Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:39 AM - Battery location (Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR)
2. 06:48 AM - Re: Battery location (Ralph E. Capen)
3. 07:37 AM - Re: Help needed: continued strobe noise & (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 08:02 AM - Re: Help needed: continued strobe noise & (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 08:44 AM - Re: TKM MX 300 RADIO QUIRK (Brinker)
6. 11:05 AM - IMAGE SIZE (was:Re: Battery location) (Charlie England)
7. 11:05 AM - Re: Battery location (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
8. 11:19 AM - Washers for phone and mic jacks (Hopperdhh@aol.com)
9. 11:19 AM - Re: Electric failure (Tim Olson)
10. 11:47 AM - Re: IMAGE SIZE (was:Re: Battery location) (Harley)
11. 12:00 PM - Re: IMAGE SIZE (was:Re: Battery location) (Harley)
12. 12:01 PM - Re: Washers for phone and mic jacks (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 12:01 PM - Re: Help needed: continued strobe noise & (FLYaDIVE@aol.com)
14. 12:06 PM - Re: Washers for phone and mic jacks (John Schroeder)
15. 12:14 PM - Re: IMAGE SIZE (was:Re: Battery location) (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
16. 12:16 PM - Re: Washers for phone and mic jacks (Rogers, Bob J.)
17. 12:16 PM - Washers for phone and mic jacks (James H Nelson)
18. 12:19 PM - Re: Washers for phone and mic jacks (Richard Tasker)
19. 12:20 PM - Re: IMAGE SIZE (was:Re: Battery location) (James H Nelson)
20. 12:22 PM - Re: Washers for phone and mic jacks (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
21. 12:31 PM - Re: IMAGE SIZE (was:Re: Battery location) (Steve Thomas)
22. 01:10 PM - Re: IMAGE SIZE (was:Re: Battery location) (John W. Cox)
23. 01:49 PM - Re: IMAGE SIZE (was:Re: Battery location) (Jim Burley)
24. 02:00 PM - Re: SD-8 ALTERNATOR MOD FOR SELF EXCITATION (J. Mcculley)
25. 02:18 PM - Wild Blue (wasRe: IMAGE SIZE (was:Re: Battery location) ()
26. 05:21 PM - apologies one last time (RURUNY@aol.com)
27. 05:29 PM - Apologies (RURUNY@aol.com)
28. 07:04 PM - Re: IMAGE SIZE (was:Re: Battery location) (Tony Babb)
29. 08:32 PM - Re: IMAGE SIZE (was:Re: Battery location) (Charlie England)
30. 08:55 PM - Re: SD-8 ALTERNATOR MOD FOR SELF EXCITATION (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
31. 11:32 PM - Dynon D-10A AOA? ()
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: | Battery location |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR" <Fred.Stucklen@UTCPower.com>
Hi All,
I'm in the process of building an RV-7A with an IO-360 & constant speed
prop. I'm debating as to where to put the battery, on the firewall (P-680)
of in the baggage compartment. Where have others (with similar equipment)
put their batteries?
Fred Stucklen
RV-7A
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: Battery location |
Fred,
My 6A with AFP injected O360 & MT CS prop has an Odyssey (I think that's the same
battery) mounted on the aft side of the firewall right below the cutout pan.
My LASAR box sits firewall foreward approximately where the firewall foreward
kit would place the battery.
I know that some other things go there if you're building your 7A strictly according
to plans but I did mine before the firewall foreward kit came out and I'm
not unhappy about it. I'm putting my heater vents (two) on the outboard edges
of the firewall as I have two heater/mufflers on my vetterman crossover.
I've got more photos of it in it's place at home if you're interested.....I changed
the top restraining bar to a fore/aft from the port/starboard arrangement
as I wasn't sure about the clearance with the inboards of the rudder pedals.
The way mine is set up there are two nutplates at the lower corners of the attachment
angle that allow the battery box to 'hinge' aft for maintenance after loosening
them one turn and removing the two top bolts from their attaching nutplates.
The assembly is mounted just low enough to get the allen wrench in to
remove the battery cable attachment screws.
Ralph
-----Original Message-----
>From: "Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR" <Fred.Stucklen@UTCPower.com>
>Sent: Jul 21, 2006 8:30 AM
>To: "'aeroelectric-list@matronics.com'" <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Battery location
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR" <Fred.Stucklen@UTCPower.com>
>
>Hi All,
>
> I'm in the process of building an RV-7A with an IO-360 & constant speed
>prop. I'm debating as to where to put the battery, on the firewall (P-680)
>of in the baggage compartment. Where have others (with similar equipment)
>put their batteries?
>
>Fred Stucklen
>RV-7A
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Help needed: continued strobe noise & |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>As for Inductive / capacitive coupling. We are talking DC circuits with
>Noise in the AUDIO frequency range.
>As the saying goes: K.I.S.S. M.E. All this stuff about capacitive and
>inductive coupling is not an issue in a simple noise problem as we are
>discussing here. AND what the heck is "NON-MAGNETIC BRAID-TYPE
>SHIELDING"? Do you really expect people to go out looking for
>"mu-metal"? ALL the braid used on any electrical circuit on our planes is
>NONMAGNETIC ... It is made of COPPER WIRE. Copper is non magnetic the
>last time I checked. Again K.I.S.S. M.E. is the word of the day.
>
>Electronics is simple, it is really! All these boog-a-boo statements only
>confuses the non-electrical types amongst us. The only thing they need to
>know is how to remove the noise. Again that goes back to the basics of
>noise, and breaking it down into DC and AC ... AC goes one step further
>(Audio Frequencies [AF] and Radio Frequencies [RF]).
>Basics:
>AF Noise - Shield and Ground at the source [This is why the Mic & Phone
>lines use insulating washers at the jacks and ground at the audio panel or
>radios.]
>RF Noise - Shield and Ground at both ends. [Here is where exceptions come
>into play - Some times the grounding is done through a capacitor. BUT we
>are dealing with AF Noise not RF so I'm not going to try to confuse people
>out there.]
>Let the manufacture of the wire worry about resistance of 1000 Ft and the
>capacitive coupling / inductive coupling at AF & RF. The ONLY thing that
>would be of interest to our noise plagued brevien is the Percentage of
>Braid. You did not say anything about that! Yet again as long as you use
>Mil-Spec wire the percentage of braid is acceptable and again our brevien
>does not have to be concerned.
>
>As for the Separation of wires .... I did address that with my very first
>statement to Lucky; read above.
>
>I would suggest that all the AF noise (strobe noise) we are discussing be
>approached as I described AND then if the noise still exists just add
>another ground t=at the other end of the shield. It is MUCH easier to ADD
>a ground than to remove a ground.
The usefulness of shielding for wires is limited
and there are no fixed rules for grounding this end
or grounding that end. Further, shielding is a poor
substitute for internal filtering when radio frequencies
are involved.
Percentage of braid is an exceedingly tiny concern
and the use of "mil spec" wire is not a golden recipe
for success. If one has a noise problem the first
task is to properly identify the noise source and the
nature of the noise. The the game of Clue is played
to deduce the propagation mode. Fortunately with
strobe systems, millions have been installed in as
many vehicles with no noise issues. Similarly, thousands
of system with noise issues have been successfully
solved by application of very simple techniques . . .
techniques that almost never involve departure from the installation
instructions. If a noise problem is EVER mitigated by the
repositioning of wires, this is prima facie evidence of
a core problem wherein repositioning of wires only makes
the symptoms go away and does nothing to fix the real
issue. Similarly, if a system that has worked successfully
in many other installations suddenly seems to benefit from the
addition of wire shields, that too is only an aspirin on
the hurt that does not cure the infection.
In my whole career, I've never found it useful to add
shielding or to reposition equipment or its wiring as
a means for improving performance. If the original
poster of the problem can describe the results of any
experiments described in the 'Connection (or elsewhere)
to identify the propagation mode, then remedies are
readily at-hand to break that mode.
Bob . . .
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: Help needed: continued strobe noise & |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 01:54 AM 7/16/2006 +0000, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: luckymacy@comcast.net (lucky)
>
>I have two "comm" issues that I haven't been able to debug to completion
>yet. I'm using an Xcom 760 radio with their pre-made harness.
>
>1) I still hear my strobes in my headset even when they are grounded with
>the radio ground and even when I put power noise filters on. However, the
>Radio Shack noise filters reference on Bob's web site were reported to me
>to be no longer carried by them. So I used the only ones I could find
>locally which were sold by Pep Boys and the capacitor was 4700 uF instead
>of 2200 uF like Radio Shack apparently was.
Okay, I found the data I was looking for in my post of
a few minutes ago.
>More specifically, the strobe noise is relatively faint until I select the
>Push to Talk button. Then it gets pretty loud. Some feedback going on
>there. Looking for ideas from this list.
Have you tried operating strobes from a separate
battery? What is the nature of the noise you are hearing?
"POP" or "whine"?
>Should the capacitor specs have made a big difference on the effectiveness
>overall of the noise filter? It made no measurable difference regardless
>of whether I installed it just before the radio or out at the strobe's
>power supply just before the AC +14v entered the power supply. I even
>reversed direction of the filter and it didn't matter one iota. Really
>bummed out about this turn of events since I thought they'd at least have
>made some observable difference based upon stuff in the archives.
Your shooting in the dark. The task is to identify
the propagation mode and THEN go after the fix.
>2) The second overall problem is that the radio still is reported to me
>by other pilots as weak when I get much beyond a couple of miles and
>breaks up in the pattern a lot. I'm guessing it's because I can't put out
>enough consistent power to break their squelch consistently. When on the
>actual ground taxiing around, if there's a crown or "hill" between me and
>another airplane on the ground forget it. They can't hear me or vice a versa.
>
>When I check my radio with a handheld on the ground I seem to be just fine
>for the relatively close distances I've tried even when the plane is
>inside an open hangar and come in just as loud on the hand held as anyone
>else is. It also doesn't matter whether or not the strobes are powered on
>or not as far as whether or not the range/strength improves. ie, even
>with them off the lack of range doesn't improve.
>
>I swapped the cable between the radio and the antenna and it made no
>difference. I bought my antenna from Van's but didn't do any kind of
>post install test besides checking it out with my comm radio and a hand
>held and it seemed fine at the time...
>
>Instead of using RG-58 I bought two pre-made RG-400 cables. What should
>the center conductor's resistance read end to end? ~58 Ohms, right? My
>actual reading bounces all over the place no matter how stable I am in
>trying to read it. Strange. Also, there doesn't seem to be a short
>between the center conductor and the plug itself when I check it with a
>multimeter so I'm guessing the plugs were installed correctly.
>
>Things I have left to try is just buy a pre-made 12' RG-58 cable from
>radio shack and try it instead of the RG-400 cables. Also, I don't have a
>spare comm antenna but I think RS carries a replacement 800 Mhz scanner
>antenna with the right BNC connector that I can just temporarily use just
>to see if makes any difference at all.
>
>Any ideas from the list?
What you're suffering from is a huge lack of data. A wise
fellow once noted . . .
"I often say that when you can measure what
you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know
something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when
you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre
and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge,
but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state
of Science, whatever the matter may be. - Lord Kelvin"
Your cited symptoms suggest low output power output. Get a
wattmeter from a local two-way or avionics shop and MEASURE
your radio's power output as-installed in the airplane.
Measure it first with a dummy load . . . see:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/Bird_43.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Tools/DummyLoad.jpg
then measure power output and MEASURE SWR with the antenna
connected.
Once you have the data from this exercise, we're then
in a position give you good advice.
I fully understand the difficulties of the task. One of
the hardest things to do is get somebody to load/rent
their tools. However, failing to apply the optimum tool
oft leads to hours of experiments that gather no
measurements that demonstrate movements toward or away
from success. Lord Kelvin had it down pat.
Bob . . .
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: TKM MX 300 RADIO QUIRK |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
Thanks Barry that makes sense, I will pass the info on.
Randy
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 12:32 AM
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 7/17/06 3:22:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> brinker@cox-internet.com writes:
>
>> I have a friend with a TKM mx300 radio that has a strange problem.
>> He cannot hear KLIT approach on one of thier frequencies but he can
>> talk to them. He can hear other planes around him and talk to other
>> planes
>> on that frequency. He can change over to the other approach frequency
>> and
> he
>>
>> can hear and talk just fine to control. This has happened to him twice.
>> I
>> his radio possesed ? Can it be excersied ?
>>
>> Randy
> ==================================================
> Randy:
>
> This sound more like an ATC problem than his problem.
>
> I fly through PHY airspace a lot and there are areas where they can hear
> me
> well, but I cannot hear them. I request a different frequency or they do
> a
> dual transmission on two frequencies at the same time and problem solved.
>
> Not My Problem!
>
> Barry
> "Chop'd Liver"
>
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Battery location) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
On behalf of all of us who can't get broadband internet service, I'd
like to ask that if you attach photos, please reduce the image size
before sending them. I know that if you have broadband, you might not
realize the problems that large attachments cause the 'rest of us', so I
offer the following:
The last two messages with images attached were almost 2 megabytes each.
Each message took almost 20 minutes to download on my very slow dialup
connection. That meant that my phone line was tied up for almost an hour
to get 2 messages, & no other messages can be received until the huge
attachment completes its download.
Image size can be reduced using many different software packages, and
many free ones are available if you don't want to purchase one. The
easiest to use that I have found (for Windoze) can be downloaded at
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx
Scroll down & look for 'image resizer'.
Download it & install it (you won't see any new icons on your desktop).
When you need to email a photo to one of these lists, first locate the
photo file using whatever file search program you are comfortable with.
Point at the file with the mouse & right click. The popup menu will
offer a new selection: 'resize pictures'. Click on that option & it will
offer several size options. (The smallest is plenty good enough for
email & screen viewing.) Click on the size you desire & the program will
automagically create a reduced-size copy of the image with the word
'small' added to the file name. It will typically be about 1/10 the file
size of the original but will still be high enough resolution to view on
a monitor (& it will all fit on the screen at once).
Lest you think I'm a lone, too-frugal voice crying in the wilderness,
consider that around 1/2 the people who use the internet here in the
grand old USofA cannot get DSL or cable internet. I'd gladly pay for
broadband (I've begged the phone company to supply it for years) but I
cannot get it here, 10 miles from a city & 4.5 miles from a smaller
community that *does* have DSL.
I know that there are those who will tell me to use a web based email
client & delete the big emails before download. Please save the effort;
I've tried them & they are *much* slower than traditional clients & make
the entire email experience torture. Besides, I'd like to see the
photos. I just don't want to tie up my phone line for an hour to see
each picture. :-)
Thanks for listening & I hope this post will be seen as constructive
suggestion rather that just another complaint.
Charlie
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: Battery location |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Hopperdhh@aol.com
Fred,
I went through this same dilemma a couple of years ago. I ended up putting
the Odyssey battery on the firewall in the standard location. Its not worth
the extra weight and hassle of running the cables to aft mount it. This
battery is very light and amazingly powerful.
My CG is somewhat forward, but that means that baggage cannot cause it to go
too far aft. The plane flies great. There is no problem in the flare. I
debated adding 10 pounds to the tail to center up the CG, but it has not been
necessary.
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
IO-360-A1D6
In a message dated 7/21/2006 8:42:35 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
Fred.Stucklen@UTCPower.com writes:
Hi All,
I'm in the process of building an RV-7A with an IO-360 & constant speed
prop. I'm debating as to where to put the battery, on the firewall (P-680)
of in the baggage compartment. Where have others (with similar equipment)
put their batteries?
Fred Stucklen
RV-7A
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: | Washers for phone and mic jacks |
Where can I find insulating shoulder washers for mounting phone and mic
jacks to the panel? I am looking for washers for about 1/2 inch hole in the
panel, with 3/8 inch hole for the jacks.
I have already tried my drawer of fibre washers, but could only find 3. I
need 8.
do not archive
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Electric failure |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Jeff, I don't know if I showed you much of this on the
demo flight, but that chelton system does all of this, and
very well. Hit NRST, and the you can choose from a whole
long list of things, so you've always got the nearest
frequencies, airports, VOR's, WX, and much more, just on
a quick button push. Very neat stuff.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Jeffery J. Morgan wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeffery J. Morgan" <jmorgan@compnetconcepts.com>
>
> As for some of the points I have read over the past few days, I think
> that there is merit in many of them. I think we could discuss all of
> them at length. The interfaces on the systems are very different, each
> with strong points and weak points. I think that I have often thought is
> that the radio should have the closest frequencies in a list off the
> tuning button as I fly along. I think it would be great to punch a
> button and have a list of the closest ATIS or AWOS stations from my
> position with a distance and bearing. Same for VORs. On the Garmin's
> you can go to the nearest page and select, but it is a lot of dialing to
> get there. With VOR's it isn't like I am going to dial much else in the
> NAV radio. If I were 5000' or less, a list of airport CTAF or ATC
> controlling facilities on the standby list would be helpful too.
> Imagine hitting a button on the radio, and scroll though a list with the
> frequency, definition, and direction right on the screen, with the
> closest ones first... There is a feature that would lighten pilot loads
> in difficult times. But all that said, maybe Brian would want it
> differently than that. Never would claim that I am normal by any means.
> I am building an airplane after all. :)
>
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: Battery location) |
Afternoon, Charlie, and everyone...
>>I'm a lone, too-frugal voice crying in the wilderness<<
Not at all, Charlie! And I HAVE a DSL line! Files that large also
cause problems for those of us with broadband. They eat up precious
hard drive space, and when viewing them in the email, the entire picture
doesn't fit on the screen, so we have to scroll to see it all, or reduce
it ourselves.
A friend of mine won't even wait for a file to download if it takes more
than 30 seconds...she just deletes them...and good for her!
When sending email photos (or any photo intended to view only on a
monitor...and that includes a television set which has a lower
resolution than most computer monitors these days), everyone should
remember that your computer monitor is only 96 dots per inch (dpi)
regardless of how many pixels high and wide they advertise, and can show
a picture only about 5 inches by 6 inches at that resolution ...and that
will fill the window! I try to keep any photos I send to about 4 inches
on any one side, at 96 dpi. Remember, the picture can only use your
monitor's resolution of 96 dpi, so it throws away any pixels that it
can't use to make the image fit your monitor...so why not do the same
thing BEFORE you send it, and save everyone a lot of grief.
The cameras that you can buy today produce photos that are tremendously
larger, but that is so they can PRINT poster sized photos. To display
properly on a monitor (and not make enemies) they MUST be reduced both
in resolution and physical size and then compressed with jpeg when saved.
After reducing the picture's resolution and physical size, save it as a
jpeg file about 40% compression...you won't see much of a difference, if
any. The software you use will explain how to do this. Personally, I
recommend the freeware, Irfanview ( www.irfanview.com). Does more than
many of the professional programs can, and also allows viewing some
audio and video files. And did I mention...it's FREE!
If any photo I send is bigger than about 40kb, I feel I haven't done my
job right.
For example:
This picture was emailed to me at 925 MB (saving as a JPEG compressed
the file size a lot, but the photo was still so big that less than a
third of it fit on my screen.)
I changed the resolution to 96 DPI (the resolution of most monitors)
then looked at the actual picture size. It was 21 inches by 16 inches!
WAY to big for any email program. So, I reduced it 75% (to 25% of the
original) and saved it as a jpeg with 40% compression...sounds like a
lot of work, but only took about four mouse clicks, and typing in the
"25" to reduce it...a couple more to save it. This is what it looks like
now...and only 40.2 kb!
That's Joe Person EZE, BTW...Thanks for the demo photo, Joe.<G>
Harley Dixon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie England wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England
> <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
>
> On behalf of all of us who can't get broadband internet service, I'd
> like to ask that if you attach photos, please reduce the image size
> before sending them. I know that if you have broadband, you might not
> realize the problems that large attachments cause the 'rest of us', so
> I offer the following:
>
> The last two messages with images attached were almost 2 megabytes
> each. Each message took almost 20 minutes to download on my very slow
> dialup connection. That meant that my phone line was tied up for
> almost an hour to get 2 messages, & no other messages can be received
> until the huge attachment completes its download.
>
> Image size can be reduced using many different software packages, and
> many free ones are available if you don't want to purchase one. The
> easiest to use that I have found (for Windoze) can be downloaded at
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx
>
> Scroll down & look for 'image resizer'.
>
> Download it & install it (you won't see any new icons on your
> desktop). When you need to email a photo to one of these lists, first
> locate the photo file using whatever file search program you are
> comfortable with. Point at the file with the mouse & right click. The
> popup menu will offer a new selection: 'resize pictures'. Click on
> that option & it will offer several size options. (The smallest is
> plenty good enough for email & screen viewing.) Click on the size you
> desire & the program will automagically create a reduced-size copy of
> the image with the word 'small' added to the file name. It will
> typically be about 1/10 the file size of the original but will still
> be high enough resolution to view on a monitor (& it will all fit on
> the screen at once).
>
> Lest you think I'm a lone, too-frugal voice crying in the wilderness,
> consider that around 1/2 the people who use the internet here in the
> grand old USofA cannot get DSL or cable internet. I'd gladly pay for
> broadband (I've begged the phone company to supply it for years) but I
> cannot get it here, 10 miles from a city & 4.5 miles from a smaller
> community that *does* have DSL.
>
> I know that there are those who will tell me to use a web based email
> client & delete the big emails before download. Please save the
> effort; I've tried them & they are *much* slower than traditional
> clients & make the entire email experience torture. Besides, I'd like
> to see the photos. I just don't want to tie up my phone line for an
> hour to see each picture. :-)
>
> Thanks for listening & I hope this post will be seen as constructive
> suggestion rather that just another complaint.
>
> Charlie
>
>
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: Battery location) |
Oops....typo!
>> This picture was emailed to me at 925 MB<<
925 KB...
Sorry...
Harley
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harley wrote:
> Afternoon, Charlie, and everyone...
>
> >>I'm a lone, too-frugal voice crying in the wilderness<<
>
> Not at all, Charlie! And I HAVE a DSL line! Files that large also
> cause problems for those of us with broadband. They eat up precious
> hard drive space, and when viewing them in the email, the entire
> picture doesn't fit on the screen, so we have to scroll to see it all,
> or reduce it ourselves.
>
> A friend of mine won't even wait for a file to download if it takes
> more than 30 seconds...she just deletes them...and good for her!
>
> When sending email photos (or any photo intended to view only on a
> monitor...and that includes a television set which has a lower
> resolution than most computer monitors these days), everyone should
> remember that your computer monitor is only 96 dots per inch (dpi)
> regardless of how many pixels high and wide they advertise, and can
> show a picture only about 5 inches by 6 inches at that resolution
> ...and that will fill the window! I try to keep any photos I send to
> about 4 inches on any one side, at 96 dpi. Remember, the picture can
> only use your monitor's resolution of 96 dpi, so it throws away any
> pixels that it can't use to make the image fit your monitor...so why
> not do the same thing BEFORE you send it, and save everyone a lot of
> grief.
>
> The cameras that you can buy today produce photos that are
> tremendously larger, but that is so they can PRINT poster sized
> photos. To display properly on a monitor (and not make enemies) they
> MUST be reduced both in resolution and physical size and then
> compressed with jpeg when saved.
>
> After reducing the picture's resolution and physical size, save it as
> a jpeg file about 40% compression...you won't see much of a
> difference, if any. The software you use will explain how to do this.
> Personally, I recommend the freeware, Irfanview ( www.irfanview.com).
> Does more than many of the professional programs can, and also allows
> viewing some audio and video files. And did I mention...it's FREE!
>
> If any photo I send is bigger than about 40kb, I feel I haven't done
> my job right.
>
> For example:
>
> This picture was emailed to me at 925 MB (saving as a JPEG compressed
> the file size a lot, but the photo was still so big that less than a
> third of it fit on my screen.)
>
>>
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: Washers for phone and mic jacks |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
See:
http://bandc.biz
At 02:16 PM 7/21/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>Where can I find insulating shoulder washers for mounting phone and mic
>jacks to the panel? I am looking for washers for about 1/2 inch hole in
>the panel, with 3/8 inch hole for the jacks.
>
>I have already tried my drawer of fibre washers, but could only find 3. I
>need 8.
>
>do not archive
>
>Dan Hopper
>RV-7A
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: Help needed: continued strobe noise & |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
In a message dated 7/21/06 10:42:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
nuckollsr@cox.net writes:
> The usefulness of shielding for wires is limited
> and there are no fixed rules for grounding this end
> or grounding that end. Further, shielding is a poor
> substitute for internal filtering when radio frequencies
> are involved.
>
> Percentage of braid is an exceedingly tiny concern
> and the use of "mil spec" wire is not a golden recipe
> for success. If one has a noise problem the first
> task is to properly identify the noise source and the
> nature of the noise. The the game of Clue is played
> to deduce the propagation mode. Fortunately with
> strobe systems, millions have been installed in as
> many vehicles with no noise issues. Similarly, thousands
> of system with noise issues have been successfully
> solved by application of very simple techniques . . .
> techniques that almost never involve departure from the installation
> instructions. If a noise problem is EVER mitigated by the
> repositioning of wires, this is prima facie evidence of
> a core problem wherein repositioning of wires only makes
> the symptoms go away and does nothing to fix the real
> issue. Similarly, if a system that has worked successfully
> in many other installations suddenly seems to benefit from the
> addition of wire shields, that too is only an aspirin on
> the hurt that does not cure the infection.
>
> In my whole career, I've never found it useful to add
> shielding or to reposition equipment or its wiring as
> a means for improving performance. If the original
> poster of the problem can describe the results of any
> experiments described in the 'Connection (or elsewhere)
> to identify the propagation mode, then remedies are
> readily at-hand to break that mode.
>
> Bob . . .
>
===============================
Thank you Bob!
That is exactly what I said. As the saying goes you do not have to reinvent
the wheel.
Start with the basics and work from there. The original post by this fellow
contained information that he tried to obtain the Radio Shack noise filter ...
And I must say they surely do work. He did not have success getting it but
did obtain a second brand. He did not have any luck with that filter. What
should he do? Start with the basics and work from there.
I have found just the opposite from you ... I have done at least 4 planes
where repositioning the wires and/or running shielded wire have made a great
improvement, or totally eliminated the problem. Other things I do after the
basics are Filters, Tolroid Cores, Feed Through Capacitors, Capacitors to Ground
and Shorten wire leads. Sometimes one arrow does not kill the Sphinx. And I
still have not used all my arrows. One step at a time, starting with the basics
as you said... Good installation practices.
I have always said ... YELLED about improving GROUNDS and connections. Ya
gots ta start somewhere ... Starts wit da basics.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Actually I thought this issue was dead ... Well, at least the horse did not
move.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Washers for phone and mic jacks |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
B&C has them.
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 14:16:06 EDT, <Hopperdhh@aol.com> wrote:
> Where can I find insulating shoulder washers for mounting phone and mic
> jacks to the panel?
--
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: Battery location) |
In a message dated 7/21/06 1:10:34 PM Central Daylight Time,
ceengland@bellsouth.net writes:
> you might not
> realize the problems that large attachments cause the 'rest of us'
>>>
Thanks Charlie- I agree! Another option is to ask if anyone wants a big foto
to just ask off-line. Perhaps Matt could filter out messages above a certain
size, say 100-150K? This would still allow fotos plenty big for most screens
anyway...
Mark Phillips, out in the sticks of TN
The "Slow One" (dial-up, that is!)
do not archive
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: | Washers for phone and mic jacks |
You can get them from B&C Specialty for 50 cents per pack. It is item
S892, shown at the bottom of this page.
http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?24X358218#s892
________________________________
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Hopperdhh@aol.com
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 1:16 PM
Where can I find insulating shoulder washers for mounting phone and mic
jacks to the panel? I am looking for washers for about 1/2 inch hole in
the panel, with 3/8 inch hole for the jacks.
I have already tried my drawer of fibre washers, but could only find 3.
I need 8.
do not archive
Dan Hopper
RV-7A
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: | Washers for phone and mic jacks |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: James H Nelson <rv9jim@juno.com>
Try B&C Specialty Products. These are good people and will help you .
Altho, I think they are on the road at "O" dark thirty tomorrow. (on
the way to the big "O")
Jim
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: Washers for phone and mic jacks |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Richard Tasker <retasker@optonline.net>
www.Steinair.com
Dick Tasker
Hopperdhh@aol.com wrote:
> Where can I find insulating shoulder washers for mounting phone and
> mic jacks to the panel? I am looking for washers for about 1/2 inch
> hole in the panel, with 3/8 inch hole for the jacks.
>
> I have already tried my drawer of fibre washers, but could only find
> 3. I need 8.
>
> do not archive
>
> Dan Hopper
> RV-7A
>
>
>
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: Battery location) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: James H Nelson <rv9jim@juno.com>
Hi Charley,
I had the same complaint as I live in a big city with DSL and did
not think(?) about the problem. If we just use the lowest resolution on
our digital cameras, the problem goes away. Since I use my camera
almost exclusively on my project, its a no brainer.
Jim
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Washers for phone and mic jacks |
Go to bandc.biz, products, and search for S892. Fifty cents a set (one hole)
Mark
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Battery location) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Thomas <lists@stevet.net>
There are other alternatives. You can get satellite broadband and
there are many communities that are too small for the "big guns" like
cable and DSL where you can get high-speed wireless service.
Best Regards,
Steve Thomas
SteveT.Net
805-569-0336 Office
________________________________________________________________________
On Jul 21, 2006, at 11:00 AM, Charlie England wrote:
> Lest you think I'm a lone, too-frugal voice crying in the
> wilderness, consider that around 1/2 the people who use the
> internet here in the grand old USofA cannot get DSL or cable
> internet. I'd gladly pay for broadband (I've begged the phone
> company to supply it for years) but I cannot get it here, 10 miles
> from a city & 4.5 miles from a smaller community that *does* have DSL.
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Battery location) |
Research "Wild Blue" who is going in partnership with DishNetworks.
Terrestrial Satellite Bandwidth at about $60.00 a month and no more size
reduction to fit 1990 technology. The download speed is amazing.
Uploading large files is a different story.
John Cox
________________________________
England
Sent: Fri 7/21/2006 11:00 AM
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England
<ceengland@bellsouth.net>
On behalf of all of us who can't get broadband internet service, I'd
like to ask that if you attach photos, please reduce the image size
before sending them. I know that if you have broadband, you might not
realize the problems that large attachments cause the 'rest of us', so I
offer the following:
The last two messages with images attached were almost 2 megabytes each.
Each message took almost 20 minutes to download on my very slow dialup
connection. That meant that my phone line was tied up for almost an hour
to get 2 messages, & no other messages can be received until the huge
attachment completes its download.
Image size can be reduced using many different software packages, and
many free ones are available if you don't want to purchase one. The
easiest to use that I have found (for Windoze) can be downloaded at
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx
Scroll down & look for 'image resizer'.
Download it & install it (you won't see any new icons on your desktop).
When you need to email a photo to one of these lists, first locate the
photo file using whatever file search program you are comfortable with.
Point at the file with the mouse & right click. The popup menu will
offer a new selection: 'resize pictures'. Click on that option & it will
offer several size options. (The smallest is plenty good enough for
email & screen viewing.) Click on the size you desire & the program will
automagically create a reduced-size copy of the image with the word
'small' added to the file name. It will typically be about 1/10 the file
size of the original but will still be high enough resolution to view on
a monitor (& it will all fit on the screen at once).
Lest you think I'm a lone, too-frugal voice crying in the wilderness,
consider that around 1/2 the people who use the internet here in the
grand old USofA cannot get DSL or cable internet. I'd gladly pay for
broadband (I've begged the phone company to supply it for years) but I
cannot get it here, 10 miles from a city & 4.5 miles from a smaller
community that *does* have DSL.
I know that there are those who will tell me to use a web based email
client & delete the big emails before download. Please save the effort;
I've tried them & they are *much* slower than traditional clients & make
the entire email experience torture. Besides, I'd like to see the
photos. I just don't want to tie up my phone line for an hour to see
each picture. :-)
Thanks for listening & I hope this post will be seen as constructive
suggestion rather that just another complaint.
Charlie
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Battery location) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Burley <j.r.burley@larc.nasa.gov>
Another approach is to configure your email program to NOT download
attachments automatically. Then based on the content of the email,
go back and download the attachment only when desired. Every email
program I am familiar with has this capability. I use to do this all
the time to save bandwidth back when I had a dial-up connection.
Jim Burley
do not archive
On Jul 21, 2006, at 4:04 PM, John W. Cox wrote:
> Research "Wild Blue" who is going in partnership with
> DishNetworks. Terrestrial Satellite Bandwidth at about $60.00 a
> month and no more size reduction to fit 1990 technology. The
> download speed is amazing. Uploading large files is a different
> story.
>
> John Cox
>
> ________________________________
>
> England
> Sent: Fri 7/21/2006 11:00 AM
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England
> <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
>
> On behalf of all of us who can't get broadband internet service, I'd
> like to ask that if you attach photos, please reduce the image size
> before sending them. I know that if you have broadband, you might not
> realize the problems that large attachments cause the 'rest of us',
> so I
> offer the following:
>
> The last two messages with images attached were almost 2 megabytes
> each.
> Each message took almost 20 minutes to download on my very slow dialup
> connection. That meant that my phone line was tied up for almost an
> hour
> to get 2 messages, & no other messages can be received until the huge
> attachment completes its download.
>
> Image size can be reduced using many different software packages, and
> many free ones are available if you don't want to purchase one. The
> easiest to use that I have found (for Windoze) can be downloaded at
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/
> xppowertoys.mspx
>
> Scroll down & look for 'image resizer'.
>
> Download it & install it (you won't see any new icons on your
> desktop).
> When you need to email a photo to one of these lists, first locate the
> photo file using whatever file search program you are comfortable
> with.
> Point at the file with the mouse & right click. The popup menu will
> offer a new selection: 'resize pictures'. Click on that option & it
> will
> offer several size options. (The smallest is plenty good enough for
> email & screen viewing.) Click on the size you desire & the program
> will
> automagically create a reduced-size copy of the image with the word
> 'small' added to the file name. It will typically be about 1/10 the
> file
> size of the original but will still be high enough resolution to
> view on
> a monitor (& it will all fit on the screen at once).
>
> Lest you think I'm a lone, too-frugal voice crying in the wilderness,
> consider that around 1/2 the people who use the internet here in the
> grand old USofA cannot get DSL or cable internet. I'd gladly pay for
> broadband (I've begged the phone company to supply it for years) but I
> cannot get it here, 10 miles from a city & 4.5 miles from a smaller
> community that *does* have DSL.
>
> I know that there are those who will tell me to use a web based email
> client & delete the big emails before download. Please save the
> effort;
> I've tried them & they are *much* slower than traditional clients &
> make
> the entire email experience torture. Besides, I'd like to see the
> photos. I just don't want to tie up my phone line for an hour to see
> each picture. :-)
>
> Thanks for listening & I hope this post will be seen as constructive
> suggestion rather that just another complaint.
>
> Charlie
>
>
> ===================================
> ===================================
> ===================================
> ===================================
>
>
> <winmail.dat>
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: SD-8 ALTERNATOR MOD FOR SELF EXCITATION |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "J. Mcculley" <mcculleyja@starpower.net>
Bob,
Thanks to you for putting together this final product. I am happy that
you were pleased with my help in conducting the experiment.
I'm puzzled, however, by the values of the resistors you listed on the
updated Z-25 drawing. In my message of 5/6/2006, I reported that I found
it necessary to use 15k ohm resistance in series with the added diodes
to avoid the voltage across the capacitor rising above 16 volts while
the SD-8 was not switched onto the buss during maximum RPM.
Also, in my 6/19/2006 message the operating data was acquired while
using 15k resistance in series with the diodes and 3k resistance across
the capacitor. The overall performance and reliability of coming on-line
under all realistic RPM conditions seemed ideal--or did I miss something?
Did you find the lower resistance values of 3k and 1k, respectively,
necessary for overall better functioning? Just curious.
Jim McCulley
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>
> Thanks to the diligence of Jim McCulley we've tried a
> modification to SD-8 alternator installations that
> appears to be a good solution for getting the SD-8
> to self excite. See revision L to Figure Z-25
> at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdf/Z25L.pdf
>
> The Autocad version is at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/ACAD_Architecture_Dwgs/Z24-25L.dwg
>
> It's also been added to Appendix Z which steps the chapter up
> to Revison J at:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/AppZ_R11J.pdf
>
> See Note 25 and Figure Z-25
>
> When I get time, I'll update all the other z-figures that use
> an SD-8 to include the self-excitation feature.
>
> Thanks again Jim!
>
> Bob . . .
>
> -----------------------------------------
> ( Experience and common sense cannot be )
> ( replaced with policy and procedures. )
> ( R. L. Nuckolls III )
> -----------------------------------------
>
>
>
> 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 >
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Battery location) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <brianpublic2@starband.net>
I am currently with Starband and HATE them, but I have no other choice
where i live. I sent WildBlue an email asking about switching from
Starband to Wild Blue, and it took them weeks to reply. Their product is
no better than Starband's, and neither is their customer service.
Also, dont be fooled by the "download speeds". As someone who has lived
with Starband for many years, I can tell you it is not what it sems to be.
Yes, technically it is a high speed download, but after you figure in the
latency for the signal to travel tens of thousands of miles, the "seat of
the pants" browsing is SLOWER than dialup.
You click and wait. Then you get a partial burst, then you wait. Then
another partial burst, then wait. Sometimes the page never finishes
loading. If you dont get the page in about 15 seconds, you aren't going
to tget it, and you need to hit refresh. Some sites, ebay in particular
for some unknown reason, require you to hit refresh over and over to get
the page ot load. Sometimes they NEVER finish loading, sometimes it takes
MANY refreshes to get it to come in.
Want peer-to-peer sharing? Forget it. Want VPN? Forget it. Want to
use a router to share the connection? Forget it. Download a lot?
You'll be throttled back if you hit their quotas.
> Research "Wild Blue" who is going in partnership with DishNetworks.
> Terrestrial Satellite Bandwidth at about $60.00 a month and no more size
> reduction to fit 1990 technology. The download speed is amazing.
> Uploading large files is a different story.
>
> John Cox
>
> ________________________________
>
> England
> Sent: Fri 7/21/2006 11:00 AM
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England
> <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
>
> On behalf of all of us who can't get broadband internet service, I'd
> like to ask that if you attach photos, please reduce the image size
> before sending them. I know that if you have broadband, you might not
> realize the problems that large attachments cause the 'rest of us', so I
> offer the following:
>
> The last two messages with images attached were almost 2 megabytes each.
> Each message took almost 20 minutes to download on my very slow dialup
> connection. That meant that my phone line was tied up for almost an hour
> to get 2 messages, & no other messages can be received until the huge
> attachment completes its download.
>
> Image size can be reduced using many different software packages, and
> many free ones are available if you don't want to purchase one. The
> easiest to use that I have found (for Windoze) can be downloaded at
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx
>
> Scroll down & look for 'image resizer'.
>
> Download it & install it (you won't see any new icons on your desktop).
> When you need to email a photo to one of these lists, first locate the
> photo file using whatever file search program you are comfortable with.
> Point at the file with the mouse & right click. The popup menu will
> offer a new selection: 'resize pictures'. Click on that option & it will
> offer several size options. (The smallest is plenty good enough for
> email & screen viewing.) Click on the size you desire & the program will
> automagically create a reduced-size copy of the image with the word
> 'small' added to the file name. It will typically be about 1/10 the file
> size of the original but will still be high enough resolution to view on
> a monitor (& it will all fit on the screen at once).
>
> Lest you think I'm a lone, too-frugal voice crying in the wilderness,
> consider that around 1/2 the people who use the internet here in the
> grand old USofA cannot get DSL or cable internet. I'd gladly pay for
> broadband (I've begged the phone company to supply it for years) but I
> cannot get it here, 10 miles from a city & 4.5 miles from a smaller
> community that *does* have DSL.
>
> I know that there are those who will tell me to use a web based email
> client & delete the big emails before download. Please save the effort;
> I've tried them & they are *much* slower than traditional clients & make
> the entire email experience torture. Besides, I'd like to see the
> photos. I just don't want to tie up my phone line for an hour to see
> each picture. :-)
>
> Thanks for listening & I hope this post will be seen as constructive
> suggestion rather that just another complaint.
>
> Charlie
>
>
> ================================================================================================================================
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | apologies one last time |
Sorry, that last message was for the Zenith list. I do apologise to you guys
anyway.
I need a vacation!!
Brian
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Guys,
Sorry about the Images sent last night, nothing malicious was intended, the
13MB was a zip file of pictures only meant for Keith off list, some how I got
my write mail windows mixed up
and it went to the list and Keith. I have taken the advice of Rich Hartwig
and installed the
microsoft program to quickly shrink and resave the pics. No excuses, I
screwed up and it won't happen again. Of all places I found the link for the
program in the guidelines set up by Matt for the list.
I have to say thanks to all who are understanding and forgiving of a screwup
like this.
I've been posting to the list since 2002 and received help from just about
all of you from all
over the world for my project, even obtaining custom parts to make it that
much better. I went from asking lots of questions to trying to give help to who
needs it, as I got into the later building stages. I do feel like I know
many of you but have never met any of you. I always
look forward to checking posts on this list. Anyway, if you are lurking on
this list and have
some good advice or a great pic don't hesitate to share it. The ability to
attach pics of your
work instead of posting them on a photoshare is a leap forward for this
list. I'll make sure
it will get done right from now on.
Brian
Long Island, NY 701 90%
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Battery location) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tony Babb" <tonybabb@alejandra.net>
Most users now have broadband (high speed) internet access. There comes a
point when you have to stop supporting older technology (as Microsoft
announced recently for Win 98). I have a lot of sympathy for those still on
dial-up and strongly endorse the suggestion below for those unable to use
broadband. In fact that's what I did when I used dial-up working from home
about 9 years ago - I also had a dedicated phone line permanently connected
to my office servers that just downloaded mail and database updates all at
22kbps 24 hours a day. It was painful but worked until broadband became
available.
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Burley
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 1:46 PM
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jim Burley
--> <j.r.burley@larc.nasa.gov>
Another approach is to configure your email program to NOT download
attachments automatically. Then based on the content of the email,
go back and download the attachment only when desired. Every email
program I am familiar with has this capability. I use to do this all
the time to save bandwidth back when I had a dial-up connection.
Jim Burley
do not archive
On Jul 21, 2006, at 4:04 PM, John W. Cox wrote:
> Research "Wild Blue" who is going in partnership with
> DishNetworks. Terrestrial Satellite Bandwidth at about $60.00 a
> month and no more size reduction to fit 1990 technology. The
> download speed is amazing. Uploading large files is a different
> story.
>
> John Cox
>
> ________________________________
>
> England
> Sent: Fri 7/21/2006 11:00 AM
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England
> <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
>
> On behalf of all of us who can't get broadband internet service, I'd
> like to ask that if you attach photos, please reduce the image size
> before sending them. I know that if you have broadband, you might not
> realize the problems that large attachments cause the 'rest of us',
> so I
> offer the following:
>
> The last two messages with images attached were almost 2 megabytes
> each.
> Each message took almost 20 minutes to download on my very slow dialup
> connection. That meant that my phone line was tied up for almost an
> hour
> to get 2 messages, & no other messages can be received until the huge
> attachment completes its download.
>
> Image size can be reduced using many different software packages, and
> many free ones are available if you don't want to purchase one. The
> easiest to use that I have found (for Windoze) can be downloaded at
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/
> xppowertoys.mspx
>
> Scroll down & look for 'image resizer'.
>
> Download it & install it (you won't see any new icons on your
> desktop).
> When you need to email a photo to one of these lists, first locate the
> photo file using whatever file search program you are comfortable
> with.
> Point at the file with the mouse & right click. The popup menu will
> offer a new selection: 'resize pictures'. Click on that option & it
> will
> offer several size options. (The smallest is plenty good enough for
> email & screen viewing.) Click on the size you desire & the program
> will
> automagically create a reduced-size copy of the image with the word
> 'small' added to the file name. It will typically be about 1/10 the
> file
> size of the original but will still be high enough resolution to
> view on
> a monitor (& it will all fit on the screen at once).
>
> Lest you think I'm a lone, too-frugal voice crying in the wilderness,
> consider that around 1/2 the people who use the internet here in the
> grand old USofA cannot get DSL or cable internet. I'd gladly pay for
> broadband (I've begged the phone company to supply it for years) but I
> cannot get it here, 10 miles from a city & 4.5 miles from a smaller
> community that *does* have DSL.
>
> I know that there are those who will tell me to use a web based email
> client & delete the big emails before download. Please save the
> effort;
> I've tried them & they are *much* slower than traditional clients &
> make
> the entire email experience torture. Besides, I'd like to see the
> photos. I just don't want to tie up my phone line for an hour to see
> each picture. :-)
>
> Thanks for listening & I hope this post will be seen as constructive
> suggestion rather that just another complaint.
>
> Charlie
>
>
> ===================================
> ===================================
> ===================================
> ===================================
>
>
> <winmail.dat>
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Battery location) |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Tony Babb wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Tony Babb" <tonybabb@alejandra.net>
>
>Most users now have broadband (high speed) internet access. There comes a
>point when you have to stop supporting older technology (as Microsoft
>announced recently for Win 98). I have a lot of sympathy for those still on
>dial-up and strongly endorse the suggestion below for those unable to use
>broadband. In fact that's what I did when I used dial-up working from home
>about 9 years ago - I also had a dedicated phone line permanently connected
>to my office servers that just downloaded mail and database updates all at
>22kbps 24 hours a day. It was painful but worked until broadband became
>available.
>
I hope you didn't mean for your post to read as condescending as it
does. As I said, I'd gladly pay for broadband if I could get it. I think
that if you do a little research, you will find that significantly less
than 1/2 of the USA can get broadband. Read some of the other posts.
Wild Blue (the only thing I'd even consider right now) is only slightly
better than dialup, & that's only 'sometimes'. For web browsing & email,
it's not much if any better than dialup. Upload speeds are about the
same as dialup. And their service is getting worse as they add
subscribers. Hughesnet is even worse. Both have traffic limits &
throttle you to slower than dialup if you exceed them.
Even if you don't care about the majority of users who cannot get
broadband, consider that the Matronics archives will have 1-2 Megabytes
stored for every picture instead of 100k or less, and there is no
advantage whatsoever to these huge files when you are viewing them on a
computer monitor.
Matt has indicated on another of his lists that he is working on
software to automatically reduce image size, but why not do what's right
& clean up your own act?
Charlie
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: SD-8 ALTERNATOR MOD FOR SELF EXCITATION |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 04:32 PM 7/21/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "J. Mcculley"
><mcculleyja@starpower.net>
>
>Bob,
>
>Thanks to you for putting together this final product. I am happy that you
>were pleased with my help in conducting the experiment.
>
>I'm puzzled, however, by the values of the resistors you listed on the
>updated Z-25 drawing. In my message of 5/6/2006, I reported that I found
>it necessary to use 15k ohm resistance in series with the added diodes to
>avoid the voltage across the capacitor rising above 16 volts while the
>SD-8 was not switched onto the buss during maximum RPM.
The two resistors form a voltage divider. The voltage across
the capacitor in a totally uncontrolled condition will be a function
of the alternator's pk=pk output at the time. Totally unloaded and
at cruise RPM, I seep to recall that the alternator's output was
on the order of
Also, you mentioned using a 1KuF capacitor. The rule of thumb for
capacitors in this application is 1Kuf per ampere of system
capacity. so 10KuF is the recommended minimum and larger doesn't
hurt anything. I maintained the same ratio (3:1) for the resistor
values in an effort to bring the source impedance of the voltage
divider down to speed things up with the larger capacitor size.
>Also, in my 6/19/2006 message the operating data was acquired while using
>15k resistance in series with the diodes and 3k resistance across the
>capacitor. The overall performance and reliability of coming on-line under
>all realistic RPM conditions seemed ideal--or did I miss something?
Nope, your experiments were entirely valid. We're just
fine tuning the recipe . . .
>Did you find the lower resistance values of 3k and 1k, respectively,
>necessary for overall better functioning? Just curious.
. . . 99.9% sure the lower values are a good move based on common
sense and understanding of how the "fix" works. I'd like
to send you a set of components to install permanently both
to photograph for some installation instructions and to validate
the final design.
I've also forwarded the data on our effort to Tim @ B&C. He'll
be working with their supplier of the regulator. All of the
components we've added could probably go INSIDE the regulator.
I think we've got a working configuration but we're not yet
arrived at the elegant solution.
Bob . . .
Message 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Dynon D-10A AOA? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
I have a Dynon D10A I will be using on my Europa. I descided I will use
the supplied Europa Pitot/Static probes.
I am also installing a Europa Stall warning horn.
Think it is possable to hook up the stall warner port to the Dynon D10A
and get AOA information?
See page #3 and #7 for Europa stall warner port location:
http://www.europa-aircraft.biz/pdfs/modifications/Mod%2061a.pdf
See Dynon AOA blurb
http://www.dynonavionics.com/docs/D10A_Feature_AOA.html
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
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! --
|