showpage.org>
Hey Bob!
Idea for your book -- diagrams and part numbers and such for a low
fuel indicator.
-Joe "Man it hurts to run out of gas" Larson
On Dec 12, 2005, at 2:46 PM, Mark R Steitle wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R Steitle"
> <mark.steitle@austin.utexas.edu>
>
> One other thing that I was able to verify. I had installed the GEMS
> ELS-1100 solid-state fluid level sensors at the 7-gallon point in each
> wing tank to serve as an independent 30-minute low fuel warning
> indicator. When adding fuel, the LED was illuminated until the level
> hit approx 7+ gallons where it went out. This will be totally
> independent of the EFIS/1 gauges. Between the two tanks, it will
> provide a 1 hour warning. So, if I pay attention to the bright red
> LED's on the panel, I shouldn't be running out of gas anytime soon.
Message 37
| 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: | Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level |
Probes P-300C
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Hi Mark,
I don't mean to insult your intelligence, but I am wondering whether you
have accounted for unuseable fuel in all of this (when counting on 1hour
left when the lights come on). Is all of the fuel in your airplane
useable? Or have you actually added more than 7gal to the tanks (when the
lights come on)?
Also, I propose that you transfer the 10 gallons of Mogas from the tank
that's calibrated to the tank that isn't. Then you can compare whether
the calibration of each gauge is consistent from side to side. After
that, add 100LL to the tank that's already calibrated, and compare the
readings. Otherwise, it seems that you have 1 equation and 2 unknowns -
you are depending on the two instruments having precisely the same
performance.
Regards,
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R Steitle"
> <mark.steitle@austin.utexas.edu>
>
> John,
> I have a progress report concerning the EI capacitive fuel probes, the
> 7805 voltage regulators, and the BMA EFIS/1.
>
> This weekend I finished up the fuel lines and connected everything up so
> I could put fuel in my wing tanks. Using mogas, I added a gallon at a
> time, calibrating the AD output for each gallon. I stopped at 10
> gallons. Once calibration points were entered in the E/1 calibration
> screen, the fuel gauges read as they should. So, I can report that the
> Princeton Electronics converters are not necessary with the BAM E/1 as
> long as you use the high frequency channels for fuel levels. In the
> next week or two I will be adding 100LL to the other wing tank so as to
> compare the readings with mogas vs. 100LL.
>
> One other thing that I was able to verify. I had installed the GEMS
> ELS-1100 solid-state fluid level sensors at the 7-gallon point in each
> wing tank to serve as an independent 30-minute low fuel warning
> indicator. When adding fuel, the LED was illuminated until the level
> hit approx 7+ gallons where it went out. This will be totally
> independent of the EFIS/1 gauges. Between the two tanks, it will
> provide a 1 hour warning. So, if I pay attention to the bright red
> LED's on the panel, I shouldn't be running out of gas anytime soon.
>
> Mark S.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
> Schroeder
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronics International Capacitive
> Fuel Level Probes P-300C
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder"
> <jschroeder@perigee.net>
>
> Mark -
>
> Looks like you rolled your own votage regulator(s). Could you just use
> one
> of the LM-7805's for feeding both probes?
> Do you have a schematic?
>
> We bought the modules direct from Todd at Princeton Electronics and I
> doubt if they will take them back because they have been installed and
> electrically set to the zero point. I'll ask, however.
>
> One plan that comes to mind is to keep the modules if they cannot be
> returned, and use them for the 5 volts out to the probes. The signal
> wires
> would then be pinned to the hi freq ports on the EFIS - like you did.
> With
> this solution, assuming that it all works, we would not have to
> calibrate
> the modules with a full tank (loaded by the quarter tank) and then
> calibrate the EFIS by 2 gallon increments. Seems that we would reduce
> the
> error potential by 50% by dispensing with the module calibrations.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
> Lancair ES: Painting
>
>
> On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 15:15:51 -0600, Mark R Steitle
> <mark.steitle@austin.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I used the LM-7805 voltage regulators to get the 5v needed for
> the
>> EI capacitive probes. I urge you to try using them without the
>> Princeton modules by hooking the output lead from the each fuel probe
> to
>> one of the h/f inputs on the EFIS/1, configure for proper voltage and
>> calibrate.
>
>
> --
>
>
Message 38
| 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: GPS driving two instruments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Wysong <hdwysong@gmail.com>
Yep, it handles transmissions from the slaves by switching the Rx line
on the master. Handy if you have slave devices that send ACK messages
in response to commands.
In Gianni's case the last sentence is all that matters ("Data from the
host PC is sent to all attached devices"). This B&B dongle guarantees a
transparent "Y" in the Tx line from his GPS so that his dual slaves will
see a clean stream of marks/spaces.
I haven't experienced Bob's good luck with "poor man's" multi-drop
RS-232 networks. I'm surprised (disappointed) that neither of the slave
devices Gianni mentioned will act as a serial data repeater.
Daisy-chained RS-232 works like a champ!
Have the cake... or eat the cake?
D
Craig Payne wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
>
> I believe this device is only needed if you care about sending to, and
> receiving from multiple RS232 devices. Note that this device can select what
> the master is listening to based on a number of methods:
>
> "The first device to send captures the data path, locking out the other
> lines. Data flow may also be software controlled using the RTS line. Data
> from the host PC is sent to all attached devices."
>
> -- Craig
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of D Wysong
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: GPS driving two instruments
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Wysong <hdwysong@gmail.com>
>
> Hi Gianni -
>
> I'm assuming your GPS output line is RS-232 (serial). If so, then you can't
> drive more than one receiver directly. Here's a gadget that might work for
> you:
>
> http://www.bb-elec.com/product_family.asp?familyid=32
>
> This will receive data from your GPS (hooked to the Master Port) and
> transmit it out two pipes -- one to your autopilot (Slave Port 1) and the
> other to your fuel computer (Slave Port 2).
>
> D
>
> ---------------
>
> Gianni Zuliani wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gianni Zuliani" <gz@comgz.com>
>>
>>Hi Bob and group,
>>has anybody connected a GPS (in my case it is a King Skymap IIIC) to an
>>autopilot (in my case a Trio a/p) and to a fuel computer (in my case a JPI
>>FS-450) at the same time?
>>I've tried to connect both listener devices to the GPS data out pin, but
>
> I'm
>
>>finally (after lots of investigations with the nice guys at Trio)
>
> suspecting
>
>>that this is the reason of their autopilot's malfunctions.
>>Any clue from this esteemed group on how to make the right connection?
>>Gianni Zuliani
>>Long-Ez >> Stag-Ez >> Stag-EzR
>>http://www.comgz.com/tristar.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 39
| 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: | Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level |
Probes P-300C
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R Steitle" <mark.steitle@austin.utexas.edu>
Matt,
Thanks for the head's up. As for the 7 gallons, I'm figuring one gallon
of unusable fuel. I'm also estimating the fuel burn to be about 12
gallons/hr in cruise. Actual numbers may vary. What I was looking for
is a warning at a reasonable point prior to the engine going quiet.
I'll measure the actual time to fuel exhaustion once I'm flying.
Good point on the probes. What I should do is drain the right tank (the
one that's been calibrated) and then add ten gallons of 100LL and see
what it reads. That should give me a good idea of what to expect with
the two different fuels.
While we're on the subject, I actually have a third method to judge fuel
used/remaining. I'm running a RWS engine monitor that calculates fuel
used by knowing fuel pressure and the duty cycle of the injectors. This
will also need to be calibrated at some point, but I've heard that it is
accurate to within 1 or 2 tenths of a gallon per tank. We'll see.
Mark S.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt
Prather
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Electronics International Capacitive
Fuel Level Probes P-300C
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather"
<mprather@spro.net>
Hi Mark,
I don't mean to insult your intelligence, but I am wondering whether you
have accounted for unuseable fuel in all of this (when counting on 1hour
left when the lights come on). Is all of the fuel in your airplane
useable? Or have you actually added more than 7gal to the tanks (when
the
lights come on)?
Also, I propose that you transfer the 10 gallons of Mogas from the tank
that's calibrated to the tank that isn't. Then you can compare whether
the calibration of each gauge is consistent from side to side. After
that, add 100LL to the tank that's already calibrated, and compare the
readings. Otherwise, it seems that you have 1 equation and 2 unknowns -
you are depending on the two instruments having precisely the same
performance.
Regards,
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R Steitle"
> <mark.steitle@austin.utexas.edu>
>
> John,
> I have a progress report concerning the EI capacitive fuel probes, the
> 7805 voltage regulators, and the BMA EFIS/1.
>
> This weekend I finished up the fuel lines and connected everything up
so
> I could put fuel in my wing tanks. Using mogas, I added a gallon at a
> time, calibrating the AD output for each gallon. I stopped at 10
> gallons. Once calibration points were entered in the E/1 calibration
> screen, the fuel gauges read as they should. So, I can report that
the
> Princeton Electronics converters are not necessary with the BAM E/1 as
> long as you use the high frequency channels for fuel levels. In the
> next week or two I will be adding 100LL to the other wing tank so as
to
> compare the readings with mogas vs. 100LL.
>
> One other thing that I was able to verify. I had installed the GEMS
> ELS-1100 solid-state fluid level sensors at the 7-gallon point in each
> wing tank to serve as an independent 30-minute low fuel warning
> indicator. When adding fuel, the LED was illuminated until the level
> hit approx 7+ gallons where it went out. This will be totally
> independent of the EFIS/1 gauges. Between the two tanks, it will
> provide a 1 hour warning. So, if I pay attention to the bright red
> LED's on the panel, I shouldn't be running out of gas anytime soon.
>
> Mark S.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
John
> Schroeder
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Electronics International Capacitive
> Fuel Level Probes P-300C
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder"
> <jschroeder@perigee.net>
>
> Mark -
>
> Looks like you rolled your own votage regulator(s). Could you just use
> one
> of the LM-7805's for feeding both probes?
> Do you have a schematic?
>
> We bought the modules direct from Todd at Princeton Electronics and I
> doubt if they will take them back because they have been installed and
> electrically set to the zero point. I'll ask, however.
>
> One plan that comes to mind is to keep the modules if they cannot be
> returned, and use them for the 5 volts out to the probes. The signal
> wires
> would then be pinned to the hi freq ports on the EFIS - like you did.
> With
> this solution, assuming that it all works, we would not have to
> calibrate
> the modules with a full tank (loaded by the quarter tank) and then
> calibrate the EFIS by 2 gallon increments. Seems that we would reduce
> the
> error potential by 50% by dispensing with the module calibrations.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
> Lancair ES: Painting
>
>
> On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 15:15:51 -0600, Mark R Steitle
> <mark.steitle@austin.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>> Yes, I used the LM-7805 voltage regulators to get the 5v needed for
> the
>> EI capacitive probes. I urge you to try using them without the
>> Princeton modules by hooking the output lead from the each fuel probe
> to
>> one of the h/f inputs on the EFIS/1, configure for proper voltage and
>> calibrate.
>
>
> --
>
>
Message 40
| 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: headphone wiring |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Dan -
The owner of the avionics shop that furnished the interconnect cabling for
our Garmin 340 cautioned that using the boost will amplify everything,
including the noise embedded in any signal goes thru the 340. For this
reason, we did not choose that option for the 340. I am assuming that you
are talking about running a wire from J2/Pin 15 to ground - either thru a
switch or directly.
Is this your understanding and/or experience?
Thanks,
John
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 10:59:03 -0800, Dan Checkoway <dan@rvproject.com>
wrote:
> Also be sure to use the 20dB boost function on Music1 your GMA-340.
> Essential amplification with any entertainment imho
--
Message 41
| 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: Modern ND external voltage (Dear Bob, stop |
it )
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
Mr. gmcjetpilot,
Please review the posting guildines for the matronics lists.
Specifically, please check out the following (I quote):
" - Feel free to disagree with other viewpoints, BUT keep your tone
polite and respectful. Don't make snide comments, personally attack
other listers, or take the moral high ground on an obviously
controversial issue. This will only cause a pointless debate that
will hurt feelings, waste bandwidth and resolve nothing."
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
snip
> YOU HAVE SOME BIG BRASS ONES.
For instance, the above comment uses the type of language and intent that
isn't appropriate on this list. Not only is it against the rules, it
doesn't accomplish anything productive.
> MY RESPECT FOR YOU IS DIMINISHED WITH
> EVERY HYPOCRITICAL THING YOU SAY, AND I DON'T CARE WHAT
> YOU THINK, SO SHUT UP.
>
Same here..
> MY REPLY TO CHARLIE WAS NOT ABOUT YOU, TO YOU, FOR YOU
> or FOR YOUR BENEFIT. IT WAS FOR CHARLIE'S BENEFIT. THE
> WORLD DOES NOT REVOLVE AROUND YOU BOB.
And here.
By the way, the list rules state that message traffic intended for one
reader should only go to that reader. Please follow that rule.
Otherwise, please go somewhere else.
>
> IF SOMEONE AS A PROBLEM WITH ME OFFERING THEM AN
> ALTERNATORS FOR 1/2 PRICE THAN THEY CAN WRITE ME OR
> COMPLAIN TO MATRONICS.
I am certain this was not the issue.
It sounds like you have much aviation related technical experience. It's
a shame that you often choose to degrade the way quality of how you share
this with rest of us. Two wrongs don't make a right (though my opinion
is that Bob wasn't wrong here). Even if you feel that someone has
slighted you in your dealings, lashing-out in return doesn't accomplish
anything. Emotional outburst is actually counter-productive. I know you
will be happier if you choose to live with a belief in these truths. You
do want to be happy, right?
Have a great day!
Matt-
PS. I am still cogitating on your request for proof of my 'truth' about
instrumentation. Haven't totally wrapped my arms about how Hall Effect
doesn't take any energy from the system being measured.
PPS. I am posting this to the list with the hope that it sort of 'answers'
other peoples concerns about this exchange. That's why it's addressed to
you, but posted to the list.
Message 42
| 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: Internally Regulated Alternator Update? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 04:00 PM 12/12/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
>
>Maybe I snoozed through it, but are there any extant suggestions on WHICH
>IR alternator might be a bolt-on replacement for Van's 35 amp relic and
>allow control of output and be compatible with current OV control schemes
>as per Z-14 (or is it -13, the all-electric on a budget) which I am
>preparing to implement this month on my plane?
>
>Thanks, Bob. And Merry Christmas. It IS a busy time of year, isn't it!
The automotive industry is loaded with choices for
alternators virtually ALL of which are better choices
for engine driven power than most alternators
flying on certificated ships today.
It has been suggested that some brands/part-numbers
are especially 'golden' but I've set a goal to make
the exact choice of alternators irrelevant to system
reliability.
If you can find a low-time, clean, light and low
cost alternator out there that is easily fitted to
your airplane, I have no basis for recommending that
you don't use it. A methodology for going beyond
what already flying in thousands of OBAM aircraft
while applying traditional design goals will be
forthcoming and easily added to any alternator you
might choose to install.
Bob . . .
Message 43
| 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 Digest: 35 Msgs - 12/11/05 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Lee Logan <leeloganster@gmail.com>
Thanks Ken and Bob. Clears THAT up!!!
Message 44
| 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: Z14-8 OR -20 Architecture |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 07:55 PM 12/11/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DonVS" <dsvs@comcast.net>
>
>Bob,
>I have a couple questions on the Z13 setup. If I run a battery buss with:
>two P-mags, my primary EFIS, one nav/com, the transponder and the audio
>panel
>is there any benefit to having an E-buss? Except for the audio panel the
>entire collection is independently switched. Everything else in the
>electrical system is on the "main" buss. Is this a robust system or am I
>missing something? Operation would be , alt fails and low voltage light
>comes on, switch alt and battery off (one 799-2-10 switch), continue for the
>exact same duration as with an E-buss??. I might also add an SD8 witch will
>extend the duration. Please help me understand what is wrong with this
>design if it is not a smart or feasible plan. Thanks in advance. Don
Do you have a copy of the 'Connection? I'll suggest this
is covered in discussions on the various architectures.
My particular predisposition toward Z-13/8 is the double
layered electrical system that offers unlimited endurance
with an 8A backup and nicely tolerates a contactor or
battery master switch failure.
If there was a system destined to carry a 2# battery built
out of Bolder TMF cells, this one is it. Just 25 years
ago, the best choices out there called for 25# battery, 17#
starter and about 12# alternator. Now we're looking forward
to crafting a dual alternator system that weighs less than
the battery of choice in 1980.
This is a cool business!
Bob . . .
Message 45
| 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: Modern ND external voltage (Dear Bob, stop |
it )
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
George-
Then why didn't you send it directly to Charlie? Or was it your
uncontrolled impulses to slime Bob and by implication, all the rest of us?
John Schroeder
DO NOT ARCHIVE
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 08:19:06 -0800 (PST), <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com> wrote:
> MY REPLY TO CHARLIE WAS NOT ABOUT YOU, TO YOU, FOR YOU
> or FOR YOUR BENEFIT. IT WAS FOR CHARLIE'S BENEFIT. THE
> WORLD DOES NOT REVOLVE AROUND YOU BOB.
--
Message 46
| 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: headphone wiring |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> The owner of the avionics shop that furnished the interconnect cabling for
> our Garmin 340 cautioned that using the boost will amplify everything,
> including the noise embedded in any signal goes thru the 340. For this
> reason, we did not choose that option for the 340. I am assuming that you
> are talking about running a wire from J2/Pin 15 to ground - either thru a
> switch or directly.
>
> Is this your understanding and/or experience?
No. In my experience with the GMA-340, enabling/disabling the boost (I
wired mine to a switch) doesn't affect anything other than the Music
input(s).
But...here's what the installation manual says:
"Unit Mods 2 and 5 provide ten times gain for volume control of the
entertainment music system. Unit Mod 5 provides either switching this
function between unity gain (0 dB) and times ten gain (20 dB) or hard wiring
J2 pin 15 to ground for times ten gain. When audio levels applied to Music
1 and Music 2 inputs are increased by 20 dB, the amplification may also
increase unwanted audio noise. See note 17 in figures B5 and B7 and refer
to Garmin Service Bulletins 0113 and 0210."
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
Message 47
| 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: Z14-8 OR -20 Architecture |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
> If there was a system destined to carry a 2# battery built
> out of Bolder TMF cells, this one is it.
Bob...tell me more about this 2# battery!
do not archive
)_( Dan
RV-7 N714D
http://www.rvproject.com
Message 48
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
>
> When you run a battery down, it's important to recharge it
> as soon as practical. Deep discharges followed by extended
> stays in the discharged state is like smoking . . . each
> event is purported to reduce service life by some finite
> amount. In the case of batteries, the LONGER you let it
> set in a discharged state, the greater the damage to
> the battery's service life. Let a new battery sit discharged
> very long and it becomes an almost new but quite
> useless battery.
>
> Bob . . .
Bob, this might fit my situation: Some dummy left something in the always
hot cigarette plugin and killed the battery dead for about a week. The next
several cold starts of the engine were weird - the thing didn't fire after
two blades as usual, but instead fired immediately upon releasing the
starter. This tells me that the Lasar system was not getting enough voltage
to fire, something around 8 volts. Since this happened a couple times in a
row, I began suspecting the battery was croaking. Would you consider one
week a "long time" for a battery to be dead as it relates to reducing
capacity?
BTW, I have rewired the cig outlet to the main bus now... now dummy proof.
Alex Peterson
RV6-A N66AP 698 hours
Maple Grove, MN
Message 49
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Battery Life |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
> When you run a battery down, it's important to recharge it
> as soon as practical. Deep discharges followed by extended
> stays in the discharged state is like smoking . . . each
> event is purported to reduce service life by some finite
> amount. In the case of batteries, the LONGER you let it
> set in a discharged state, the greater the damage to
> the battery's service life. Let a new battery sit discharged
> very long and it becomes an almost new but quite
> useless battery.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
Hi Bob and all,
While searching the Web for battery information, I found the following
site :
http://www.buchmann.ca/
Any opinion ?
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
Message 50
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 06:01 PM 12/12/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson"
><alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
>
>
> >
> > When you run a battery down, it's important to recharge it
> > as soon as practical. Deep discharges followed by extended
> > stays in the discharged state is like smoking . . . each
> > event is purported to reduce service life by some finite
> > amount. In the case of batteries, the LONGER you let it
> > set in a discharged state, the greater the damage to
> > the battery's service life. Let a new battery sit discharged
> > very long and it becomes an almost new but quite
> > useless battery.
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
>Bob, this might fit my situation: Some dummy left something in the always
>hot cigarette plugin and killed the battery dead for about a week. The next
>several cold starts of the engine were weird - the thing didn't fire after
>two blades as usual, but instead fired immediately upon releasing the
>starter. This tells me that the Lasar system was not getting enough voltage
>to fire, something around 8 volts. Since this happened a couple times in a
>row, I began suspecting the battery was croaking. Would you consider one
>week a "long time" for a battery to be dead as it relates to reducing
>capacity?
>
>BTW, I have rewired the cig outlet to the main bus now... now dummy proof.
It's not something one can gage by inference. The rate and
severity of damage to the battery is a function of so many
variables not the least of which are battery age, severity
of normal use, temperatures, time in the discharged state, etc.
If you were still cranking the engine at all, at least your
parked parasitic loads were not so high as to completely
drain the battery.
There's no substitute for $time$ and tools to measure the
state of your battery whenever the issue comes into question.
It's difficult to offer specific advice to a population
of users spread all along the bell-curve. A few percent
worry batteries a lot and spend a lot of $time$ in the
testing and/or replacement mode and maybe even favor premium
batteries. Another few percent don't care. You fall
somewhere in between and you have to make your own
decision about how much $time$ you're willing to spend
in maintaining a battery so as to squeeze every last bit
of serviceability from it . . . or just throw a new cheapie
in every year.
It would be really cool if there was a lower cost tool
than the WestMountainRadio product that would produce
definitive capacity numbers for a battery. I've been thinking
about it.
I think I mentioned that the 'Connection has two "staff
programmers" . . . and I just gave the product function
spec to one of them today for the next new product to
come up on aeroelectric.com
We've got several products in the pipe . . . a poor
boy's cap checker is down on the list somewhere.
Bob . . .
Message 51
| 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: Z14-8 OR -20 Architecture |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 03:28 PM 12/12/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
>
> > If there was a system destined to carry a 2# battery built
> > out of Bolder TMF cells, this one is it.
>
>Bob...tell me more about this 2# battery!
Some years ago there was a new kid on the block out in
Colorado who set out to build the next greatest thing
in lead-acid technology batteries. The Bolder TMF cells
held a lot of promise but the program in Colorado flopped
for for a variety of financial and technical reasons.
I'd had some communication with Bolder folks back then
and those letters were still in someone's files where
the new owners in Singapore found it and dropped me a note
this morning. It seems the Phoenix is rising from the
ashes. Check out other pages on boldertmf.com but in
particular . . .
http://www.boldertmf.com/Product%20Brochure-Single%20Cell.pdf
I'll renew my dialog with these folks and see if there
are any opportunities for the OBAM aircraft community.
Bob . . .
Message 52
| 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: | Clarification of Crimper Procedure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer" <billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
So Bob, does this mean that if you have the tool with the .116 gap, it is
not satisfactory??? This is the tool that Stein sells, as I just measured
the one I received from them a couple of months back. I do not know about
B&C tool.
Thanks
Bill S
-----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: Clarification of Crimper Procedure
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>
>I guess what is confusing is reconciling the quote from 2004 below with the
>analysis in the article at the above link:
>
><quote>
> Hmmm . . . I noted that in my evaluation of the tool a couple
> of weeks ago. I sent the tool back to B&C and copied them
> on the note suggesting that the dies were installed into the
> tool backwards (you can remove them and re-install the
> other direction).
>
> However, I noted further that the tool put the crimps
> too far apart on a PIDG terminal. Further, the insulation
> grip did not close a red terminal down on 22AWG Tefzel. See
> the following photos. I cannot recommend that tool. See
> following pictures on my website.
><end quote>
>
>I read this as saying that the was *some* tool from B&C that you decided
you
>couldn't recommend. But the linked article describes a tool (possibly from
>B&C) that was acceptable. Again I am away from home and can't examine the
>crimp tools I have.
B&C tried another tool supplier some time back and
it did stir up a bit of a kerfuffle because folks
noted that it didn't seem to put the PIDG terminals on
right. I got a sample tool from B&C and confirmed the
problem which was written up in the thread you cited.
B&C has long since corrected the deficiency.
Bob . . .
Message 53
| 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: GPS driving two instruments |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Frank <frankvdh@xtra.co.nz>
I've read several posts which seem to imply that NMEA-183 is the same as
RS-232. That is not true.
NMEA-183 recommends EIA-422A (or RS-422A if you like) electrical
properties, although RS-232 talkers are acceptable. So an NMEA-183
device (if it receives) must be able to receive both RS-232 and RS-422,
but will transmit only one of them (obviously), usually EIA-422.
EIA-422A uses two wires (A & B) differentially. A ZERO is represented by
A being at 2-6V (typically +5V), and B being at 0V. A ONE is represented
by B being 2-6V, and A being 0V. In practice, the receiver will
interpret A being below 0.2V relative to B as a ONE. An EIA-422A driver
can drive up to 10 receivers.
RS-232 uses +/-15V (typically +/-12V) relative to a common ground for
signalling, with +/-3V as an invalid NULL zone. A negative voltage
represents a ONE state, and positive voltage represents a ZERO. BobN
said earlier that you can parallel up at least 10 RS-232 receivers from
one RS-232 sender.
Having said that, most RS-232 receivers don't comply with the +/-3V
invalid zone, and in fact switch at about 1.2V, so interpret 0V as if it
were -12V (i.e. a ONE), and 5V as a ZERO. Therefore, most RS-232 ports
will read NMEA-183 or EIA-422A.
I can't see why you shouldn't be able to drive 10 RS-232 receivers from
one EIA-422A sender, or 10 EIA-422A receivers from one RS-232 sender.
Things may come unstuck if there's a mixture of RS-232 and EIA-422A
receivers.
If an EIA-422A device is connected to an RS-232 device, then some care
needs to be taken. If you use the B wire as ground, and the A wire as
data it will work just fine. Care needs to be taken to ensure that the
two devices have separate grounds though.
See http://www.kh-gps.de/nmea.faq
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\""
><BigD@DaveMorris.com>
>
>If those are NMEA-183 RS-232 serial outputs, then you can't just wire them
>together if you want a reliable connection.
>
>
Message 54
| 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: | Clarification of Crimper Procedure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 06:50 PM 12/12/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Schlatterer"
><billschlatterer@sbcglobal.net>
>
>So Bob, does this mean that if you have the tool with the .116 gap, it is
>not satisfactory??? This is the tool that Stein sells, as I just measured
>the one I received from them a couple of months back. I do not know about
>B&C tool.
I'll have to dig around in my photos to see if I have
the test crimps on file. Given that the PIDG sleeve is
.390" long, the .116 gap between dies leaves (0.390-0.116)/2
or 0.137" of active crimp each end at best centered in
.068" from each end.
Take a pair of calipers and set them for .068" see where
the crimp centers at each end of the PIDG sleeve. It's
right ON the end of the insulation grip liner and
over the end of the terminal end of the conductor grip
as opposed to being centered on it.
This does not produce the bell-shaped opening recommended
for the wire grip at the terminal end and centers the insulation
grip right out at the end of the sleeve.
Now, this crimp still passes the pull test and does provide
positive insulation support. I cannot assert that the tool
produces unsafe crimps. I can say that the finished results
are considerably departed from that produced by the t-head
and $low$ tools featured in:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/CrimpTools/B.jpg
It may be that the variability in results are more a function
of appearance as in:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Termnials/JST_Samples_2.jpg
Check the results you're getting. Do the pull-tests. It's
probably more a question of craftsmanship than ultimate
suitability.
I can only say that the results were far enough away from
what I was used to getting from my tools (and what's called
out by the terminal manufacturers for installation criteria)
that I couldn't recommend it either. I've got lots of various
crimp tools but this one wouldn't be kept in my toolbox.
Bob . . .
Message 55
| 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: | Popular Mechanics - 1 Week Sport Pilot School |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Pellien" <jim@pellien.com>
Popular Mechanics has sent an editor to take the 1-Week Sport Pilot School
at the Sky Bryce Airport in Basye, VA. Davin Coburn is writing a daily
"blog" of his learning experience at the Popular Mechanics main webpage:
www.popularmechanics.com <http://www.popularmechanics.com/>
Jim Pellien
Mid-Atlantic Sports Planes
The Mid-Atlantic Region of SportsPlanes.com
www.MASPL.com
703-313-4818
Message 56
| 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: Internally Regulated Alternator Update? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
Let me make sure I understand you correctly: if I locate a mechanically suitable
IR alternator of suitable capacity, a topology for full OV protection and safe
in-flight shut-down control of the alternator is soon to be published on the
AeroElectric list or in the 'Connection, with minimal retrofitting hassle into
the Z-13 or -14 architectures?
If so, that's great! I can hold my breath that long.
(I'd still like a hint on a magic part #, though. You get weird looks walkiong
into a shop and asking for a part by spec versus what car it's for, as you know.)
-Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Internally Regulated Alternator Update?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 04:00 PM 12/12/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
>
>Maybe I snoozed through it, but are there any extant suggestions on WHICH
>IR alternator might be a bolt-on replacement for Van's 35 amp relic and
>allow control of output and be compatible with current OV control schemes
>as per Z-14 (or is it -13, the all-electric on a budget) which I am
>preparing to implement this month on my plane?
>
>Thanks, Bob. And Merry Christmas. It IS a busy time of year, isn't it!
The automotive industry is loaded with choices for
alternators virtually ALL of which are better choices
for engine driven power than most alternators
flying on certificated ships today.
It has been suggested that some brands/part-numbers
are especially 'golden' but I've set a goal to make
the exact choice of alternators irrelevant to system
reliability.
If you can find a low-time, clean, light and low
cost alternator out there that is easily fitted to
your airplane, I have no basis for recommending that
you don't use it. A methodology for going beyond
what already flying in thousands of OBAM aircraft
while applying traditional design goals will be
forthcoming and easily added to any alternator you
might choose to install.
Bob . . .
Message 57
| 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: | Z14-8 OR -20 Architecture |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DonVS" <dsvs@comcast.net>
-----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: Z14-8 OR -20 Architecture
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 07:55 PM 12/11/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DonVS" <dsvs@comcast.net>
>
>Bob,
>I have a couple questions on the Z13 setup. If I run a battery buss with:
>two P-mags, my primary EFIS, one nav/com, the transponder and the audio
>panel
>is there any benefit to having an E-buss? Except for the audio panel the
>entire collection is independently switched. Everything else in the
>electrical system is on the "main" buss. Is this a robust system or am I
>missing something? Operation would be , alt fails and low voltage light
>comes on, switch alt and battery off (one 799-2-10 switch), continue for
the
>exact same duration as with an E-buss??. I might also add an SD8 witch
will
>extend the duration. Please help me understand what is wrong with this
>design if it is not a smart or feasible plan. Thanks in advance. Don
Do you have a copy of the 'Connection? I'll suggest this
is covered in discussions on the various architectures.
My particular predisposition toward Z-13/8 is the double
layered electrical system that offers unlimited endurance
with an 8A backup and nicely tolerates a contactor or
battery master switch failure.
If there was a system destined to carry a 2# battery built
out of Bolder TMF cells, this one is it. Just 25 years
ago, the best choices out there called for 25# battery, 17#
starter and about 12# alternator. Now we're looking forward
to crafting a dual alternator system that weighs less than
the battery of choice in 1980.
This is a cool business!
Bob . . .
Bob,
I think that my idea of combining the battery buss and E buss gives the
same ability to tolerate contactor or battery master failure. In case I
was not very clear on the last post all I have proposed to do to the Z13-8
is eliminate the switch and second buss and the connection between the
E-buss and the main buss. Everything that you would put on the E-buss I put
on the battery buss and equipped it with a fusible link at the connection to
the battery for protection. This system would also require that I turn off
all items on the battery buss after each flight to keep the battery alive.
A little extra work to reduce parts count by a few. Not sure that the
savings is worth the effort, but, I would like to know if there is a problem
with my proposed idea. Thanks. Don
PS Yes I have a copy of the connection and refer to it regularly.
Message 58
| 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: Internally Regulated Alternator Update? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:49 PM 12/12/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
>
>Let me make sure I understand you correctly: if I locate a mechanically
>suitable IR alternator of suitable capacity, a topology for full OV
>protection and safe in-flight shut-down control of the alternator is soon
>to be published on the AeroElectric list or in the 'Connection, with
>minimal retrofitting hassle into the Z-13 or -14 architectures?
Absolutely.
>If so, that's great! I can hold my breath that long.
Don't hold your breath and don't even delay flying.
The "barefoot" alternator has a good track record.
The "mod" will all under the cowl.
>(I'd still like a hint on a magic part #, though. You get weird looks
>walkiong into a shop and asking for a part by spec versus what car it's
>for, as you know.)
George has published several recommendations
that are part number specific. Check back into
the recent archives.
Bob . . .
Message 59
| 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: Modern ND external voltage (Charlie and Gert) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
>From: gert <gert.v(at)sbcglobal.net>
>Subject: Re: Modern ND external voltage (Charlie Kuss)
>Hi George
>here is a question for you. Do you know of replacement brush holders
>which would replace an existing brush-holder and regulator, to an
>externally regulated brush holder. The idea is on the following web page
http://www.miramarcollege.net/programs/avim/faculty/north/alternator/index.htm
>I have the brush holder mentioned on this page and looking at the ND
>alternator unit I have from the suzuki samurai, it appears to be off
>only a few degrees in the mounting hole region, I can't but wonder if
>there exists a lester part# for my ND alternator bursh holder which
>would bring the contacts out rather than to the internal regulator.
>do u know where such info might be found to determine what different
>brush holders fit a particular ND alternator???
>Thanks Gert
Gert: I am not aware of a direct replacement for the brush holder to convert
the smaller units to external regulation. I mention a ND with an E-VR below.
Now I don't know if that will bolt into a ND from 40-60 amp units, which are
smaller. It would be nice and wished of a bolt in replacement, however I think
the way to go is just modifying the existing one. To be honest I am not crazy
about drilling and tapping the brush leads but if you want external regulation
that is what you likely need to do. How ever you know if you go with a so-
called an "A" type external regulator you don't have to modify the brush
holder. However most external regulators are "B" type, but I found a
few "A" types that are good. One is a Chrysler aftermarket with adjustable
voltage and another for marine a marine application.
Here is a site where a guy shows both ways to Mods of a ND alternator (A
and B type). I think it is clear and complete for both methods.
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/georger/
You have to hunt around but it is on his electrical and alternator page.
>Charlie Kuss <chaztuna(at)adelphia.net>
>Subject: Re: Modern ND external voltage
>George,
>Actually, I have a NAPA rebuilt 70 amp ND alternator off of a
>1991 Toyota
>Camry. Lester #13277 See
>http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvd70206.htm
>This also comes as an 80 amp unit Lester # 13331
>See
>http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvd80205.htm
Ok Charlie, it sounds like you have a good handle on it. Those
are good units. Don't worry about age in the down the road.
These things are now being made new. I explain below, but the
industry is expanding and in a huge growth of NEW after market
units. The Vicic is a main player and if you see it on their site I
can get it.
>I asked about Honda units simply because the internal fans
>spin in the correct direction for use on a Lycoming. Bob &
>others have commented before that fan direction is not that
>critical for our purposes. (B&C fans run backwards)
The old circa 1980's is old technology and the single external
fan units I would agree are not a good choice. By the end of the
1980's early '90's the alternators with internal fans came a long
way. As far as fan rotation, I also hear the fan direction is not
critical. I think it is just the fact that the TWO fans internal of the
ND are pretty efficient, even backwards. I am sure you saw
Wheeler North's web pages on how the convert the Toyota to
external regulation and sub in the Honda CCW fan. The fan
thing does not bother me, but keeping it cool with air blast tube
and not overloading is key. If I needed that much power I would
copy (gratuitously steal) his ideas.
Since you or I brought it up are ND's for external VR's stock.
ND made for external regulation they are available NEW.
Here are some new units with E-VR's units you may look
at:
Lester #13353 75 amp (see specs below)
Lester#13578 90 amps (a little bigger than 75 amps but smaller than 120 amp units)
http://www.vicic.com.tw/alternators/gvdn10901214.htm
(says internal but it is external VR)
All have serpentine belt pulleys an need to change and Fans are
CW (backwards for us).
>Last night I searched through various Mopar and Honda
>wiring schematics on my automotive ALLDATA software. I
>didn't find any externally regulated Honda units newer than
>1983. I'm not wild about using an alternator off of a 20+ year
>old car model. They are readily available now. The problem
>comes 5 to 10 years down the road. These cars are all headed
>for (or already in) the junk yard. The supply of cores and the
>demand for on the shelf rebuilt units will be long gone in
>2011 or 2016.
Here is the new thing in the industry. Since cores are getting
scares and old, having been rebuilt more than once, the industry
is going new. It is just easier and cheaper to make it new from
scratch verses taking a crusty unit, pry it part and clean it,
throwing out half the parts out. Victory is one of the players and
they make a good unit according to my distributor. They have
ISO2001 accreditation and QC certificates. They are considered
high quality. There will be cheaper units available from main
land China. I was offered but passed on those units. It will be
important for someone to evaluate the brands and suppliers to
get the best. I am helping Van's aircraft and trying to get them to
switch to new units now.
If you see a unit you want let me know I may be able to get it. If
they don't have it in stock it can take 90 days to get, which is the
down side. Like I said the auto electric rebuilding industry is
going NEW, even for the older units. Some of the NEW OEM
units are going even more exotic, with clutches and digital data
links to the onboard computers. Even so there will always a
demand for these 20 year old designs because they good, simple
and stand alone.
>I'm planning on heated seats or heated clothing for my RV-8A
>project. That is one reason why I want a unit with 60+ amp
>capacity. The other reason is I, like you, believe that an
>alternator's life expectancy is directly >related to how hard
>(percentage of rated output) it is used.
>These can be swapped out for the older 2.5" diameter V type
>pulleys used on the earlier models. The early 1980s model units
>and the later 1990s internally regulated units all use 15mm
>diameter rotor shafts. Because of this, you can simply swap out
>the pulleys. I'm going to use a 4" diameter aluminum
>aftermarket pulley.
That is a good idea. I had a RV-4 and now a RV-7 and with a
small 2.68" pulley and small 45 amp ND I have a solid 1"
clearance. I could not run a 4" pulley. My question is do you
need a 4" pulley? I know with Lycoming the 7.5" flywheel is not
an issue with a 2.5" alt pulley. The 9.75" flywheel needs a 2.8-
3.0" alternator pulley in my opinion to keep the speed down, but
I don't know your application.
>One more question George. In my ALLDATA >software, it
>calls the ND alternators (Chrysler also uses >Bosch units)
>"Corporate Units". Can I infer from this that these alternators
>are actually made by Chrysler (or a subsidiary) under license
>from ND? Or is there another explanation?
When I see that I think it is a dual application. I know like in a
Kia model the Bosch was not good and they made a mid year
switch to ND. The ND was made to retro-fit to the earlier model
Kia's with the Bosch. Not to bash Bosch but they are a subject
of a minor current service recall (on the Kia). I am not sure what
the Chrysler issue is. It may be on the heavy duty or "Corporate
Units" they use one brand alternator for that app. I know Chrysler
uses ND alternators. In fact it is the Chrysler late 1990-2001 that use
the ND alternators with external regulation I mentioned above
(but it is not available from Victory, but available new from
another good company)
Alternator - Nippondenso ER/IF < external reg/internal fan
75 Amp, 12 Volt, CW, 7-Groove Pulley
Used On:
(1996-92) Dodge B Series Van 3.9L, 5.2L, 5.9L
(1993-92) Dodge D Series Pickup 3.9L, 5.2L, 5.9L
(1996-92) Dodge Dakota 3.9L, 5.2L
(1996-94) Dodge Ram Pickup 3.9L, 5.2L, 5.9L
(1993-92) Dodge Ramcharger 5.2L, 5.9L
(1993-92) Dodge W Series Pickup 3.9L, 5.2L, 5.9L
Replaces:
Nippondenso 121000-346
Lester Nos:
13353
Alternator, 100% New
>Charlie Kuss
Cheers George
---------------------------------
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! --
|