AeroElectric-List Digest Archive

Thu 04/06/06


Total Messages Posted: 19



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 05:00 AM - Re: Glide Slope Antenna (LarryRobertHelming)
     2. 05:58 AM - Re: Why use starter contactor? ()
     3. 06:16 AM - capacitor - regulator noise (bob noffs)
     4. 09:21 AM - Re: Re: Why use starter contactor? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     5. 10:09 AM - Re:Splicing (Jerry2DT@aol.com)
     6. 01:25 PM - Re: Small wire splicing (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     7. 01:35 PM - Re: Re: Why use starter contactor? (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
     8. 02:17 PM - Antennas (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
     9. 02:51 PM - Re: Antennas (Brian Lloyd)
    10. 03:34 PM - Re: Why use starter contactor? (Rodney Dunham)
    11. 03:58 PM - Re: Re: Why use starter contactor? (Ken)
    12. 03:58 PM - Re: Lessons Learned] Radios OFF during startup (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    13. 04:22 PM - Re: [Fw: [OhioValleyRVators] Lessons Learned] Radios OFF during startup (Dave Morris \)
    14. 06:12 PM - Re: Radios OFF during startup (Alex Peterson)
    15. 06:46 PM - Re: [Fw: [OhioValleyRVators] Lessons Learned] Radios OFF during startup (Jim Baker)
    16. 08:58 PM - Re: Radios OFF during startup (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    17. 09:39 PM - Re: Radios OFF during startup (B Tomm)
    18. 10:07 PM - Re: Radios OFF during startup (B Tomm)
    19. 11:15 PM - Re: Radios OFF during startup (Dan Checkoway)
 
 
 


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
    Time: 05:00:20 AM PST US
    From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
    Subject: Re: Glide Slope Antenna
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net> My GS antenna is invisibly built into my left wing tip which is made of fiberglass. Works. Made it from info in Bob's Connection book. MB antenna also works and it is inside the engine cowling. Right wing tip has the VOR antenna. Only antennas I have exposed (which are commercially built) are the Com and Transponder. Indiana Larry, RV7 ----- Original Message ----- > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > <nuckollsr@cox.net> > > At 04:20 PM 4/5/2006 -0400, you wrote: > >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Dudley <rhdudley@att.net> >> >>Hi Bob, >>Where would I find the GS antenna diagram that is referred to here? > > The diagram we've been discussing is Figure 13-13 in the > 'Connection. Finding someplace to mount such a beast is the > hard part. I think I'd go for the coupler approach. Or, if > you have a fiberglass airplane, try sticking an 8" piece of wire > into a BNC connector and let it dangle out the back of the > GS receiver. When on the runway centerline, glideslope and > localizer signals are huge. You're looking right down the > "barrel" of a 5w transmitter from a couple miles away max. > A wet string would probably get you a good enough signal. > > > If a compromise antenna doesn't work, go for the coupler > from http://www.chiefaircraft.com and others. Looks > like this: > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna/CI_507.jpg > > I'd much rather install a coupler somewhere than try > to find a 'nice' place to mount a stand-alone GS > antenna. > > 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
    Time: 05:58:53 AM PST US
    From: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
    Subject: Re: Why use starter contactor?
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com> >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> >"The external contactor has nothing to do with >crash safety." Bob, this was posted back in January. You must be bored. First, no one said the crash safety was the ONLY reason for having an extra starter contactor/relay on the firewall. However its clearly a concern for many people. I know because I asked. Personally I don't think its an issue but understand and respect those who do think its a concern. From the electrical design standpoint, everyone understands that the possible 30 amp inrush current (6 amp continuous) requires a switch capable of this. PERIOD, END-O-STORY. Put a 30 amp push button switch on. Done. A big 750 amp relay is overkill and not needed to switch the starter's on board solenoid. I don't get it. You make it sound as if a big secondary relay is needed. Its like you are selling them or have stock in the relay company or something? Its a throw back to old Bendix style starters that needed this device. Its time to think out of the box. Consider modern wiring to match a modern starter. Bob I know you only focus on electrical but I can tell you weight is critical on a planes. You tend to never say NO to a pound of weight if its part of the electrical system. There is a very simple solution; get a momentary single pole push button switch with a 30 amp or greater capacity as a start switch, which is easy: A few of many choices: http://www.reddenmarine.com/site/new-detail.cfm?id=CHRM626BP http://www.reddenmarine.com/site/new-detail.cfm?id=CHRM490BP http://tinyurl.com/g5r3p If you want to use a small tiny (low amp rating) push button and a small light 30-40 amp relay. You can buy them, 5 for $10 on eBay. http://www.chiefent.com/products/product_details.asp?id=3 > We recommended an external starter contactor for > use with ALL starters having modern automotive > style contactor/engagement solenoids. This > POLICY was adopted by B&C from day-one in spite > of the fact that their new light-weight offering > already had a "useful" contactor built in. The > reasoning was based on starter's need for a low > impedance path between battery and the solenoid > winding for energetic engagement of pinion gear > and max performance closure of the built in > contactor mechanism. Bob, all the conversation about impedance and key switches is faulty logic and clouds the issue. Instead of the *Non sequiturs*, get to the facts. Who cares what B&C's policy is. What does that matter? You say it like B&C is the center of the universe. (non sequiturs = fallacy in logic, not necessarily wrong just conclusion does not follow from the premise.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29 The starter is DESIGNED to work with a starter switch or switch & (small) relay. Its a good alternative, option to a BIG FAT firewall relay of the olden days. There's no other real good reason for using a 750 amp relay, other than you don't want a Hot Bat/Starter feed, which is no big deal (according to Bob). Just install a $12.00 switch capable of 30 amps or a relay of 30-40 amp capacity. Use 14 awg wire. The BIG old FAT 750 amp starter relay is an enigma with today's modern starters with solenoids. Now if you are uncomfortable with a hot battery cable, than by all means keep the 750 amp relay and all the extra connections, weight, cost, but don't do it for any other reason than you don't like the hot Bat / Starter feed. Start switches (+30 amp) are cheap and easy to find. Here are some wiring diagrams that show what I mean. -No Relay/Contactor wiring: http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/1963/norelaysalt4qo.jpg (optional big fuse shown. I would go the next fuse size up, 400 amps, since PM starters can draw over 300 amps. Bussmann makes fuses up to 750 amp.) -Traditional, with both master and starter relay: http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/3039/altwiring5cm.jpg (Not bad, works, nothing wrong with it, but two heavy relays, (4) connections, weight and complication. Plus if you ask me they relays are a big "spark" hazzard.) Bob, you talk abut key switches of cars and planes going bad? So what. The whole system needs to be designed to work with these "modern starters". Here is how Toyota (and most car makers) does it: http://www.autoshop101.com/forms/h7.pdf (Note: Toyota key switch uses a small start relay) You point to some switch failure on a car or key switch as proof of WHAT? Thats silly logic. You make these verbose platitudes as evidence to support your opinion. The solution is easy. You make simple simple simple DC circuits sound so hard. Its a switch and a coil, no biggie. I am ready for Bob to hurl insults at me and tell me how I don't understand and uninformed I am. I would respectfully say Bob's way is fine, but his reasons are obtuse and not relevant. Don't be alarmed at Bob's reply, I am use to it and ignore it. Bob is right; I'm wrong. I would never dream of arguing with him, since he has an uncanny way of always being right. I am just saying there is another way to consider. I don't feel a need to argue and make large stretches of logic and exaggerate to make my point. Take it or leave it. I am not using big separate firewall contactors/relays/solenoids. One $12.00 push switch (start) and a small solid state relay (master relay), replaces over a pound of weight and several large connections. With the no firewall starter relay the battery cable goes direct to the starter, just like a car. No extra relays to fail, no extra connections, less weight, cost and better reliability. Note: Bob N is what you call an Expert, so his way is always the best way, of course. As far as NOT using a big firewall starter relay safety its not issue (according to Bob). >"The external contactor has nothing to do with >crash safety." I agree with the Expert. Using a quality 2 awg Bat to starter cable/wire, well routed, well supported and well protected, the chance of sparks is small. However each to their own. BTW With a HOT Bat/starter feed, the chance of it causing a spark is nill. Also with the optional fuse its protect it from hard dead short, but the fuse is not needed, just an option. Think about the firewall relays, with all those BIG brass jump straps (un-shilded). They are a spark hazard. There is no fusing between battery and structure. Many people have fuel gascolators and prime lines right next to their firewall relay! Cheers George DISCLAIMER: All comments are my opinion and based on common wiring practices used in millions of cars. However I am not an expert, nor have I written a book on wiring so please feel free to ignore my advice, which is provided for entertainment purposes only. Any attempt at using this info otherwise is at your own risk. If you agree, disagree or just want to call me names, feel free to write me direct off list. Thanks ---------------------------------


    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
    Time: 06:16:56 AM PST US
    From: "bob noffs" <icubob@newnorth.net>
    Subject: capacitor - regulator noise
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "bob noffs" <icubob@newnorth.net> hi bob, i have an ov module to install. the directions say to keep the regulator in the cabin for cooler temps. a knowledgeable source told me it was better to have it firewall forward than to put the noisy lead from the cap. to the reg. in the cabin by the radio. 1. is 6'' too close to run this wire to the comm. radio? 2. am i really shortening the life of the cap. that much or is it like a service life in a plane down from 30 yrs to 10 yrs by mounting the cap. forward of the firewall? 3. if i shield this wire is 6'' from the comm. radio acceptable? thanks, bob noffs


    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
    Time: 09:21:36 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Why use starter contactor?
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 05:55 AM 4/6/2006 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com> > > >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> > > >"The external contactor has nothing to do with > >crash safety." > > Bob, this was posted back in January. You must be bored. If you're going to be a teacher, you have to expect and accept the task of covering the same ground over and over with every new class. Else why would we need teachers? Just hand out text books, conduct tests every few weeks and look at all the money we would save. No teachers, no classrooms, shucks we could get rid of whole universities. What a deal! > > > First, no one said the crash safety was the ONLY > reason for having an extra starter contactor/relay > on the firewall. However its clearly a concern for > many people. I know because I asked. Personally > I don't think its an issue but understand and respect > those who do think its a concern. Never said that. That WAS the rationale for the extra contactor when the thread started. You read things into people's words that are not there. > > From the electrical design standpoint, everyone > understands that the possible 30 amp inrush >current (6 amp continuous) requires a switch capable >of this. PERIOD, END-O-STORY. > Put a 30 amp push button switch on. Done. But suppose the builder wants to use his key-switch? How about the guy who wants the starter button on his stick grip (that's where many helicopters put it)? I guess one might consider Z-22 as an alternative to the extra contactor as I've written many times. > > A big 750 amp relay is overkill and not needed to > switch the starter's on board solenoid. I don't get > it. You make it sound as if a big secondary relay > is needed. Its like you are selling them or have > stock in the relay company or something? > > Its a throw back to old Bendix style starters that > needed this device. Its time to think out of the box. > Consider modern wiring to match a modern starter. A 30A push button is 'modern'? We had one on our Fordson tractor when I was a kid . . . Cars have migrated to Z-22 like features. We airplane designers can do it too. > > Bob I know you only focus on electrical but I can > tell you weight is critical on a planes. You tend to > never say NO to a pound of weight if its part of > the electrical system. That's not true. I've never tossed weight out of the mix of ingredients for design goals. But consider this. 20 years ago OBAM aircraft were bolting pig starters, rino alternators and big-dog flooded batteries into their airplanes but getting the same fat grins on their faces the first time their projects broke ground. Now we have alternatives that have reduced empty weights of the same airplanes by as much as 30 pounds with improved performance. It's all a part of design goals. If you worked for Burt Rutan, he might just have you just hang two wires out to touch together to get the engine started. His empty weight had a 6x multiplier on it for gross weight at takeoff for going around the world. I've suggested welding cable in lieu of 22759 as low cost and a joy to work with but at some sacrifice of the 30# savings cited. I've suggested that one might consider rotating a 15# main battery into an aux battery slot for a total weight of 30# of batteries as a low cost of ownership alterative to one big and one little battery. Your suggestion that I'm hard over about squandering that 30# savings is false on the face of it. > >There is a very simple solution; get a momentary >single pole push button switch with a 30 amp or >greater capacity as a start switch, which is easy: > > A few of many choices: > http://www.reddenmarine.com/site/new-detail.cfm?id=CHRM626BP >http://www.reddenmarine.com/site/new-detail.cfm?id=CHRM490BP >http://tinyurl.com/g5r3p > >If you want to use a small tiny (low amp rating) > push button and a small light 30-40 amp relay. > You can buy them, 5 for $10 on eBay. >http://www.chiefent.com/products/product_details.asp?id=3 > > > > We recommended an external starter contactor for > > use with ALL starters having modern automotive > > style contactor/engagement solenoids. This > > POLICY was adopted by B&C from day-one in spite > > of the fact that their new light-weight offering > > already had a "useful" contactor built in. The > > reasoning was based on starter's need for a low > > impedance path between battery and the solenoid > > winding for energetic engagement of pinion gear > > and max performance closure of the built in > > contactor mechanism. > > > Bob, all the conversation about impedance and key > switches is faulty logic and clouds the issue. Instead > of the *Non sequiturs*, get to the facts. Who cares > what B&C's policy is. What does that matter? You > say it like B&C is the center of the universe. I cite B&C because it's the venue under which I gained my earliest experiences with the OBAM aircraft industry. I've often cited Electromech too because it was my university of hard knocks in the certified world. George, you read far too much into what I say. If it distresses you so much to have me mention my various employers, I'll try to avoid the practice. You've acknowledged the starter control loop impedance issue by your own recommendation of a 14AWG wire . . . how was my citation of the concern "faulty" or an obscuration of the facts? > > (non sequiturs = fallacy in logic, not necessarily wrong > just conclusion does not follow from the premise.) > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29 > > > The starter is DESIGNED to work with a starter switch > or switch & (small) relay. Its a good alternative, option to > a BIG FAT firewall relay of the olden days. Yeah, that was the DESIRE of the designers but after a few years in the field, many of the automobiles that incorporated the new two-stage contactors were burning up starter switch contacts just as described in the AD against the ACS key-switch. The start switch wasn't going to change so they did exactly what's described in Z-22 and added the relay. > > There's no other real good reason for using a 750 amp > relay, other than you don't want a Hot Bat/Starter feed, > which is no big deal (according to Bob). Is it a 'big deal'? How? The battery contactor is tasked with making the airplane max-cold in a pre- crash condition. I've never even considered making the starter feed a component of crash safety analysis. It's truly not a big deal but not because of anything I said about it. It's the WAY THINGS ARE in airplanes because they have battery master contactors. Some folks on the List have advocated wiring airplanes just like cars and dumping the battery master contactor idea completely . . . don't recall now who was championing that architecture. That idea WOULD raise new concerns for configuring an electrical system for landing on unfriendly terrain. > > Just install a $12.00 switch capable of 30 amps or a > relay of 30-40 amp capacity. Use 14 awg wire. > > The BIG old FAT 750 amp starter relay is an enigma > with today's modern starters with solenoids. Now if > you are uncomfortable with a hot battery cable, than > by all means keep the 750 amp relay and all the extra > connections, weight, cost, but don't do it for any other > reason than you don't like the hot Bat / Starter feed. > Start switches (+30 amp) are cheap and easy to find. > > > Here are some wiring diagrams that show what I mean. > > -No Relay/Contactor wiring: > http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/1963/norelaysalt4qo.jpg > (optional big fuse shown. I would go the next fuse > size up, 400 amps, since PM starters can draw over > 300 amps. Bussmann makes fuses up to 750 amp.) Interesting. Fusing the starter feed line is a new concept for light aircraft. I've never seen this done before. Can you elaborate on the supporting simple-ideas that support this feature? What new hazards have been deduced to suggest this ADDED WEIGHT and cost is a useful thing to do? > > -Traditional, with both master and starter relay: >http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/3039/altwiring5cm.jpg > (Not bad, works, nothing wrong with it, but two heavy > relays, (4) connections, weight and complication. Plus > if you ask me they relays are a big "spark" hazzard.) Hmmm . . . explosion hazard. That's a new one. Perhaps we should consider flame arresters on our exhaust stacks? How about the contactor built into the starter itself? You know those brushes in the starter really spark good too. Perhaps some beads of RTV around all the seams for DIY hermetic sealing? May we assume that both WEIGHT and SPARKS are now decision drivers? > > > Bob, you talk abut key switches of cars and planes > going bad? So what. The whole system needs to be > designed to work with these "modern starters". Here > is how Toyota (and most car makers) does it: > http://www.autoshop101.com/forms/h7.pdf > (Note: Toyota key switch uses a small start relay) Where have I argued with that? George, the 'Connection is loaded with alternatives. You've painted my words as if I'm trying to drive folks toward singular goals. If that were true, the 'Connection could be replaced with a single drawing, a bill of materials and I could rant about how folks are not following MY recommendations by not using MY design. The 'Connection is a shopping mall of designs. As a teacher I'm obligated to consider every alternative that comes to light and explain the simple-ideas that help a builder choose the most attractive direction that fits his/her desires and mission. > > > You point to some switch failure on a car or key > switch as proof of WHAT? Yes, we know sir. In Failure Mode Effects Analysis according to George, failures of parts are not proof of anything. You've said that puffed up batteries, smoked radios and burned wires are not good indicators of a runaway alternator - these are all 'unsubstantiated' stories. Stories cited only to support my wild-eyed notions that no piece of electronics is perfect and that some items hold the keys to severe consequences worthy of consideration in the FMEA. I must continue to beg your indulgence for my alternate reality. > Thats silly logic. . . . hmmmm . . . should I be insulted here? Was that intended to be an insult or was it just a considered observation? Let's see . . . what adjective might I use to describe your position on OV failures in the field that won't insult you. I'll have to think about it. > You make these verbose platitudes as evidence to > support your opinion. The solution is easy. > You make simple simple simple DC circuits > sound so hard. Its a switch and a coil, no biggie. > > > I am ready for Bob to hurl insults at me and tell > me how I don't understand and uninformed I am. Please cite any insult I've hurled at you or anyone else . . . > I would respectfully say Bob's way is fine, but his > reasons are obtuse and not relevant. Don't be > alarmed at Bob's reply, I am use to it and ignore > it. George, allow me to be really alarming here and suggest that you've accurately described an alternative design goal that's been illustrated and explained in my writings for years. > > Bob is right; I'm wrong. I would never dream of > arguing with him, since he has an uncanny way > of always being right. I am just saying there is > another way to consider. > > I don't feel a need to argue and make large > stretches of logic and exaggerate to make my > point. Take it or leave it. I am not using big > separate firewall contactors/relays/solenoids. > One $12.00 push switch (start) and a small > solid state relay (master relay), replaces over > a pound of weight and several large connections. > > With the no firewall starter relay the battery cable >goes direct to the starter, just like a car. No >extra relays to fail, no extra connections, less >weight, cost and better reliability. > > Note: > Bob N is what you call an Expert, so his way is > always the best way, of course. Are you being insulting here George? I can't tell. Are we being teachers here or is this a script for a Mythbusters show? > > As far as NOT using a big firewall starter relay > safety its not issue (according to Bob). > > >"The external contactor has nothing to do with > >crash safety." > > I agree with the Expert. > > Using a quality 2 awg Bat to starter cable/wire, > well routed, well supported and well protected, the > chance of sparks is small. > > However each to their own. "To each their own?" I thought the thrust of your missive was to explain the silliness of my logic and that a savings of under a pound of weight is an overriding concern. However, you seem to suggest that when all is said, what anyone does is a matter of comfort. Help us understand your recommendations. > > BTW With a HOT Bat/starter feed, the chance of it > causing a spark is nill. Also with the optional > fuse its protect it from hard dead short, but the > fuse is not needed, just an option. Under what design considerations would you say the fuse is a good option? Are there other locations where adding some fuses is a good or better option? If you're going to toss that idea on the table sir, please be a teacher and explain when and why it makes sense and what hazard condition is being mitigated. Have you ever seen how much "sparking" can be generated downstream of a 300A current limiter without opening the limiter? I'm having trouble understanding when the 'option' would be deemed useful. > > Think about the firewall relays, with all those > BIG brass jump straps (un-shilded). They are > a spark hazard. There is no fusing between battery > and structure. Many people have fuel gascolators > and prime lines right next to their firewall relay! Let us 'think' also that we sit between at least two tanks filled with gallons of fuel plumbed with dozens of fittings and moved with pumps that put lots of pressure on a flammable liquid. May I suggest these are part-n-parcel of systems design and integration were selection of materials and techniques reduce risks? You've accused me of being trivial with respect to starter switch selection. Please consider that my suggestions allow the design goal of using of ANY starter switch (key, toggle, push-button, etc.). I DO confess to adding between 0.2 and 0.9 pounds to the airplane depending on whether the builder uses Z-22 or the external contactor. But if you're going to add the ANL limiter for about 0.5 pounds more, perhaps the drive to save weight by not having an external contactor becomes even less significant. You have tossed lack of explosion proofing and new current limiters into the discussion. Are you suggesting these are useful points of consideration for our airplane building brothers? >Cheers George Cheers to you too George, and please know that no words I've written were intended to insult or demean. We're only trying to understand . . . I've explained the rationale behind the external contactor recommendation and 'fessed up to the added weight for this and MANY other system features we've discussed for years. The best understanding I have of your present missive is that I'm perhaps 0.4 pounds heavier than your recommendations when the builder opts for the ANL limiter. I will suggest that your design recommendation for a fat starter push button is restrictive compared to what I've suggested in the 'Connection and here on the List. However, if the builder is shaving ounces and buys into the appropriately sized, independent starter button, then your recommendations are spot on. But I'll have to think about those sparks some more. Hmmmm . . . for ounce shavers, keep in mind that moving an under-the-cowl starter contactor from firewall out to the starter will, on airplanes with rear mounted batteries, add ounces of wire for the bus feeders that used to tie onto the firewall starter contactor. Gee, every decision has so many consequences to consider! Kinda makes one's head feel tight. Bob . . .


    Message 5


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 10:09:51 AM PST US
    From: Jerry2DT@aol.com
    Subject: Re:Splicing
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jerry2DT@aol.com Another thing I like is that integrity of the joint is easily checked if you use clear shrink... Saves room if in a bundle, also. Jerry Cochran In a message dated 4/6/2006 12:05:03 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes: Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Splicing --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch> > Anything wrong with using machined pins for splicing 20-22AWG wires with a > heatshrink cover? Just seems neater and quicker than soldering or butt > splices.. It works great. I learned that trick from Bob here on this list, or in his book - I can't recall which. It's a bit more expensive than soldering, but much faster and neater. -- Mickey Coggins http://www.rv8.ch/ #82007 finishing


    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
    Time: 01:25:18 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Small wire splicing
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> Here's a new comic book on the topic and technique . . . http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Solder_Lap_Splicing/Solder_Lap_Splices.html Bob . . . At 01:05 PM 4/6/2006 -0400, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jerry2DT@aol.com > > >Another thing I like is that integrity of the joint is easily checked if you >use clear shrink... Saves room if in a bundle, also. > >Jerry Cochran > > >In a message dated 4/6/2006 12:05:03 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, >aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes: > >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Splicing > >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins ><mick-matronics@rv8.ch> > > > Anything wrong with using machined pins for splicing 20-22AWG wires > with a > > > heatshrink cover? Just seems neater and quicker than soldering or butt > > splices.. > >It works great. I learned that trick from Bob here on this >list, or in his book - I can't recall which. It's a bit more >expensive than soldering, but much faster and neater. > >-- >Mickey Coggins >http://www.rv8.ch/ >#82007 finishing > > >-- > > Bob . . . < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > < the authority which determines whether there can be > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss >


    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
    Time: 01:35:07 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Why use starter contactor?
    From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net> Outside of the usual bickering between you two, I have to say that George has added one of the most useful pieces of information I have personally seen in weeks, even if Bob did glaze over it below. The idea of replacing the big and heavy starter relay with a very reliable Bosch style for 1/5th the price and weight is an excellent idea when going with a starter that already has a solenoid to handle the heavy lifting. I'm a simple guy that doesn't need a Unified Theory to understand risks and benefits. So let's keep the rhetoric out guys, the explanations concise and straight forward, and I think everyone will benefit all the more. Michael Sausen -10 #352 Fuselage Do not archive -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 11:13 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Why use starter contactor? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" --> <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 05:55 AM 4/6/2006 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com> > > >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> > > >"The external contactor has nothing to do with > >crash safety." > > Bob, this was posted back in January. You must be bored. If you're going to be a teacher, you have to expect and accept the task of covering the same ground over and over with every new class. Else why would we need teachers? Just hand out text books, conduct tests every few weeks and look at all the money we would save. No teachers, no classrooms, shucks we could get rid of whole universities. What a deal! > > > First, no one said the crash safety was the ONLY > reason for having an extra starter contactor/relay > on the firewall. However its clearly a concern for > many people. I know because I asked. Personally > I don't think its an issue but understand and respect > those who do think its a concern. Never said that. That WAS the rationale for the extra contactor when the thread started. You read things into people's words that are not there. > > From the electrical design standpoint, everyone > understands that the possible 30 amp inrush current (6 amp >continuous) requires a switch capable of this. PERIOD, END-O-STORY. > Put a 30 amp push button switch on. Done. But suppose the builder wants to use his key-switch? How about the guy who wants the starter button on his stick grip (that's where many helicopters put it)? I guess one might consider Z-22 as an alternative to the extra contactor as I've written many times. > > A big 750 amp relay is overkill and not needed to > switch the starter's on board solenoid. I don't get > it. You make it sound as if a big secondary relay > is needed. Its like you are selling them or have > stock in the relay company or something? > > Its a throw back to old Bendix style starters that > needed this device. Its time to think out of the box. > Consider modern wiring to match a modern starter. A 30A push button is 'modern'? We had one on our Fordson tractor when I was a kid . . . Cars have migrated to Z-22 like features. We airplane designers can do it too. > > Bob I know you only focus on electrical but I can > tell you weight is critical on a planes. You tend to > never say NO to a pound of weight if its part of > the electrical system. That's not true. I've never tossed weight out of the mix of ingredients for design goals. But consider this. 20 years ago OBAM aircraft were bolting pig starters, rino alternators and big-dog flooded batteries into their airplanes but getting the same fat grins on their faces the first time their projects broke ground. Now we have alternatives that have reduced empty weights of the same airplanes by as much as 30 pounds with improved performance. It's all a part of design goals. If you worked for Burt Rutan, he might just have you just hang two wires out to touch together to get the engine started. His empty weight had a 6x multiplier on it for gross weight at takeoff for going around the world. I've suggested welding cable in lieu of 22759 as low cost and a joy to work with but at some sacrifice of the 30# savings cited. I've suggested that one might consider rotating a 15# main battery into an aux battery slot for a total weight of 30# of batteries as a low cost of ownership alterative to one big and one little battery. Your suggestion that I'm hard over about squandering that 30# savings is false on the face of it. > >There is a very simple solution; get a momentary single pole push >button switch with a 30 amp or greater capacity as a start switch, >which is easy: > > A few of many choices: > http://www.reddenmarine.com/site/new-detail.cfm?id=3DCHRM626BP >http://www.reddenmarine.com/site/new-detail.cfm?id=3DCHRM490BP >http://tinyurl.com/g5r3p > >If you want to use a small tiny (low amp rating) > push button and a small light 30-40 amp relay. > You can buy them, 5 for $10 on eBay. >http://www.chiefent.com/products/product_details.asp?id=3D3 > > > > We recommended an external starter contactor for > > use with ALL starters having modern automotive > > style contactor/engagement solenoids. This > > POLICY was adopted by B&C from day-one in spite > > of the fact that their new light-weight offering > > already had a "useful" contactor built in. The > > reasoning was based on starter's need for a low > > impedance path between battery and the solenoid > > winding for energetic engagement of pinion gear > > and max performance closure of the built in > > contactor mechanism. > > > Bob, all the conversation about impedance and key > switches is faulty logic and clouds the issue. Instead > of the *Non sequiturs*, get to the facts. Who cares > what B&C's policy is. What does that matter? You > say it like B&C is the center of the universe. I cite B&C because it's the venue under which I gained my earliest experiences with the OBAM aircraft industry. I've often cited Electromech too because it was my university of hard knocks in the certified world. George, you read far too much into what I say. If it distresses you so much to have me mention my various employers, I'll try to avoid the practice. You've acknowledged the starter control loop impedance issue by your own recommendation of a 14AWG wire . . . how was my citation of the concern "faulty" or an obscuration of the facts? > > (non sequiturs =3D fallacy in logic, not necessarily wrong > just conclusion does not follow from the premise.) > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29 > > > The starter is DESIGNED to work with a starter switch > or switch & (small) relay. Its a good alternative, option to > a BIG FAT firewall relay of the olden days. Yeah, that was the DESIRE of the designers but after a few years in the field, many of the automobiles that incorporated the new two-stage contactors were burning up starter switch contacts just as described in the AD against the ACS key-switch. The start switch wasn't going to change so they did exactly what's described in Z-22 and added the relay. > > There's no other real good reason for using a 750 amp > relay, other than you don't want a Hot Bat/Starter feed, > which is no big deal (according to Bob). Is it a 'big deal'? How? The battery contactor is tasked with making the airplane max-cold in a pre- crash condition. I've never even considered making the starter feed a component of crash safety analysis. It's truly not a big deal but not because of anything I said about it. It's the WAY THINGS ARE in airplanes because they have battery master contactors. Some folks on the List have advocated wiring airplanes just like cars and dumping the battery master contactor idea completely . . . don't recall now who was championing that architecture. That idea WOULD raise new concerns for configuring an electrical system for landing on unfriendly terrain. > > Just install a $12.00 switch capable of 30 amps or a > relay of 30-40 amp capacity. Use 14 awg wire. > > The BIG old FAT 750 amp starter relay is an enigma > with today's modern starters with solenoids. Now if > you are uncomfortable with a hot battery cable, than > by all means keep the 750 amp relay and all the extra > connections, weight, cost, but don't do it for any other > reason than you don't like the hot Bat / Starter feed. > Start switches (+30 amp) are cheap and easy to find. > > > Here are some wiring diagrams that show what I mean. > > -No Relay/Contactor wiring: > http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/1963/norelaysalt4qo.jpg > (optional big fuse shown. I would go the next fuse > size up, 400 amps, since PM starters can draw over > 300 amps. Bussmann makes fuses up to 750 amp.) Interesting. Fusing the starter feed line is a new concept for light aircraft. I've never seen this done before. Can you elaborate on the supporting simple-ideas that support this feature? What new hazards have been deduced to suggest this ADDED WEIGHT and cost is a useful thing to do? > > -Traditional, with both master and starter relay: >http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/3039/altwiring5cm.jpg > (Not bad, works, nothing wrong with it, but two heavy > relays, (4) connections, weight and complication. Plus > if you ask me they relays are a big "spark" hazzard.) Hmmm . . . explosion hazard. That's a new one. Perhaps we should consider flame arresters on our exhaust stacks? How about the contactor built into the starter itself? You know those brushes in the starter really spark good too. Perhaps some beads of RTV around all the seams for DIY hermetic sealing? May we assume that both WEIGHT and SPARKS are now decision drivers? > > > Bob, you talk abut key switches of cars and planes > going bad? So what. The whole system needs to be > designed to work with these "modern starters". Here > is how Toyota (and most car makers) does it: > http://www.autoshop101.com/forms/h7.pdf > (Note: Toyota key switch uses a small start relay) Where have I argued with that? George, the 'Connection is loaded with alternatives. You've painted my words as if I'm trying to drive folks toward singular goals. If that were true, the 'Connection could be replaced with a single drawing, a bill of materials and I could rant about how folks are not following MY recommendations by not using MY design. The 'Connection is a shopping mall of designs. As a teacher I'm obligated to consider every alternative that comes to light and explain the simple-ideas that help a builder choose the most attractive direction that fits his/her desires and mission. > > > You point to some switch failure on a car or key > switch as proof of WHAT? Yes, we know sir. In Failure Mode Effects Analysis according to George, failures of parts are not proof of anything. You've said that puffed up batteries, smoked radios and burned wires are not good indicators of a runaway alternator - these are all 'unsubstantiated' stories. Stories cited only to support my wild-eyed notions that no piece of electronics is perfect and that some items hold the keys to severe consequences worthy of consideration in the FMEA. I must continue to beg your indulgence for my alternate reality. > Thats silly logic. . . . hmmmm . . . should I be insulted here? Was that intended to be an insult or was it just a considered observation? Let's see . . . what adjective might I use to describe your position on OV failures in the field that won't insult you. I'll have to think about it. > You make these verbose platitudes as evidence to > support your opinion. The solution is easy. > You make simple simple simple DC circuits > sound so hard. Its a switch and a coil, no biggie. > > > I am ready for Bob to hurl insults at me and tell > me how I don't understand and uninformed I am. Please cite any insult I've hurled at you or anyone else . . . > I would respectfully say Bob's way is fine, but his > reasons are obtuse and not relevant. Don't be > alarmed at Bob's reply, I am use to it and ignore > it. George, allow me to be really alarming here and suggest that you've accurately described an alternative design goal that's been illustrated and explained in my writings for years. > > Bob is right; I'm wrong. I would never dream of > arguing with him, since he has an uncanny way > of always being right. I am just saying there is > another way to consider. > > I don't feel a need to argue and make large > stretches of logic and exaggerate to make my > point. Take it or leave it. I am not using big > separate firewall contactors/relays/solenoids. > One $12.00 push switch (start) and a small > solid state relay (master relay), replaces over > a pound of weight and several large connections. > > With the no firewall starter relay the battery cable goes direct to >the starter, just like a car. No extra relays to fail, no extra >connections, less weight, cost and better reliability. > > Note: > Bob N is what you call an Expert, so his way is > always the best way, of course. Are you being insulting here George? I can't tell. Are we being teachers here or is this a script for a Mythbusters show? > > As far as NOT using a big firewall starter relay > safety its not issue (according to Bob). > > >"The external contactor has nothing to do with crash safety." > > I agree with the Expert. > > Using a quality 2 awg Bat to starter cable/wire, > well routed, well supported and well protected, the > chance of sparks is small. > > However each to their own. "To each their own?" I thought the thrust of your missive was to explain the silliness of my logic and that a savings of under a pound of weight is an overriding concern. However, you seem to suggest that when all is said, what anyone does is a matter of comfort. Help us understand your recommendations. > > BTW With a HOT Bat/starter feed, the chance of it > causing a spark is nill. Also with the optional > fuse its protect it from hard dead short, but the > fuse is not needed, just an option. Under what design considerations would you say the fuse is a good option? Are there other locations where adding some fuses is a good or better option? If you're going to toss that idea on the table sir, please be a teacher and explain when and why it makes sense and what hazard condition is being mitigated. Have you ever seen how much "sparking" can be generated downstream of a 300A current limiter without opening the limiter? I'm having trouble understanding when the 'option' would be deemed useful. > > Think about the firewall relays, with all those > BIG brass jump straps (un-shilded). They are > a spark hazard. There is no fusing between battery > and structure. Many people have fuel gascolators > and prime lines right next to their firewall relay! Let us 'think' also that we sit between at least two tanks filled with gallons of fuel plumbed with dozens of fittings and moved with pumps that put lots of pressure on a flammable liquid. May I suggest these are part-n-parcel of systems design and integration were selection of materials and techniques reduce risks? You've accused me of being trivial with respect to starter switch selection. Please consider that my suggestions allow the design goal of using of ANY starter switch (key, toggle, push-button, etc.). I DO confess to adding between 0.2 and 0.9 pounds to the airplane depending on whether the builder uses Z-22 or the external contactor. But if you're going to add the ANL limiter for about 0.5 pounds more, perhaps the drive to save weight by not having an external contactor becomes even less significant. You have tossed lack of explosion proofing and new current limiters into the discussion. Are you suggesting these are useful points of consideration for our airplane building brothers? >Cheers George Cheers to you too George, and please know that no words I've written were intended to insult or demean. We're only trying to understand . . . I've explained the rationale behind the external contactor recommendation and 'fessed up to the added weight for this and MANY other system features we've discussed for years. The best understanding I have of your present missive is that I'm perhaps 0.4 pounds heavier than your recommendations when the builder opts for the ANL limiter. I will suggest that your design recommendation for a fat starter push button is restrictive compared to what I've suggested in the 'Connection and here on the List. However, if the builder is shaving ounces and buys into the appropriately sized, independent starter button, then your recommendations are spot on. But I'll have to think about those sparks some more. Hmmmm . . . for ounce shavers, keep in mind that moving an under-the-cowl starter contactor from firewall out to the starter will, on airplanes with rear mounted batteries, add ounces of wire for the bus feeders that used to tie onto the firewall starter contactor. Gee, every decision has so many consequences to consider! Kinda makes one's head feel tight. 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
    Time: 02:17:16 PM PST US
    Subject: Antennas
    From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> Hello Bob, I must say the magic of antennas is a little lost on me so I was looking at your COM and VOR antenna designs. I have a Bob Archer com antenna and he talks about Vertial polarisation but your example shows both glued down to a horizontal surface...Am I missing something? I assume that one can't put both a VOR a COM antenna in the same fiberglass wingtip? Can one do the same with a much shorter (5"?) transponder antenna say on the bottom of the rudder? Us RV guys really don't like things hanging on the outside of fast airplanes...:) Thanks Frank


    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
    Time: 02:51:36 PM PST US
    From: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
    Subject: Re: Antennas
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com> Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis) wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com> > > Hello Bob, > > I must say the magic of antennas is a little lost on me so I was looking > at your COM and VOR antenna designs. I have a Bob Archer com antenna and > he talks about Vertial polarisation but your example shows both glued > down to a horizontal surface...Am I missing something? The radiator part (the part of the antenna attached to the center conductor of the coax feed line) should be as close to vertical as possible. The VOR/LOC/GS antenna should be horizontal. > > I assume that one can't put both a VOR a COM antenna in the same > fiberglass wingtip? It is not a good idea. You want as much isolation as possible between the two. > Can one do the same with a much shorter (5"?) transponder antenna say on > the bottom of the rudder? The transponder antenna is actually 2.6" (6.5cm) long. That antenna you do want to mount on the belly as it is prone to being shielded by other things on the airplane. There should be nothing between the transponder antenna and the RADAR site on the ground. > > Us RV guys really don't like things hanging on the outside of fast > airplanes...:) The airflow on the belly is already turbulent from mixing outflow cooling air with the undisturbed air so putting antennas on the belly is not going to have any effect on maximum speed. You should definitely mount your transponder antenna on the belly far enough away from the gear legs and exhaust pipes so they do not constitute a shield for the signal. Brian Lloyd


    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
    Time: 03:34:47 PM PST US
    From: "Rodney Dunham" <rdunhamtn@hotmail.com>
    Subject: Re: Why use starter contactor?
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rodney Dunham" <rdunhamtn@hotmail.com> OK George, It's plain to see you're slipping back into a manic phase. Call your shrink. Get back on the Lithium. Take a chill pill before you get REALLY verbose. You're OK. Bob's OK. We're ALL OKAY! Cheers :o) Rodney and pleeeeease, DO NOT ARCHIVE


    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
    Time: 03:58:31 PM PST US
    From: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
    Subject: Re: Why use starter contactor?
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net> Possibly because the pros and cons of that have been discussed at length several times here Michael. Several folks related experiences with stuck on automotive starters when I've brought up the subject. Nevertheless I went with a 25 amp rated marine key starter switch which I believe is less likely to cause problems than an additional small relay. A cheap 40 amp relay is not imune from sticking either in this kind of service. Got to admit though my key switch will be a bear to change out compared to a contactor or a small relay when/if it ever fails, and it cost more than either. Ken RV Builder (Michael Sausen) wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net> > > Outside of the usual bickering between you two, I have to say that George has added one of the most useful pieces of information I have personally seen in weeks, even if Bob did glaze over it below. The idea of replacing the big and heavy starter relay with a very reliable Bosch style for 1/5th the price and weight is an excellent idea when going with a starter that already has a solenoid to handle the heavy lifting. > >


    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
    Time: 03:58:31 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Lessons Learned] Radios OFF during startup
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 09:38 PM 4/5/2006 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bobby Hester ><bhester@hopkinsville.net> > > >-------- Original Message -------- >Subject: [OhioValleyRVators] Lessons Learned >Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2006 06:33:51 -0000 >From: Rick Gray <rgray67968@aol.com> >To: OhioValleyRVators@yahoogroups.com > > > >From and 'unnamed source' (smile). >Rick at the Buffalo Farm - read on: > >My new Rocket is a blast! > >I have to be careful to keep off the transmit button, so the Cessnas >don't hear me giggle as I leap over them in the circuit. > >OK, maybe I slipped once or twice . . . :) > >The rocket is teaching me lots of lessons. Like: Don't start the engine >with your radio on. I tried that last Sunday and was rewarded with a >blank screen on the SL30. According to the helpful Garmin tech, the >wiring in the radios will catch some, but not all voltage spikes, fuses >don't help and the radios should be kept off during startup. I must >have been distracted by that Cessna . . . I'm sorry to hear of your experience but at the risk of starting a whole new pot boiler, I really doubt that anything from your startup stresses killed your radio. I'd REALLY like to talk with the tech that repairs the radio to see if the ol' saw about "the starter killed my radios?" is truly at work here. Everything we've designed and qualified to for decades says it wont happen. Bob . . . < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > < the authority which determines whether there can be > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss >


    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
    Time: 04:22:28 PM PST US
    From: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD@DaveMorris.com> Learned] Radios OFF during
    startup
    Subject: Re: [Fwd: [OhioValleyRVators] Lessons Learned] Radios
    OFF during startup --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD@DaveMorris.com> Learned] Radios OFF during startup I guess that would mean that the $150 radio in my car is more robust than the $3,500 radio in your airplane? I sure don't have an avionics master switch in my car. Dave Morris At 09:38 PM 4/5/2006, you wrote: > >The rocket is teaching me lots of lessons. Like: Don't start the engine >with your radio on. I tried that last Sunday and was rewarded with a >blank screen on the SL30. According to the helpful Garmin tech, the >wiring in the radios will catch some, but not all voltage spikes, fuses >don't help and the radios should be kept off during startup. I must >have been distracted by that Cessna . . . >


    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
    Time: 06:12:17 PM PST US
    From: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net>
    Subject: Radios OFF during startup
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" <alexpeterson@earthlink.net> > > > >The rocket is teaching me lots of lessons. Like: Don't start > the engine > >with your radio on. I tried that last Sunday and was rewarded with a > >blank screen on the SL30. According to the helpful Garmin tech, the > >wiring in the radios will catch some, but not all voltage > spikes, fuses > >don't help and the radios should be kept off during startup. I must > >have been distracted by that Cessna . . . What evidence do you have that a voltage spike caused the failure? Could the thing simply have croaked? Alex Peterson RV6-A N66AP 750 hours Maple Grove, MN


    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
    Time: 06:46:43 PM PST US
    From: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@msbit.net>
    Subject: Re: [Fwd: [OhioValleyRVators] Lessons Learned] Radios
    OFF during startup --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@msbit.net> > I guess that would mean that the $150 radio in my car is more robust > than the $3,500 radio in your airplane? I sure don't have an avionics > master switch in my car. Just for grins, I just went out to the garage and started my 1997 Dodge truck and my 2002 Altima, both with the radio on. Go try it on your vehicle and tell me that your radio isn't switched out of the circuit during the start cycle. Might not be....but mine were. There is, of course, an ulterior motive to this behaviour....power to start when in much colder climes. This is only presented as a point of interest, not contention. On another note, anyone ever look at the following technology? http://www.ce-mag.com/archive/02/07/Jones.html Jim Baker 580.788.2779 Elmore City, OK


    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
    Time: 08:58:12 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Radios OFF during startup
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 06:19 PM 4/6/2006 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" ><BigD@DaveMorris.com> Learned] Radios OFF during startup > >I guess that would mean that the $150 radio in my car is more robust >than the $3,500 radio in your airplane? I sure don't have an >avionics master switch in my car. > >Dave Morris Good question. The avionics master switch is still alive and well in many venues but nobody I've come across can explain the science or describe the repeatable experiment that shows why it's 'needed'. It's easy to get folks to worry about lots of things and then gather a following that elects to err on the side of caution. The interesting fact that never seems to carry much weight with the cautious is that for more than 20 years, folks who qualify equipment items to run on airplanes at least claim and most demonstrate they can withstand everything the airplane can throw at it . . . including transients on the bus due to starter operations. When we're finished with run-of-the-mill DC power tests. we bombard electrowhizies with as much as 200 volts/meter RF interference of two or more kinds. And if that weren't enough, we'll then hit all the i/o pins with ESD simulations followed by indirect effects of lightning simulations that put 600 volt pulses current limited by 10 to 25 ohm resistors into power lines (24 to 60A potential current flow). I've shepherded dozens of my own designs and designs of others through these tests which are rigorous but not difficult to pass. The idea that any modern piece of equipment is fatally vulnerable to the inductive kick of unknown (as yet to be quantified) nature from a starter motor or contactor just doesn't track the science that drives current requirements for certification. Further, there are millions of examples of devices powered by vehicular DC power systems of all kinds where operators are NOT cautioned to turn of the device before starting the engine . . . your car radio included. Unfortunately, there are just enough anecdotes and myths floating around to keep the faith in avionics master switches alive and well. I've had storage 'scopes on dozens of airplanes in situations where I've been able to watch the bus during startup. I've never captured a 'spike' of significant amplitude and certainly nothing that even approached test limits to which we all subscribe. 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
    Time: 09:39:50 PM PST US
    From: "B Tomm" <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
    Subject: Radios OFF during startup
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "B Tomm" <fvalarm@rapidnet.net> Is it possible that the radio was somehow affected by a short duration "low" voltage as the engine drew massive current during start? Bevan -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alex Peterson Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 6:05 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Radios OFF during startup --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" --> <alexpeterson@earthlink.net> > > > >The rocket is teaching me lots of lessons. Like: Don't start > the engine > >with your radio on. I tried that last Sunday and was rewarded with a > >blank screen on the SL30. According to the helpful Garmin tech, the > >wiring in the radios will catch some, but not all voltage > spikes, fuses > >don't help and the radios should be kept off during startup. I must > >have been distracted by that Cessna . . . What evidence do you have that a voltage spike caused the failure? Could the thing simply have croaked? Alex Peterson RV6-A N66AP 750 hours Maple Grove, MN


    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
    Time: 10:07:03 PM PST US
    From: "B Tomm" <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
    Subject: Radios OFF during startup
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "B Tomm" <fvalarm@rapidnet.net> Does the user guide (for any Garmin or other) actually say to have them turned off during start? Bevan -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Alex Peterson Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 6:05 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Radios OFF during startup --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alex Peterson" --> <alexpeterson@earthlink.net> > > > >The rocket is teaching me lots of lessons. Like: Don't start > the engine > >with your radio on. I tried that last Sunday and was rewarded with a > >blank screen on the SL30. According to the helpful Garmin tech, the > >wiring in the radios will catch some, but not all voltage > spikes, fuses > >don't help and the radios should be kept off during startup. I must > >have been distracted by that Cessna . . . What evidence do you have that a voltage spike caused the failure? Could the thing simply have croaked? Alex Peterson RV6-A N66AP 750 hours Maple Grove, MN


    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
    Time: 11:15:37 PM PST US
    From: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com>
    Subject: Re: Radios OFF during startup
    --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan Checkoway" <dan@rvproject.com> > Is it possible that the radio was somehow affected by a short duration > "low" > voltage as the engine drew massive current during start? That's what my GX60 suffers from occasionally. I've never seen my SL30 go "blank" like the original poster mentioned, but my GX60 does from time to time. When it happens, the COMM portion is fully functional, I just don't see anything on screen. A quick off/on with the switch and it's back to normal (yes, it does a full reboot). On other occasions the GX60 will reboot during engine start. I always assumed it was the low voltage that caused this. I've heard other GX60 owners report similar behavior. Nothing else in the panel is affected, and no, I don't have an avionics master (my system is an older revision of Z-11). FWIW, I have a Sky-Tec LS starter. )_( Dan RV-7 N714D (851 hours) http://www.rvproject.com




    Other Matronics Email List Services

  • Post A New Message
  •   aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
  • UN/SUBSCRIBE
  •   http://www.matronics.com/subscription
  • List FAQ
  •   http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
  • Full Archive Search Engine
  •   http://www.matronics.com/search
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse AeroElectric-List Digests
  •   http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse Other Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse
  • Live Online Chat!
  •   http://www.matronics.com/chat
  • Archive Downloading
  •   http://www.matronics.com/archives
  • Photo Share
  •   http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
  • Other Email Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
  • Contributions
  •   http://www.matronics.com/contributions

    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! --