Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 09:12 AM - Re: Manual Batt Sw distance (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 09:54 AM - Re: Ground Fault Protection For Rear (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 12:20 PM - OBAM Satellites? (simon miles)
4. 12:35 PM - Re: OBAM Satellites? (Dave Morris \)
5. 12:57 PM - Re: OBAM Satellites? (Craig Payne)
6. 03:29 PM - Circuit Breaker v. Fuse (Rogers, Bob J.)
7. 03:49 PM - Re: Circuit Breaker v. Fuse (D Wysong)
8. 04:29 PM - Re: Circuit Breaker v. Fuse (Eric M. Jones)
9. 04:50 PM - Instrument Panel Labels (Eric M. Jones)
10. 05:10 PM - Re: Fault Protection (Eric M. Jones)
11. 05:33 PM - Re: Ground Fault Protection For Rear Battery Cable (Jerry Grimmonpre)
12. 07:17 PM - Re: Manual Batt Sw distance (Speedy11@aol.com)
13. 07:36 PM - Re: Manual Batt Sw distance (Speedy11@aol.com)
14. 08:04 PM - Wiring Diagrams Design Software (Jerry Grimmonpre)
15. 08:19 PM - Re: Re: Manual Batt Sw distance (Jerry Grimmonpre)
16. 08:26 PM - Re: Wiring Diagrams Design Software (Dave Morris \)
17. 08:59 PM - Re: Circuit Breaker v. Fuse (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
18. 09:03 PM - Re: Wiring Diagrams Design Software (Richard E. Tasker)
19. 09:03 PM - Re: Wiring Diagrams Design Software (Jerry Grimmonpre)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Manual Batt Sw distance |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 04:46 PM 12/28/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
>
>Looking at the ANL data Bob N. provided in his link, it seems there is no
>prtactical way to fuse-protect a battery cable, in lieu of a battery
>contactor, and have said fuse pass starter current while still providing
>rapid hard-fault protection. Too much possibility exists of post-crash
>arcing and fire when a fuse is substituted for the battery
>contactor. This is just the sort of analysis I was hoping for when I
>mentioned George's contactor-free wiring proposal last week. Shedding the
>weight of the battery contactor would have been nice, but I guess it
>presents unacceptable risk. The only other work-around might be a
>cable-activated battery disconnect switch, and I'll wager it has nearly
>the same all-up weight as the contactor it was meant to replace.
>
>The current winner in my deliberations for a lightweight redundant RV
>electrical system is Z-13/8 with the alternator battery lead run straight
>to the Sky-tec solenoid terminal, all wired where practical with Eric's
>FatWire, and the smallest workable Odyssey battery. It seems to have the
>best of the best for my purposes (light weight, all-electric IFR)
>
>-Stormy
A logical and well reasoned trade-off study.
Bob . . .
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Ground Fault Protection For Rear |
Battery Cable
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Battery Cable
At 12:51 AM 12/27/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry@mc.net>
>
>Bob and everyone else ...
>When considering a ground fault, what is best used to protect a #4 cable
>run, from the rear battery, in an RV, while powering a bus?
>
>What is best used to protect this same #4 cable, when it is in parallel with
>the front battery and charging current is flowing to the rear batt?
>Thanks ...
>Jerry Grimmonpre'
Fat wires in light aircraft are not, as a rule, "protected".
If you study the wiring diagrams for light airplanes going
back to the first generator and battery installations
(mid 40's), things like fuses and circuit breakers do not
appear in the fat feeders. Let's see what the certified guys
design to by reading from FAR23.
Sec. 23.1357 Circuit protective devices.
First, keep in mind that I quote this document only as a means
of illustrating thought processes for crafting the most trouble
free system . . . and in no way am I suggesting that these
words be treated as a "requirement" that should flow down into
the OBAM aircraft community.
(a) Protective devices, such as fuses or circuit breakers, must be
installed in all electrical circuits other than--
(1) Main circuits of starter motors used during starting only; and
(2) Circuits in which no hazard is presented by their omission.
I can tell you that these paragraphs describe the portion of the
architecture you are asking about. Fat feeders in light aircraft
are seldom if ever involved in a hard fault situation because of
the extra care we take in securing such wires and thoughtfulness
for installation to keep them clear of moving parts that might
pose a threat.
When a fat feeder suffers compromised insulation, it's generally
against thin sheet metal and the fault tends to be "self clearing",
i.e., it take a lot of force designed to drive the faulted conductor
to ground such that the conductor is now at-risk for catastrophic
failure due to high currents. Relatively light, passing contacts
tend to burn open with little or no effect on the rest of the system.
(b) A protective device for a circuit essential to flight safety may not be
used to protect any other circuit.
Common sense. A fuse or breaker for every accessory. Don't stack
multiple accessories on a single breaker/fuse whether "essential"
or not. Of course, this begs for a definition of "essential" which
is a topic for a who chapter. The government position on aviation
is to build ever more goodies into the essential category . . .
As I've described in Chapter 17 . . . it's up to YOU to decide
what's "essential" based on your understanding of personal
and mechanical limits based on proposed missions.
(c) Each resettable circuit protective device ("trip free" device in which
the tripping mechanism cannot be overridden by the operating control) must be
designed so that--
(1) A manual operation is required to restore service after tripping; and
(2) If an overload or circuit fault exists, the device will open the
circuit regardless of the position of the operating control.
Common sense.
(d) If the ability to reset a circuit breaker or replace a fuse is
essential to safety in flight, that circuit breaker or fuse must be so
located and identified that it can be readily reset or replaced in flight.
Yup, good thing to do. Now, I've suggested for years that there's
no good reason for ANY single piece of equipment to become so
"essential" that it qualifies for special treatment of access to
fuses or breakers. There are hundreds more things that cause
an accessory to fail that DOES NOT open a fuse compared to
failures that DO open a fuse. Focusing on the ability to restore
a fuse or breaker circuit is non-productive. These are
a tiny proportion of all failures and likelihood of getting
a system back by replacing the fuse is nil.
It stands to reason then that if any one SYSTEM is so
desirable, then there had better be a backup SYSTEM.
Once this condition is achieved, there is no reason for
making ANY fuse or breaker accessible in flight.
(e) For fuses identified as replaceable in flight--
(1) There must be one spare of each rating or 50 percent
spare fuses of each rating, whichever is greater; and
(2) The spare fuse(s) must be readily accessible to any
required pilot.
As thoughtful designers and users of OBAM aircraft, we're
able to craft flight systems that completely negate any
reason to observe this requirement . . . we can design
so that there is no need to reach any fuse/breaker because
there are no singular, "essential" systems likely to be
resurrected by replacing a fuse or resetting a breaker.
This is the general answer on circuit protection . . . the
short answer to your specific question is that experience
and common sense have shown that there is no value in
adding "protection" to long battery feeders (other than
the locally situated battery contactor). This includes
the generally smaller but still quite robust feeder from
the cranking circuit to the main bus.
Bob. . .
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: | OBAM Satellites? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "simon miles" <simon.miles@skynet.be>
Today saw the successful launch of the first satellite (for proof of concept
purposes) of the proposed European Union rival to to GPS - Gallileo. This
satellite was designed and built by a very small company in the UK (Surrey
Satellite Technology -SSTL) for a cost of 19 million GBP (about 33 million
dollars). They took only 30 months to develop their design from
drawing-board to launch.
The company's chief executive explained how they were able to deliver the
600kg satellite in such short timescales:
<quote>
We specifically make low-cost and quick satellites. What we do is take
advantage of terrestial technologies, such as mobile phones and DVD players.
The consumer market has been leading the investment the investment in
technology. We take these components out of I-Pods and so on, and work out
whether we can fly them in our spacecraft. Sometimes they will, and
sometimes they will not.
Conventional components can take up to15 years to test, by which time they
may be obsolete. Imagine if you bought a PC that was 15 years old.
It's very easy to spend other people's money. If you spend money you earn
yourself you tend to get a lot more innovation and it lasts longer.
So, take another look at your Christmas presents and imagine how they can
improve your aeroplane....
Happy New Year,
Simon Miles.
Message 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: OBAM Satellites? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
I've belonged to an organization called AMSAT since the mid 70's that has
built and flown numerous amateur satellites. The latest one is a satellite
that is made out of an old Russian space suit. Check out www.AMSAT.org if
you're interested in what can be done by a bunch of guys who want to use
space for the fun of it.
Dave Morris
At 02:18 PM 12/29/2005, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "simon miles" <simon.miles@skynet.be>
>
>Today saw the successful launch of the first satellite (for proof of concept
>purposes) of the proposed European Union rival to to GPS - Gallileo. This
>satellite was designed and built by a very small company in the UK (Surrey
>Satellite Technology -SSTL) for a cost of 19 million GBP (about 33 million
>dollars). They took only 30 months to develop their design from
>drawing-board to launch.
>
>The company's chief executive explained how they were able to deliver the
>600kg satellite in such short timescales:
>
><quote>
>
>We specifically make low-cost and quick satellites. What we do is take
>advantage of terrestial technologies, such as mobile phones and DVD players.
>The consumer market has been leading the investment the investment in
>technology. We take these components out of I-Pods and so on, and work out
>whether we can fly them in our spacecraft. Sometimes they will, and
>sometimes they will not.
>
>Conventional components can take up to15 years to test, by which time they
>may be obsolete. Imagine if you bought a PC that was 15 years old.
>
>It's very easy to spend other people's money. If you spend money you earn
>yourself you tend to get a lot more innovation and it lasts longer.
>
>
>So, take another look at your Christmas presents and imagine how they can
>improve your aeroplane....
>
>Happy New Year,
>
>
>Simon Miles.
>
>
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: | OBAM Satellites? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig Payne" <craig@craigandjean.com>
And then there is that guy in New Zealand who is building his own cruise
missile:
http://www.interestingprojects.com/cruisemissile/
-- Craig
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave
Morris "BigD"
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: OBAM Satellites?
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\""
--> <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
I've belonged to an organization called AMSAT since the mid 70's that has
built and flown numerous amateur satellites. The latest one is a satellite
that is made out of an old Russian space suit. Check out www.AMSAT.org if
you're interested in what can be done by a bunch of guys who want to use
space for the fun of it.
Dave Morris
At 02:18 PM 12/29/2005, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "simon miles"
>--> <simon.miles@skynet.be>
>
>Today saw the successful launch of the first satellite (for proof of
>concept
>purposes) of the proposed European Union rival to to GPS - Gallileo.
>This satellite was designed and built by a very small company in the UK
>(Surrey Satellite Technology -SSTL) for a cost of 19 million GBP (about
>33 million dollars). They took only 30 months to develop their design
>from drawing-board to launch.
>
>The company's chief executive explained how they were able to deliver
>the 600kg satellite in such short timescales:
>
><quote>
>
>We specifically make low-cost and quick satellites. What we do is take
>advantage of terrestial technologies, such as mobile phones and DVD
players.
>The consumer market has been leading the investment the investment in
>technology. We take these components out of I-Pods and so on, and work
>out whether we can fly them in our spacecraft. Sometimes they will, and
>sometimes they will not.
>
>Conventional components can take up to15 years to test, by which time
>they may be obsolete. Imagine if you bought a PC that was 15 years old.
>
>It's very easy to spend other people's money. If you spend money you
>earn yourself you tend to get a lot more innovation and it lasts longer.
>
>
>So, take another look at your Christmas presents and imagine how they
>can improve your aeroplane....
>
>Happy New Year,
>
>
>Simon Miles.
>
>
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 |
|
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; d=fdic.gov; s=fdic;
c=simple; q=dns; t=1135898885; x=1135985285;
ing;
Subject: | Circuit Breaker v. Fuse |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rogers, Bob J." <BRogers@fdic.gov>
I am wiring my Experimental Mustang II kitplane per Figure Z-12 (single
battery, dual alternator), which calls for a 5-amp circuit breaker to
the alternator field wire for each alternator. The wiring diagram shows
the breaker to be adjacent to the main power distribution bus, which on
my airplane is attached to the firewall (cabin side). It would not do
me much good to have a circuit breaker out of reach down where the power
bus is located, therefore my circuit breakers for the alternator field
wires will be on the instrument panel.
I will run a wire from the power bus up to the circuit breaker, which
should (must) be protected. My question is this. If I use 18 awg wire
with a 10 amp fuse from the power bus up to the 5 amp circuit breaker,
will the 5 amp breaker trip before the 10 amp fuse blows in the event of
a dead short in the wire, such as from a Crowbar OV Module?
I do not want the fuse at the power bus to blow before the circuit
breaker pops, otherwise, the alternator cannot be reset in flight from a
nuisance trip. Somewhere, I read that fuses react faster than circuit
breakers, so I am asking how many more amps does the fuse have to carry
before I can be sure that it will not blow before the 5 amp CB pops.
Any advice will be appreciated.
Message 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Circuit Breaker v. Fuse |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: D Wysong <hdwysong@gmail.com>
How about putting a 22 AWG fusible link at your main feed that splices
to the 18 AWG wire feeding your 5 A field breaker? Bob shows this in
the Z diagrams in a few places. Dirt simple and dirt cheap...
D
-------------
Rogers, Bob J. wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rogers, Bob J." <BRogers@fdic.gov>
>
> I am wiring my Experimental Mustang II kitplane per Figure Z-12 (single
> battery, dual alternator), which calls for a 5-amp circuit breaker to
> the alternator field wire for each alternator. The wiring diagram shows
> the breaker to be adjacent to the main power distribution bus, which on
> my airplane is attached to the firewall (cabin side). It would not do
> me much good to have a circuit breaker out of reach down where the power
> bus is located, therefore my circuit breakers for the alternator field
> wires will be on the instrument panel.
>
> I will run a wire from the power bus up to the circuit breaker, which
> should (must) be protected. My question is this. If I use 18 awg wire
> with a 10 amp fuse from the power bus up to the 5 amp circuit breaker,
> will the 5 amp breaker trip before the 10 amp fuse blows in the event of
> a dead short in the wire, such as from a Crowbar OV Module?
>
> I do not want the fuse at the power bus to blow before the circuit
> breaker pops, otherwise, the alternator cannot be reset in flight from a
> nuisance trip. Somewhere, I read that fuses react faster than circuit
> breakers, so I am asking how many more amps does the fuse have to carry
> before I can be sure that it will not blow before the 5 amp CB pops.
>
> Any advice will be appreciated.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Circuit Breaker v. Fuse |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rogers, Bob J." BRogers@fdic.gov
...snip...
>My question is this. If I use 18 awg wire
>with a 10 amp fuse from the power bus up to the 5 amp circuit breaker,
>will the 5 amp breaker trip before the 10 amp fuse blows in the event of
>a dead short in the wire, such as from a Crowbar OV Module?
>I do not want the fuse at the power bus to blow before the circuit
>breaker pops,
The expectation is that a smaller CB is faster than a bigger one. But be
very careful. You could be wrong.
>Somewhere, I read that fuses react faster than circuit breakers, so I am
>asking how many more amps does the fuse have to carry
>before I can be sure that it will not blow before the 5 amp CB pops.
In general, fuses depend on thermal heating to break and this has some time
lags. Circuit breakes usually do too, but breakers can be magnetic or
electronic and can operate at any speed.
>the alternator cannot be reset in flight from a nuisance trip.
Google " AeroElectric nuisance OR false trips " then decide.
>Any advice will be appreciated.
My advice is don't use a crowbar, then none of this will be an issue.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as
it is, infinite.
--William Blake
Message 9
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Instrument Panel Labels |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
I mentioned some time back that inkjet printers can be used to make decals for
instrument panel switch labels. This is an enabling technology. You can make pictures,
symbols, placards, logos, nose art, enemy flag symbols for your imaginary
combat victories, etc.
Several people have had good success with this....then one person inquired--"What
about white ink?"
I was flumoxed...There must be some somewhere. But I was introduced to the curious
fact that white ink for inkjets simply does not exist. You can get fluorescent
yellow, purple, neon colors, even light gray...but not white.
This took some searching but I located the world's only (!) white inkjet ink made
in large cartridges only for $22k Roland commercial injet printers and bought
some to decant into smaller 15 ml vials. You can buy virgin empty cartridges
for you own inkjet printer and go from there.
Interested parties contact me off-list. The rest will sell on eBay. I don't sell
the other products for this decal-label-inkjet thing, but just Google "inkjet
decals", etc.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
"...Beans for supper tonight, six o'clock.
Navy beans cooked in Oklahoma ham...
Got to eat 'em with a spoon, raw onions
and cornbread; nothing else...."
--Will Rogers
Message 10
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Fault Protection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
nuckollsr@cox.net
Bob, et al.
Bob's post on this is right on the mark, but I would add "ground fault" is
probably a confusing term. Small thing.
I would also like to add that there is a whole field related to "Inherently
Safe Wiring" that involve no fuses or breakers. There are some applications
where fuses and/or breakers would be unsafe, and others where any short in a
wire is so nasty that protecting against it is pointless. (TWA 800). All
this falls under "Inherently-Safe-Wiring" design guidelines.
One of the general principles is that there must be short-circuit sparks so
small they cannot set fire to anything. For gasoline-air mixtures 2.5W seems
to be the upper limit. Anything smaller is inherently safe as long as it
can't provide a ground return for some other non-inherently-safe circuit. So
for 14V airplanes, about 180 milliamps can't cause a problem and no fuse is
necessary--but the wire can't be in the same bundle or in contact with other
wiring. A fuse is not needed, but a resistor to limit the current is needed.
This small a current is useful for memory keep-alives, a few LEDs, alarm
sensors, etc.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
(508) 764-2072
"Life is hard; it's harder if you're stupid."
-John Wayne
Message 11
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Ground Fault Protection For Rear Battery Cable |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry@mc.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ground Fault Protection For Rear Battery
Cable
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr@cox.net> Battery Cable
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry@mc.net>
>>
>>Bob and everyone else ...
>>When considering a ground fault, what is best used to protect a #4 cable
>>run, from the rear battery, in an RV, while powering a bus?
>>
>>What is best used to protect this same #4 cable, when it is in parallel
>>with
>>the front battery and charging current is flowing to the rear batt?
>>Thanks ...
>>Jerry Grimmonpre'
. . . the
> short answer to your specific question is that experience
> and common sense have shown that there is no value in
> adding "protection" to long battery feeders (other than
> the locally situated battery contactor). This includes
> the generally smaller but still quite robust feeder from
> the cranking circuit to the main bus.
>
> Bob. . .
Thanks for both the thoroughly expanded answer and the short one as well.
This issue has become a growing hunch that "there is no answer to the threat
of a ground fault except to live with it dude". The fat wire will go in
and hung with care.
Maybe a project opportunity for someone to come up with an electronic DC
volt GFCI (Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter).
Thanks for your great answer Bob ...
Jerry Grimmonpre'
Message 12
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Manual Batt Sw distance |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
Best to have everything
electrically "dead" BEFORE the wire grounds out or the fuel spills hence the
master relay or switch as close as possible to the battery to minimize what
remains "live".
Bob McC,
Points well taken. Thanks for your comments. My apology (red face) for
misspelling "arc."
Stan Sutterfield
Do Not Archive
Message 13
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Manual Batt Sw distance |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
In a message dated 12/29/05 2:59:11 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
Why the push for manual switches? The battery contactor
weighs 13 oz. A battery switch will be about 5-6 oz and
if you need to add a remote control cable, installed
weight will be on the same order as the battery contactor.
The battery contactor has been with us for a very
long time and has proven to be one of the least problematic
pieces of equipment with respect to cost of ownership
Bob N.,
Points well taken. I think I'll switch back to contactors at the battery.
Stan Sutterfield
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: | Wiring Diagrams Design Software |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry@mc.net>
Hi all ...
How many OBAM electricians have used the PC based software to draw their
wiring diagrams?
I'm interested in finding out what you have found and reccomend, don't
recomend, like alot or any comments about they are easy to use or not easy.
Or is all the PC based stuff a waste of time?
I see some on ebay, new ones, outdated programs, cheap and not one bidder
... why is that?
Any help appreciated ... thanks alot,
Jerry Grimmonpre'
Message 15
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Manual Batt Sw distance |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry@mc.net>
Stan ...
Do you want to get rid of one of the manual battery disconnects? Name your
price.
Jerry Grimmonpre'
DO NOT ARCHIVE
----- Original Message -----
From: <Speedy11@aol.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Manual Batt Sw distance
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 12/29/05 2:59:11 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
> Why the push for manual switches? The battery contactor
> weighs 13 oz. A battery switch will be about 5-6 oz and
> if you need to add a remote control cable, installed
> weight will be on the same order as the battery contactor.
>
> The battery contactor has been with us for a very
> long time and has proven to be one of the least problematic
> pieces of equipment with respect to cost of ownership
>
>
> Bob N.,
> Points well taken. I think I'll switch back to contactors at the battery.
> Stan Sutterfield
>
>
>
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: Wiring Diagrams Design Software |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
I know Bob has his favorite and even ships a copy with his AeroElectric
CD. But anybody who has gotten used to Windows or Macintosh graphical user
interfaces (or any drawing programs such as CorelDraw or Visio) will hate
the black screen DOS type UI, and I searched high and low for a better,
more user-friendly, Windows-like program specifically designed for drawing
schematics.
After installing and trying many different ones and throwing them all out,
I finally found DesignWorks Lite from Capilano Computing for $39.95. I
bought it a few years ago and have never looked back. It works intuitively
the way a CAD program should. You can design your own components if the
switch or relay or gadget you need doesn't exist in one of their libraries.
Here's a schematic I did with it:
http://www.davemorris.com/Photos/Dragonfly%20Electrical/N75UP-Schematic-June2005.pdf
Here's their web site: http://www.capilano.com/
I highly recommend it for ease of use in drawing schematics.
Dave Morris
At 10:04 PM 12/29/2005, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry@mc.net>
>
>Hi all ...
>How many OBAM electricians have used the PC based software to draw their
>wiring diagrams?
>I'm interested in finding out what you have found and reccomend, don't
>recomend, like alot or any comments about they are easy to use or not easy.
>Or is all the PC based stuff a waste of time?
>I see some on ebay, new ones, outdated programs, cheap and not one bidder
>... why is that?
>Any help appreciated ... thanks alot,
>Jerry Grimmonpre'
>
>
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: Circuit Breaker v. Fuse |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 05:27 PM 12/29/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rogers, Bob J." <BRogers@fdic.gov>
>
>I am wiring my Experimental Mustang II kitplane per Figure Z-12 (single
>battery, dual alternator), which calls for a 5-amp circuit breaker to
>the alternator field wire for each alternator. The wiring diagram shows
>the breaker to be adjacent to the main power distribution bus, which on
>my airplane is attached to the firewall (cabin side). It would not do
>me much good to have a circuit breaker out of reach down where the power
>bus is located, therefore my circuit breakers for the alternator field
>wires will be on the instrument panel.
>
>I will run a wire from the power bus up to the circuit breaker, which
>should (must) be protected. My question is this. If I use 18 awg wire
>with a 10 amp fuse from the power bus up to the 5 amp circuit breaker,
>will the 5 amp breaker trip before the 10 amp fuse blows in the event of
>a dead short in the wire, such as from a Crowbar OV Module?
>
>I do not want the fuse at the power bus to blow before the circuit
>breaker pops, otherwise, the alternator cannot be reset in flight from a
>nuisance trip. Somewhere, I read that fuses react faster than circuit
>breakers, so I am asking how many more amps does the fuse have to carry
>before I can be sure that it will not blow before the 5 amp CB pops.
Z-12 shows breaker panel busses where the "extension" is
unnecessary. Z-11 illustrates how the breakers may be mounted
next to the DC power master switches by use of fusible links
in the extensions to the alternator field supply breakers.
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: | Re: Wiring Diagrams Design Software |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net>
I use AutoCAD LT. But that is mainly because I use it at work and am
familiar with it. It isn't really intended for schematic work, although
it can certainly do that. Basically, AutoCAD is great for drawing
lines, rectangles, text, etc. as separate entities. What it won't do is
move a part and bring the connections along with it (called
rubberbanding for those who do schematics and layouts with software
intended for that function).
I made up a Wirebook similar to what Bob has on his site (in fact I
"stole" the basic page form from there). I also use it to design any
special brackets, parts, etc. that I need for the plane.
Unfortunately, a new copy is well over $600 for the LT version and lots
more for the full version. I purchased my copy in 1998 when it was a
little more reasonable and haven't upgraded since. A cheaper
alternative that will do the same thing (and can read and write AutoCAD
files) is TurboCAD. I think that Bob also has an old copy of AutoCAD
somewhere on the web site - who knows, his obsolete copy may be newer
than mine :-) .
I tried Visio (again an old copy I have had for some years) and it
wasn't quite as friendly, at least to me, as AutoCAD but had some
attributes that AutoCAD didn't.
I use Eagle (www.cadsoftusa.com) to do electronics schematics for any
PCB designs I do for anything for my plane. It is specific to doing
schematics and and PCB layouts (and is free for home use) but I found it
easier to use AutoCAD to create new parts - plus there are predrawn
parts available from Bob and other sources. for AutoCAD. But you cannot
beat the price - free! I actually have the professional version but the
free version is really only limited in the layout portion, not the
schematic portion.
I am not really competent to judge which is "easier" since I already
knew how to use all these programs, but I don't think any of them is
really too hard to learn for someone that is constructing an airplane.
The main advantage to PC based tools is that once you have drawn one
switch (relay, etc.) you just make copies of it and if you want to add a
part you can just move a few things and make room. If you use paper and
pencil, you have to draw each switch, etc. and if you need to add a part
and there is not room you get to redraw that page.
..
Dick Tasker
Jerry Grimmonpre wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry@mc.net>
>
>Hi all ...
>How many OBAM electricians have used the PC based software to draw their
>wiring diagrams?
>I'm interested in finding out what you have found and reccomend, don't
>recomend, like alot or any comments about they are easy to use or not easy.
>Or is all the PC based stuff a waste of time?
>I see some on ebay, new ones, outdated programs, cheap and not one bidder
>... why is that?
>Any help appreciated ... thanks alot,
>Jerry Grimmonpre'
>
--
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
--
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: Wiring Diagrams Design Software |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry@mc.net>
Thanks Dave ...
Your schematic looks good and I like the symbol readability. I will
consider this a candidate.
Also thanks for the link to their site ...
Regards,
Jerry Grimmonpre'
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wiring Diagrams Design Software
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\""
> <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
> After installing and trying many different ones and throwing them all out,
> I finally found DesignWorks Lite from Capilano Computing for $39.95. I
> bought it a few years ago and have never looked back. It works
> intuitively
> the way a CAD program should. You can design your own components if the
> switch or relay or gadget you need doesn't exist in one of their
> libraries.
>
> Here's a schematic I did with it:
> http://www.davemorris.com/Photos/Dragonfly%20Electrical/N75UP-Schematic-June2005.pdf
> Here's their web site: http://www.capilano.com/
>
> I highly recommend it for ease of use in drawing schematics.
>
> Dave Morris
>
>
> At 10:04 PM 12/29/2005, you wrote:
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jerry Grimmonpre" <jerry@mc.net>
>>
>>Hi all ...
>>How many OBAM electricians have used the PC based software to draw their
>>wiring diagrams?
>>I'm interested in finding out what you have found and reccomend, don't
>>recomend, like alot or any comments about they are easy to use or not
>>easy.
>>Or is all the PC based stuff a waste of time?
>>I see some on ebay, new ones, outdated programs, cheap and not one bidder
>>... why is that?
>>Any help appreciated ... thanks alot,
>>Jerry Grimmonpre'
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! --
|