Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:22 AM - Re: Re: what should antenna resistance read (FLYaDIVE@aol.com)
2. 12:42 AM - Comm Radio Tx Problem (Gene Hubbard)
3. 02:43 AM - Re: Comm Radio Tx Problem (FLYaDIVE@aol.com)
4. 05:35 AM - Re: Comm Radio Tx Problem (Ken)
5. 07:09 AM - comm radio toubleshooting (Ron Raby)
6. 07:31 AM - Re: S704-1 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 07:46 AM - I beg to differ (Fergus Kyle)
8. 07:53 AM - Re: what should antenna resistance read (europa flugzeug fabrik)
9. 08:23 AM - Re: Re: what should antenna resistance read (Bill Boyd)
10. 08:27 AM - Re: I beg to differ (Dave N6030X)
11. 08:34 AM - Re: comm radio toubleshooting (wgill10@comcast.net)
12. 08:38 AM - Re: I beg to differ (Chuck Jensen)
13. 10:37 AM - Re: comm radio toubleshooting (Ron Raby)
14. 01:21 PM - Re: what should antenna resistance read (europa flugzeug fabrik)
15. 04:27 PM - Re: Re: what should antenna resistance read (Dave N6030X)
16. 08:00 PM - Re: I beg to differ (Scott Lewis)
17. 11:10 PM - Re: I beg to differ (Mickey Coggins)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: what should antenna resistance read |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
In a message dated 8/18/06 12:33:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
CardinalNSB@aol.com writes:
> If I remove the connector from the back of my radio and measure across the
> shield and inner conductor of the antenna coax (leaving the antenna
> connected at the other end, what resistance should I see for:
> comm antenna Cessna type
> dme short type with ball on end
> marker beacon wire type
> gps Garmin active type
>
>
> Thank you, Skip Simpson
==========================================
Skip:
Don't do it. The word RESISTANCE is a not the proper term and is very
misleading. The proper term is IMPEDANCE and that cannot be read with a VOM.
If you do try to read a resistance there is no way of knowing what it should
or should not read. For example the GPS you said is active, that means it has
an amplifier built in. So you will be reading something that relates to the
output of the amplifier. This could be a transistor, capacitor, resistive or
inductor output. What the value is, is not know or appropriate for a VOM.
The other antennas are also unknown variables due to the different
configurations for impedance matching.
Simple answer: Don't do it. The best you can guess would be IF you see ZERO
OHMS you may have a SHORT. But any reading you get is a GUESS and NOT REAL.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
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: | Comm Radio Tx Problem |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gene Hubbard <enhubbard@sbcglobal.net>
I've just mounted a Microair 760 comm radio in my Pietenpol project.
It's attached to a commercial solid-wire antenna that is mounted on a
ground plane internal to the aft fuselage. I'm using the built-in
intercom. It receives just fine, but when I try to transmit, I get a
tone through the headset and the transmission is unintelligible. The
tone generally starts when I start to talk, not when I press the PTT,
though that seems to happen occasionally too. The tone goes away when I
release the PTT. Any Ideas?
Thanks,
Gene Hubbard
San Diego
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: Comm Radio Tx Problem |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
In a message dated 8/18/06 3:43:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
enhubbard@sbcglobal.net writes:
> I've just mounted a Microair 760 comm radio in my Pietenpol project.
> It's attached to a commercial solid-wire antenna that is mounted on a
> ground plane internal to the aft fuselage. I'm using the built-in
> intercom. It receives just fine, but when I try to transmit, I get a
> tone through the headset and the transmission is unintelligible. The
> tone generally starts when I start to talk, not when I press the PTT,
> though that seems to happen occasionally too. The tone goes away when I
> release the PTT. Any Ideas?
>
> Thanks,
> Gene Hubbard
> San Diego
===================
Gene:
It is very difficult to try to diagnose a problem when you cannot see or hear
the symptoms. BUT! My first guess is you are getting FEEDBACK. This is due
to wrong wiring.
Start with making sure you have ONLY one headset installed.
If you are trying to use two make sure it is on the head of someone.
Turn down the MIC GAIN on the TX.
Recheck all the wiring.
Have you checked to make sure that the jacks are insulated from the plane?
If you have two headset locations, try from each location. BUT! Disconnect
one headset before you try the other.
Do you know what feedback sounds like?
These are the basics. GOOD LUCK!
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
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: Comm Radio Tx Problem |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
FWIW the guys were spot on about too much mic gain causing lots of
cockpit noise to be picked up by my icom A200 radio. After a couple of
tries and turning the gain on the inside of the radio down at least a
half turn, all is well. Turning down the gain at the mic helped a bit as
well.
Ken
Gene Hubbard wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gene Hubbard
> <enhubbard@sbcglobal.net>
>
> I've just mounted a Microair 760 comm radio in my Pietenpol project.
> It's attached to a commercial solid-wire antenna that is mounted on a
> ground plane internal to the aft fuselage. I'm using the built-in
> intercom. It receives just fine, but when I try to transmit, I get a
> tone through the headset and the transmission is unintelligible. The
> tone generally starts when I start to talk, not when I press the PTT,
> though that seems to happen occasionally too. The tone goes away when
> I release the PTT. Any Ideas?
>
> Thanks,
> Gene Hubbard
> San Diego
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: | comm radio toubleshooting |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby" <ronr@advanceddesign.com>
To everyone
I am looking for some help with digonosing a reception problem with my
comm radio.
This is what I have done so far. I have two radios a 530 and a SL 30. The SL
30 works fine. I first suspected the antenna, so I switched them. No change
the sl 30 still works fine no change to the 530. I then borrowed another 530
to try, still no change. On the ground it seems like the 530 is working
fine. I can hear the approach controllers not on my airport.
When I take off there transmission becomes faint. I suspect some sort of
interference with another piece of equipment.
Thanks
Ron Raby
Lancair ES
150 hrs
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:22 AM 8/17/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: George Neal E Capt 605TES/TSI
><Neal.George@Hurlburt.AF.MIL>
>
>Good Morning Bob -
>
>I'm wiring my RV-7 based on Z-13/8.
>
> >From the Refernece section of your website,
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/s704inst.jpg shows a 1N4005 diode
>across the Crowbar leads.
>
>Z-13/8 shows the S704-1 Aux Alternator relay connected directly to the
>Crowbar unit, no diode. Likewise, the drawings from B&C make no mention of
>the diode.
>
>What's the purpose of the diode, and has it been incoorptated into the
>Crowbar, or do I need to hang it off the relay?
The purpose of this diode is described in:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/spikecatcher.pdf
The photo you cited above is a generic install recommendation
for any relay in the style of S704-1 device pictured.
Except for rare cases, it doesn't hurt to install a spike
suppression diode, indeed many manufacturers of military
spec relays build the network right into the relay. See
schematics on page 3 of:
http://www.teledynerelays.com/pdf/electromechanical/114.pdf
The diode was not included in the wiring diagram for
Z-13/8 and similar because it was not useful to the
design . . . but it doesn't hurt for the diode to
be there.
Bob . . .
Message 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
Cheers - I should like to debate the following statements made here today,
because unchallenged they tend to become lore.
"We can quibble over the technical details of OBAM, but what Bob has
done is to apply a bit of marketing savvy to an otherwise technical
endeavor."
I don't think so. What he has done is to describe the condition
which prevails.
"OBAM is a marketing term. No marketing expert would EVER use the terms
"amateur" or "experimental" in a concept he was trying to sell to the public
as safe and reliable.
The author is a victim of his own language. Amateur or Experimantal
are not derogatory terms to the knowledgeable. Amateur infers "lover" in the
dedicated sense. Only baseball players and "professional" pallbearers would
misunderstand the term. I presume trhe author would apply 'professional' to
every tool in his garden shed - not realising that they are rightfully
'Commercial' - because they sell - just like ballplayers.
In fact Amateurs are mostly Professionals since because they love the work
they do, they apply the highest possible quality to their product - whether
it be the Theory of Relativity or hospital volunteering.
Professionals are those who contribute to the best of their ability having
regard for experience, training, practice and conscience and then proclaim
it - profess.
"While I was building my "HOMEBUILT", I was reminded virtually every day by
my boss that I was doing something dangerous, and he would provide me with a
printed copy of every news story of somebody
crashing in an airplane."
Good Lord! I suppose his fulltime work was providing you with
statistics and articles on driving to work.
"In this day and age, perception is more valuable than reality."
What a shame - perception is different for each of us, reality
is the same for all. That homebuilt will be perceived to fly but will it
really? Ask the boss.
"Just look at the "V chip". There is no such thing. But in the minds of
millions of Americans, it exists, and the government created it to help
them. What a marketing coup!!"
I think I've made my point.
" Perfume is another great example. How else could you sell a half ounce
of water for over $100?"
Lie perhaps? - or specialise in advertising to the ignorant?
"It's all in the marketing."
See above.
"Changing the name of that dastardly, dangerous contraption from an AMATEUR
(unskilled) built EXPERIMENTAL (might not work) aircraft to an "Owner Built
and Maintained" is mainly for the consumption of the PUBLIC, ............. "
I suspect the author is putting assumptions (not his swiftest
quality) into Bob Nuckols' intentions. It also implies the PUBLIC is stupid
and easily swayed. If that is true his boss is a perfect example. Perhaps
that is what marketting is - consumption by the stupid?
".........not the people who know that obviously the owner isn't going to be
doing ALL the work on it if he doesn't want to. We can call it an
"uncertified" if we want to. But don't let the public know."
Lord, no. The less they know the better - to sell.
Ferg Kyle
Europa A064 914 Classic
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: what should antenna resistance read |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "europa flugzeug fabrik" <n3eu@comcast.net>
CardinalNSB(at)aol.com wrote:
> comm antenna Cessna type
>
> dme short type with ball on end
>
> marker beacon wire type
>
> gps Garmin active type
Some of this is simple. The DME and comm antenna should read infinity (open).
The sled-type marker should read dead short. Active GPS -- whatever.
Fred F.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55518#55518
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: what should antenna resistance read |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r@gmail.com>
Barry is correct, but I think we can assume the proper DC reading for
the first 3 types listed is infinite resistance. Nix that, if a
(transformer-type) balun is in the line, however.
Best tool for the readings you're wanting to take is an antenna
analyzer, which will reveal the impedance and also any transmission
line (coax) shorts, opens. But don't attach any type of measuring
device to an active GPS antenna unless you absolutely know what you're
doing.
-Bill B.
On 8/18/06, FLYaDIVE@aol.com <FLYaDIVE@aol.com> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 8/18/06 12:33:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> CardinalNSB@aol.com writes:
>
> > If I remove the connector from the back of my radio and measure across the
> > shield and inner conductor of the antenna coax (leaving the antenna
> > connected at the other end, what resistance should I see for:
> > comm antenna Cessna type
> > dme short type with ball on end
> > marker beacon wire type
> > gps Garmin active type
> >
> >
> > Thank you, Skip Simpson
> ==========================================
> Skip:
>
> Don't do it. The word RESISTANCE is a not the proper term and is very
> misleading. The proper term is IMPEDANCE and that cannot be read with a VOM.
>
> If you do try to read a resistance there is no way of knowing what it should
> or should not read. For example the GPS you said is active, that means it has
> an amplifier built in. So you will be reading something that relates to the
> output of the amplifier. This could be a transistor, capacitor, resistive or
> inductor output. What the value is, is not know or appropriate for a VOM.
> The other antennas are also unknown variables due to the different
> configurations for impedance matching.
>
> Simple answer: Don't do it. The best you can guess would be IF you see ZERO
> OHMS you may have a SHORT. But any reading you get is a GUESS and NOT REAL.
>
> Barry
> "Chop'd Liver"
>
> "Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
> time."
> Yamashiada
>
>
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: I beg to differ |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
Well, you obviously have never been involved in marketing! LOL!
Dave
At 09:45 AM 8/18/2006, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
>
>Cheers - I should like to debate the following statements made here today,
>because unchallenged they tend to become lore.
>
>"We can quibble over the technical details of OBAM, but what Bob has
>done is to apply a bit of marketing savvy to an otherwise technical
>endeavor."
> I don't think so. What he has done is to describe the condition
>which prevails.
>
>"OBAM is a marketing term. No marketing expert would EVER use the terms
>"amateur" or "experimental" in a concept he was trying to sell to the public
>as safe and reliable.
> The author is a victim of his own language. Amateur or Experimantal
>are not derogatory terms to the knowledgeable. Amateur infers "lover" in the
>dedicated sense. Only baseball players and "professional" pallbearers would
>misunderstand the term. I presume trhe author would apply 'professional' to
>every tool in his garden shed - not realising that they are rightfully
>'Commercial' - because they sell - just like ballplayers.
>In fact Amateurs are mostly Professionals since because they love the work
>they do, they apply the highest possible quality to their product - whether
>it be the Theory of Relativity or hospital volunteering.
>Professionals are those who contribute to the best of their ability having
>regard for experience, training, practice and conscience and then proclaim
>it - profess.
>
>"While I was building my "HOMEBUILT", I was reminded virtually every day by
>my boss that I was doing something dangerous, and he would provide me with a
>printed copy of every news story of somebody
>crashing in an airplane."
> Good Lord! I suppose his fulltime work was providing you with
>statistics and articles on driving to work.
>
>"In this day and age, perception is more valuable than reality."
> What a shame - perception is different for each of us, reality
>is the same for all. That homebuilt will be perceived to fly but will it
>really? Ask the boss.
>
>
> "Just look at the "V chip". There is no such thing. But in the minds of
>millions of Americans, it exists, and the government created it to help
>them. What a marketing coup!!"
> I think I've made my point.
>
> " Perfume is another great example. How else could you sell a half ounce
>of water for over $100?"
> Lie perhaps? - or specialise in advertising to the ignorant?
> "It's all in the marketing."
> See above.
>
>"Changing the name of that dastardly, dangerous contraption from an AMATEUR
>(unskilled) built EXPERIMENTAL (might not work) aircraft to an "Owner Built
>and Maintained" is mainly for the consumption of the PUBLIC, ............. "
> I suspect the author is putting assumptions (not his swiftest
>quality) into Bob Nuckols' intentions. It also implies the PUBLIC is stupid
>and easily swayed. If that is true his boss is a perfect example. Perhaps
>that is what marketting is - consumption by the stupid?
>
>
>".........not the people who know that obviously the owner isn't going to be
>doing ALL the work on it if he doesn't want to. We can call it an
>"uncertified" if we want to. But don't let the public know."
> Lord, no. The less they know the better - to sell.
>
>Ferg Kyle
>Europa A064 914 Classic
>
>
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: comm radio toubleshooting |
Ron,
It sounds like you have a bad (or none at all) antenna connection -- possibly at
the radio rack. Do you have the typical 1 foot coax pigtail coming off the
rack with a male BNC connector on the end the then connects to the coax to the
antenna? If so, remove the 530 and do continuity checks on the short coax as
well as the longer coax without any equipment (radio, antenna) connected to the
coax.
Bill
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Ron Raby" <ronr@advanceddesign.com>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby"
>
> To everyone
>
> I am looking for some help with digonosing a reception problem with my
> comm radio.
>
> This is what I have done so far. I have two radios a 530 and a SL 30. The SL
> 30 works fine. I first suspected the antenna, so I switched them. No change
> the sl 30 still works fine no change to the 530. I then borrowed another 530
> to try, still no change. On the ground it seems like the 530 is working
> fine. I can hear the approach controllers not on my airport.
> When I take off there transmission becomes faint. I suspect some sort of
> interference with another piece of equipment.
>
> Thanks
>
> Ron Raby
>
> Lancair ES
> 150 hrs
>
>
>
>
>
<html><body>
<DIV>Ron,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It sounds like you have a bad (or none at all) antenna connection -- possibly
at the radio rack. Do you have the typical 1 foot coax pigtail coming
off the rack with a male BNC connector on the end the then connects to the coax
to the antenna? If so, remove the 530 and do continuity checks
on the short coax as well as the longer coax without any equipment (radio, antenna) connected
to the coax.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Bill</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px
solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: "Ron Raby" <ronr@advanceddesign.com>
<BR><BR>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted
by: "Ron Raby" <RONR@ADVANCEDDESIGN.COM><BR>> <BR>> To everyone <BR>>
<BR>> I am looking for some help with digonosing a reception problem
with my <BR>> comm radio. <BR>> <BR>> This is what I have done so far.
I have two radios a 530 and a SL 30. The SL <BR>> 30 works fine. I first
suspected the antenna, so I switched them. No change <BR>> the sl 30 still
works fine no change to the 530. I then borrowed another 530 <BR>> to try,
still no change. On the ground it seems like the 530 is working <BR>> fine.
I can hear the approach controllers not on my airport. <BR>> When I take
off there transmission becomes faint. I suspect some sort of <BR>> interference
with another piece of equipment. <BR>> <BR>&g
t; Tha
m <BR>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
Fergus,
You are obviously an amatuer when it comes to word definition, use and
connotations....just kidding but hopefully you see the point. By your
posting, this should be a compliment, but I doubt it was taken that way.
The words, such as 'amatuer' and 'experimental' are harmless in their
own right, but their meaning and connotation to the recipient is
something altogether different. Why do you think some experimental
aircraft owners will intimate that their aircraft were actually built by
a Professional builder (though in a whisper and while looking furtively
over their shoulder).
One last point about connotation/perceptions/impressions being able to
overwhelming facts/truth/common sense. A few years ago, a legislator
was critical of the appropriation for a project. He declared that it
was a 'niggardly amount'. Suffice to say, news media and special
interest groups, including the NAACP, came down on his head and, among
other things, demanded an apology. Of course, it wasn't he that should
have offered a humble, and embarrassed, apology.
Just an example of how communication is dependant on word choice, even
if the word choice, per Webster, is accurate, correct and not harmful in
the least---so, in my mind, OBAM it is.
Chuck Jensen
Do Not Archive
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of Fergus Kyle
> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 10:45 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: I beg to differ
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
>
> Cheers - I should like to debate the following statements
> made here today,
> because unchallenged they tend to become lore.
>
> "We can quibble over the technical details of OBAM, but what
> Bob has done is to apply a bit of marketing savvy to an
> otherwise technical
> endeavor."
> I don't think so. What he has done is to describe the
> condition
> which prevails.
>
> "OBAM is a marketing term. No marketing expert would EVER
> use the terms
> "amateur" or "experimental" in a concept he was trying to
> sell to the public
> as safe and reliable.
> The author is a victim of his own language. Amateur
> or Experimantal
> are not derogatory terms to the knowledgeable. Amateur infers
> "lover" in the
> dedicated sense. Only baseball players and "professional"
> pallbearers would
> misunderstand the term. I presume trhe author would apply
> 'professional' to
> every tool in his garden shed - not realising that they are
> rightfully
> 'Commercial' - because they sell - just like ballplayers.
> In fact Amateurs are mostly Professionals since because they
> love the work
> they do, they apply the highest possible quality to their
> product - whether
> it be the Theory of Relativity or hospital volunteering.
> Professionals are those who contribute to the best of their
> ability having
> regard for experience, training, practice and conscience and
> then proclaim
> it - profess.
>
> "While I was building my "HOMEBUILT", I was reminded
> virtually every day by
> my boss that I was doing something dangerous, and he would
> provide me with a
> printed copy of every news story of somebody
> crashing in an airplane."
> Good Lord! I suppose his fulltime work was providing you with
> statistics and articles on driving to work.
>
> "In this day and age, perception is more valuable than reality."
> What a shame - perception is different for each
> of us, reality
> is the same for all. That homebuilt will be perceived to fly
> but will it
> really? Ask the boss.
>
>
> "Just look at the "V chip". There is no such thing. But
> in the minds of
> millions of Americans, it exists, and the government created
> it to help
> them. What a marketing coup!!"
> I think I've made my point.
>
> " Perfume is another great example. How else could you sell
> a half ounce
> of water for over $100?"
> Lie perhaps? - or specialise in advertising to the ignorant?
> "It's all in the marketing."
> See above.
>
> "Changing the name of that dastardly, dangerous contraption
> from an AMATEUR
> (unskilled) built EXPERIMENTAL (might not work) aircraft to
> an "Owner Built
> and Maintained" is mainly for the consumption of the PUBLIC,
> ............. "
> I suspect the author is putting assumptions (not his swiftest
> quality) into Bob Nuckols' intentions. It also implies the
> PUBLIC is stupid
> and easily swayed. If that is true his boss is a perfect
> example. Perhaps
> that is what marketting is - consumption by the stupid?
>
>
> ".........not the people who know that obviously the owner
> isn't going to be
> doing ALL the work on it if he doesn't want to. We can call it an
> "uncertified" if we want to. But don't let the public know."
> Lord, no. The less they know the better - to sell.
>
> Ferg Kyle
> Europa A064 914 Classic
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: comm radio toubleshooting |
Bill
I do not have a 1 foot pigtail. The case for the radio does have a
feedthru bulkhead type BNC though. The radio connects to one side of
this connector and the bnc from the antenna connects to the other side.
That is a good place to look. I will check it out. Maybe the radio is
not seating all the way into the bulkhead connector.
Thanks
Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: wgill10@comcast.net
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: comm radio toubleshooting
Ron,
It sounds like you have a bad (or none at all) antenna connection --
possibly at the radio rack. Do you have the typical 1 foot coax pigtail
coming off the rack with a male BNC connector on the end the then
connects to the coax to the antenna? If so, remove the 530 and do
continuity checks on the short coax as well as the longer coax without
any equipment (radio, antenna) connected to the coax.
Bill
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Ron Raby" <ronr@advanceddesign.com>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Ron Raby"
>
> To everyone
>
> I am looking for some help with digonosing a reception problem
with my
> comm radio.
>
> This is what I have done so far. I have two radios a 530 and a SL
30. The SL
> 30 works fine. I first suspected the antenna, so I switched them.
No change
> the sl 30 still works fine no change to the 530. I then borrowed
another 530
> to try, still no change. On the ground it seems like the 530 is
working
> fine. I can hear the approach controllers not on my airport.
> When I take off there transmission becomes faint. I suspect some
sort of
> interference with another piece of equipment.
>
&g t; Tha m
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: what should antenna resistance read |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "europa flugzeug fabrik" <n3eu@comcast.net>
sportav8r(at)gmail.com wrote:
> Barry is correct, but I think we can assume the proper DC reading for the first
3 types listed is infinite resistance. Nix that, if a (transformer-type) balun
is in the line, however.
For marker, we have to define "wire type." If suspended between two insulators,
then it should be infinite. However, a 1/4-wave monopole antenna -- comm and
DME -- does not require a balun. I mention this only because if a low resistance
(probably dead short) is found, I wouldn't assume a transformer balun there,
but rather check for a short somewhere, like in the coax.
Fred F.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55590#55590
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: what should antenna resistance read |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
There are some antenna types that will present a dead short at DC and
yet the proper impedance at RF. I don't know that any of your
antennas are of that type, but beware that just because you read a
dead short with a DC voltmeter does not necessarily mean
anything. On the other hand, if you disconnect your antenna from its
coax and still read a dead short between the coax center and braid, I
would look for bad connectors.
Dave Morris
At 03:19 PM 8/18/2006, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "europa flugzeug fabrik"
><n3eu@comcast.net>
>
>
>sportav8r(at)gmail.com wrote:
> > Barry is correct, but I think we can assume the proper DC reading
> for the first 3 types listed is infinite resistance. Nix that, if
> a (transformer-type) balun is in the line, however.
>
>For marker, we have to define "wire type." If suspended between two
>insulators, then it should be infinite. However, a 1/4-wave
>monopole antenna -- comm and DME -- does not require a balun. I
>mention this only because if a low resistance (probably dead short)
>is found, I wouldn't assume a transformer balun there, but rather
>check for a short somewhere, like in the coax.
>
>Fred F.
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55590#55590
>
>
Message 16
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: I beg to differ |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Scott Lewis <rv10@tpg.com.au>
Fergus Kyle wrote:
> It also implies the PUBLIC is stupid
> and easily swayed. If that is true his boss is a perfect example. Perhaps
> that is what marketting is - consumption by the stupid?
And right there you have hit the nail on the head!!
Also, politics is the art of appealing to the fears of the stupid.
:-)
Have fun,
Scott Lewis
Adelaide, South Australia
do not archive
Message 17
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: I beg to differ |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
Scott Lewis wrote:
> Fergus Kyle wrote:
>> It also implies the PUBLIC is stupid and easily swayed. If that is
>> true his boss is a perfect example. Perhaps that is what marketting
>> is - consumption by the stupid?
>
> And right there you have hit the nail on the head!!
>
> Also, politics is the art of appealing to the fears of the stupid.
I agree but I would change the word "stupid" to "ignorant". I don't
believe there are hundreds of millions of stupid people around the world
voting against their own interests, they are simply ignorant of what's
happening around them.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
do not archive
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! --
|