Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:35 AM - Dual radio interference (Steve & Denise)
2. 05:17 AM - Re: Dual radio interference (FLYaDIVE@aol.com)
3. 06:11 AM - What I learned today (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 06:25 AM - Re: Re: RG batteries with 35A generators (Dave N6030X)
5. 06:26 AM - Re: Re: RG batteries with 35A generators (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 06:37 AM - Re: methodology for avionics install (Ernest Christley)
7. 06:56 AM - Re: What I learned today (Chuck Jensen)
8. 07:04 AM - Re: Old Cessna filters/capacitors/avionics (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 07:39 AM - Re: Re: RG batteries with 35A generators (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 07:57 AM - Re: gmcjetpilot (Darwin N. Barrie)
11. 09:06 AM - Re: Re: RG batteries with 35A generators ()
12. 09:39 AM - Re: RG batteries with 35A generators (Kelly McMullen)
13. 11:10 AM - Re: gmcjetpilot (Eric M. Jones)
14. 11:15 AM - Re: Re: RG batteries with 35A generators (Brian Lloyd)
15. 12:34 PM - Process (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 12:45 PM - Re: Re: gmcjetpilot (Harold)
17. 01:27 PM - Re: Re: gmcjetpilot (Steve Thomas)
18. 04:30 PM - Re: Process (William Slaughter)
19. 05:10 PM - Muddy Waters (Bruce McGregor)
20. 05:13 PM - Re: Re: RG batteries with 35A generators (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
21. 07:31 PM - AOPA battery article (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
22. 08:01 PM - Re: Debating on an alternator or two batteries? (Ken)
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: | Dual radio interference |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve & Denise" <sjhdcl@kingston.net>
I have 2 radios. GNS430 and GNC300XL.
Also have GMA340 audio panel and Approach Systems wiring harness.
Everything works great, I just have one annoyance. When I select both radio
to listen to and then transmit on one, the transmission is very garbled for
me. ATC reads me loud and clear but I can barely make out what I'm saying.
Happens with both radios.
Any ideas on how to fix this?
Steve
RV7A
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: Dual radio interference |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
In a message dated 9/6/06 7:52:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
sjhdcl@kingston.net writes:
> I have 2 radios. GNS430 and GNC300XL.
> Also have GMA340 audio panel and Approach Systems wiring harness.
>
> Everything works great, I just have one annoyance. When I select both
radio
> to listen to and then transmit on one, the transmission is very garbled for
> me. ATC reads me loud and clear but I can barely make out what I'm saying.
> Happens with both radios.
>
> Any ideas on how to fix this?
>
> Steve
> RV7A
========================
Steve:
More than likely it is because of 'front end overload', a electronics term
for too much signal going into the Received radio.
There should be a pin hooked up that mutes the receive radio when the other
is transmitting. You will have to check on the schematic for the radios, the
audio panel and the Approach System.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
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: | What I learned today |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Listers,
Folks have been bugging me about George for some time.
Over a year perhaps. They keep citing this venue as being
my list and suggested that I have full authority to manage
it in whatever way I want.
I never wanted to view this as "my list". It's always been
my fondest wish that the AeroElectric List be a joint venture,
a quest for the best-we-know-how-to-do. On the other hand,
I cannot tolerate circular arguments that perpetually
hat-dance around the simple-ideas while confusing or
misleading those who come here for practical advice.
I guess I could treat this more like a university job.
It's not my building but it is my classroom. A good
teacher must be open to consider every idea but with
absolute control over classroom decorum and a bulwark
against bad science and individuals who disrupt what
should be a calm, considered sifting of the simple-ideas.
I might liken this effort to that of accident investigator.
The real work begins after the fire trucks, ambulances
and distraught individuals have left. I've had several
occasions where folks who witnessed or were involved
in an accident came over to see what I was doing and
conversationally relive the events from their perspective.
This was always distracting and never yielded useful
information. I never asked any of those folks to leave . . .
after all, the space we shared wasn't my personal property.
In retrospect I'm coming to understand that "space"
comes in many forms and just because someone has
a fundamental right to co exist with us in a physical
space doesn't give them a right to invade (and stir up
trouble) in folk's intellectual space. I promise not
to allow such situations to carry on so long again.
We all have better ways to invest our most precious
commodity, time.
Thank you all for your understanding and support of
the AeroElectric List mission. I learn from the List
every day and I believe it to be a powerful tool for
advancing the state of our art and science in crafting
the best airplanes to have ever flown.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
Message 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: RG batteries with 35A generators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
Ah, yes, there it is in AOPA Pilot, September issue, page 136:
"The low internal resistance of RG batteries is the second reason
(more plate area is the first) they deliver more power and why they
accept a charge faster. Accepting more charge can cause small
generators to overheat. Skip Koss of Concorde Battery said any
airplane with a generator with an output of less than 50 amps should
use flooded-cell batteries for this reason."
Presumably that would apply only if the battery were needing a large
charge and Charge + Other Load was greater than the rating of the generator?
I have a 1960 Mooney M20A with a 35A generator, and I would think
that as long as I'm not taking off at night into the ice with a fully
discharged battery, needing my landing lights and pitot heat and a
heavy battery charge, this battery should be OK.
Dave Morris
N6030X
At 11:44 PM 9/5/2006, you wrote:
>The article is in the AOPA pilot magazine Aug or Sept issue, on
>aircraft batteries.
>Bobs name is mentioned right in the introduction of the article and
>later near the end with a reference to the connection. I have a
>rotax 912 with a 20Amp generater, was setting up
>for an RG battery from B&C, but took out the vented battery box I
>got with my kit and dusted it off wondering if this article is correct.
>
>Brian
>
>
>Bob,
>
>I have been doing a lot of reading lately, and somewhere I was
>reading an article on RG batteries ....
>
>Thanks
>Dave Morris
>Mooney M20A
>N6030X
>
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: RG batteries with 35A generators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 12:44 AM 9/6/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>The article is in the AOPA pilot magazine Aug or Sept issue, on aircraft
>batteries.
>Bobs name is mentioned right in the introduction of the article and later
>near the end with a reference to the connection. I have a rotax 912 with a
>20Amp generater, was setting up
>for an RG battery from B&C, but took out the vented battery box I got with
>my kit and dusted it off wondering if this article is correct.
I don't subscribe to AOPA Pilot any more so I missed
the article. It would be interesting/useful to review
it. If someone could scan it and email it to me, I'd
appreciate it.
Bob . . .
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: methodology for avionics install |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote:
>________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________
>
>
>Time: 08:38:26 PM PST US
>From: CardinalNSB@aol.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: methodology for avionics install
>
>I had no avionics or electric turn coordinator in my project aircraft.
>
>I have now installed an audio panel and a gps/com, which seem to be working
>find, no feedback or hums or other noise.
>
>My plan is to install each additional unit and do some testing before adding
>additional units.
>
>Hopefully, if there is a problem, I can attribute it to the latest addition
>for remedial measures.
>
>Is this a sound idea? It is somewhat more timeconsuming, as opposed to
>doing it all at once.
>
>
>
It seems like it would be slower and more time consuming than installing
everything at once and throwing the master switch, but that is just a
mirage. Your plan will actually save you many, MANY hours of
troubleshooting, debugging, and pulling the instruments back out, one by
one, as you try to discover which one of those many wires got crossed
and caused the problem. It's a case of "slow down so you can get done
faster."
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |
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: | What I learned today |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
For the entertainment value alone, gmcjet is a worthy read. Granted,
there is nothing lucid, enlightening or illustrative in his posting, but
my gawd, the amusement and entertainment....I actually found myself
laughing out loud reading his postings.
I suppose, much like the warning labels on products, George should have
to post a preface on all his posts that "This posting contains no useful
information, facts or data and should not be taken seriously as it may
be harmful to your ability to reason and think."
It's understood that it's difficult for Bob to tolerate the endless,
mindless attacks, but hopefully Bob keeps in mind that none of us takes
George seriously....that inestimable task is left to George himself. In
closing, I can only say, "the mind, in all it's glorious forms,
contortions and distortions, is a wonderous thing to behold--and often
pretty amusing. Thanks for the laugh George--you made my day!
Chuck Jensen
Do Not Archive
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: Old Cessna filters/capacitors/avionics |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 11:49 PM 9/5/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>My 1968 Cardinal has a whiskey flask sized "filter" in the middle of the
>alternator output wire, a metal capacitator on each magneto, a 2 inch
>square metal box filter that ties into the Zeftronics voltage regulator
>and a large like a half a roll of quarters paper shell capacitator between
>the turn coordinator wires.
>
>I work under the supervision of a licensed ap mechanic.
>
>1. what are the various filters for? I have been told that the flask
>size in the middle of the alternator line is only needed if using adf or
>loran. Because to filter out the ac would require a much bigger filter.
That is correct. When that airplane rolled off the assembly
line, DO-160 testing was but a gleam in the eye of some
seasoned veteran of the Systems Integration Wars. Interestingly
enough, while aviation readily thumbed its nose at "automotive"
technologies, in may respects we lagged far behind the car guys
in understanding and implementation of rudimentary science. In
this picture . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Screen_Room_circa_1935.jpg
. . . we see a screen-room used in the early '30s to identify
and mitigate noise issues on cars. In 1968 our primary source
of test data was from the test pilot's squawk sheets. Pilots who
wore headphones could be counted on to hear and complain about
noises that were never heard through the cabin speaker.
Under this environment, many things were done to mitigate
complaints without benefit of knowing the exact nature of
a noise source, propagation mode and victim vulnerabilities.
A byproduct of this ignorance is manifested in what you see
on your airplane. Alternator filters and shielding of alternator
wiring were added to mitigate perceived noises in ADF receivers.
Turns out that shielding had no beneficial effects but the
experiments were not differential with respect to filter capacitors
and shielding. They went in together, the pilot smiled, they
stayed on the drawings for decades hence.
>
>2. Would it be wise to remove them one by one and see what noises are
>introduced by their removal? I could always put them back on. Will I
>hurt anything if I run the aircraft and avionics sans all filters?
Excellent idea! Do the science. There are no risks to
any hardware for having removed noise filters.
>
>3. Would it be a good idea (noise wise) to run my avionics bus directly
>from the battery (feed and ground).?
No. Doing what you suggest might have been considered and even
tried by someone in some factory in 1965. It's unlikely that
an action of that type would have made a test pilot any
happier; we don't see airplane production drawings that
call for that particular noise mitigation technique.
>
>4. Am I correct in assuming these filters only are effective while the
>engine is running?
Yes . . . for alternator and magneto filters.
Suggest you review the chapter in the 'Connection on noise
and then mount an orderly exploratory activity to deduce
effectiveness (and ultimate necessity) for any of the filters
you have on board. Remove one at a time and survey the
performance of your intercom and radios. Certainly listening
with headphones as opposed to cabin speaker. If you don't
hear any deleterious effects for having removed a filter,
you may rationally consider removing it permanently.
Your evaluation in 2006 is just as valid (if not more) than
the opinion of the good fellow who flew that airplane for
the first time in 1968.
Please get back to us and share your findings. Also, if you
DO identify a noise issue that begs attention, let us work
with you to try some things with a goal of increasing
the working knowledge of all the List members.
Bob . . .
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: RG batteries with 35A generators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:23 AM 9/6/2006 -0500, you wrote:
I'm mystified by this. Alternators are inherently current limited.
A 'cold' alternator will put out only a handful of amps over and above
the nameplate rating. Generators have no such inherent protection and
require current sensing and control feature as part of the regulator.
This is accomplished with the center of three relay-looking thingys
in . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Regulators/GenReg_2A.jpg
As a systems integrator looking over the specs of a generator/regulator
combination, I'd be disappointed if the data said something like, "Caution,
do not operate this system in the current limited mode for extended
periods of time." Obviously, current limiting is there to protect the
generator from it's willingness to self-destruct . . . but I'm mystified
as to why we should take special notice of current limited operations
to run systems aboard the airplane as opposed to charging a "too big"
battery.
If there are issues with respect to extended current limited operations
for generators, I'd expect these to be covered in the hot-day, max-load,
min-cooling tests customarily conducted at cert-time for the generator.
I've forwarded a copy of this note to Skip. I have no doubt that he
will come forward and enlighten us as to the underlying reasons for
Concorde's suggestion.
Bob . . .
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
>
>Ah, yes, there it is in AOPA Pilot, September issue, page 136:
>
>"The low internal resistance of RG batteries is the second reason (more
>plate area is the first) they deliver more power and why they accept a
>charge faster. Accepting more charge can cause small generators to
>overheat. Skip Koss of Concorde Battery said any airplane with a
>generator with an output of less than 50 amps should use flooded-cell
>batteries for this reason."
>
>Presumably that would apply only if the battery were needing a large
>charge and Charge + Other Load was greater than the rating of the generator?
>
>I have a 1960 Mooney M20A with a 35A generator, and I would think that as
>long as I'm not taking off at night into the ice with a fully discharged
>battery, needing my landing lights and pitot heat and a heavy battery
>charge, this battery should be OK.
>
>Dave Morris
>N6030X
>
>At 11:44 PM 9/5/2006, you wrote:
>>The article is in the AOPA pilot magazine Aug or Sept issue, on aircraft
>>batteries.
>>Bobs name is mentioned right in the introduction of the article and later
>>near the end with a reference to the connection. I have a rotax 912 with
>>a 20Amp generater, was setting up
>>for an RG battery from B&C, but took out the vented battery box I got
>>with my kit and dusted it off wondering if this article is correct.
>>
>>Brian
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 |
|
I, along with many others have had significant backline discussions with
"George."
Like Ed, his reply to me was filled with name calling and degrading
statements. Doug reports that he has had dozens of complaints about him
and has given him fair warnings. The most recent was on the RV10 section
of the Forums. Of course, George's knowledge of the RV10 was far greater
than those actually involved.
He is supposedely an airline pilot which absolutely scares the hell out
of me. So much so that on the occasional airline flights I do take I ask
who the pilot is. If it were George I would not take the flight. I'm
confident that his "No Fly" list is so long that the only people that
will fly with him are the newest guys.If I knew which airline he flew
for I would forward my series of correspondence to their Chief Pilot and
HR manager for evaluation. This guy is clearly not all there.
Another interesting point, who knows this guy? I've never heard of
anyone who has been to his house to visit his alleged project, saw him
at a fly in or otherwise had any contect with him other than on an email
list. Did anyone see him at Oshkosh? He certainly didn't say anything
about Oshkosh. Certainly, a person of his stature and iconish self
image, wouldn't miss something as significant as Oshkosh. Then he could
approach all of these companies he blasts in person. I can hear it now,
"Security, Exhibit hall C, Security, Exhibit hall C."
He needs to go away.
Darwin N. Barrie
Chandler AZ
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: RG batteries with 35A generators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
---- "Robert L. Nuckolls wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 12:44 AM 9/6/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >The article is in the AOPA pilot magazine Aug or Sept issue, on aircraft
> >batteries.
> >Bobs name is mentioned right in the introduction of the article and later
> >near the end with a reference to the connection. I have a rotax 912 with a
> >20Amp generater, was setting up
> >for an RG battery from B&C, but took out the vented battery box I got with
> >my kit and dusted it off wondering if this article is correct.
>
> I don't subscribe to AOPA Pilot any more so I missed
> the article. It would be interesting/useful to review
> it. If someone could scan it and email it to me, I'd
> appreciate it.
>
> Bob . . .
Listers,
The relevent article is on page 133 of the September issue
Charlie Kuss
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: RG batteries with 35A generators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Kelly McMullen" <kellym@aviating.com>
Unfortunately, AOPA hasn't chosen to put that article on line, yet. It was
written by Steven Ells. It apparently gives www.aeroelectric.com and the
two battery companies web links. Title is "Charge It" under their Airframe
and Power Plant column.
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
>> I don't subscribe to AOPA Pilot any more so I missed
>> the article. It would be interesting/useful to review
>> it. If someone could scan it and email it to me, I'd
>> appreciate it.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>
> Listers,
> The relevent article is on page 133 of the September issue
> Charlie Kuss
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
Count me as one who thinks that banning people from the list discloses a failure
of process. I think there is a clash of styles that destroys the exchange of
ideas here. Too bad.
My personal style is to state what I believe, and why; and then go away. Arrogance
comes quite naturally to me. After a while what I believed is usually accepted
as obvious--I get no credit for it--and that is just fine. I rarely read
these bazing disagreements. My Attention Deficit Disorder coupled with Time Management
skills I think....
Bob--I might have done the same thing. But I think I would have tried to avoid
having to do it much harder. These are damned smart guys.
"The problem with the world is that only the intelligent people want to be
smarter, and only the good people want to improve."
- E. Stobblehouse
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones@charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=59992#59992
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: RG batteries with 35A generators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-av@lloyd.com>
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 08:23 AM 9/6/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>
> I'm mystified by this. Alternators are inherently current limited.
> A 'cold' alternator will put out only a handful of amps over and above
> the nameplate rating. Generators have no such inherent protection and
> require current sensing and control feature as part of the regulator.
> This is accomplished with the center of three relay-looking thingys
> in . . .
Well, here is some speculation, worth every penny you are paying for it.
The actual generating part of a generator is the armature, not the
stator. Less surface area from which to rid itself of heat. Also, the
generator has the commutator and its brushes. These are pretty lossy and
they don't have a good way to get rid of heat either, hence another
bottle neck. You are also likely to have less wire in the armature so
you don't have as much I*R loss to limit current.
I also suspect that even though alternators and generators have output
ratings, what they spec as "continuous duty" is probably not really
continuous duty. I suspect that the real, "you can run it this hard
until the cows come home," value is something smaller.
If you just knew the temperature rise of the various components you
could probably figure out what the real ratings are.
And his is an interesting but probably not-to-useful observation on
limits. The Chinese actually put multiple maximum limits on their
engines. It is like, "you can run it this hard for 5 minutes, this hard
for 10 minutes, this hard for 15 minutes, this hard for one hour, and
this hard for ever and ever." This makes a LOT of sense to me.
Brian Lloyd
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 11:07 AM 9/6/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
>
>Count me as one who thinks that banning people from the list discloses a
>failure of process. I think there is a clash of styles that destroys the
>exchange of ideas here. Too bad.
>
>My personal style is to state what I believe, and why; and then go away.
>Arrogance comes quite naturally to me. After a while what I believed is
>usually accepted as obvious--I get no credit for it--and that is just
>fine. I rarely read these bazing disagreements. My Attention Deficit
>Disorder coupled with Time Management skills I think....
>
>Bob--I might have done the same thing. But I think I would have tried to
>avoid having to do it much harder. These are damned smart guys.
I was of that illusion too . . . the decision did not
come easy and it took YEARS. However, in the time since folks have
e-mailed me privately. Some have forwarded copies of e-mails sent
by George in what I'm sure George believes is a rebuttal of things
I wrote. Had his words dealt with simple-ideas and alternative
ways to assemble them into useful systems, one might properly
classify his behavior as vigorous debate. In fact much of what
he writes to others revealed a breadth and depth of dishonor
I would not have guessed.
I did not "ban" him, I asked him to leave. If he is an honorable
person (which recent revelations places in doubt) he will leave
and make an physical blocking of his membership unnecessary.
>"The problem with the world is that only the intelligent people want to be
>smarter, and only the good people want to improve."
> - E. Stobblehouse
An admirable sentiment. But if you believe George embraces
this philosophy, then you've been bamboozled far worse than
many of us. If you suggesting any degree of arrogance on
my part, please note that arrogant folks cut a wide swath through
any and all individuals or groups who challenge their authority and/or
ideas.
All the way through the so-called debates with George we had
but two debatable issues. (1) He refused to acknowledge a modern alternator
could experience a gross OV failure in spite of demonstrations
to the contrary. (2) He brushed aside my oft stated design goals
for providing seamless integration of his favorite product (the
IR alternator) into classic aircraft electrical systems. In virtually
every other point with respect to these fine products, we were in
absolute agreement and I said so. I've produced dozens of pages of
explanation for my assertions which he summarily ignored and yet
he produced not one essay of his own to explain his assertions.
We did our level best to invite George into the process and
on his point we disagree . . . the process did not fail.
He was the one cutting the wide swath while I and others were
sifting through the noise for any ideas that were attractive,
i.e. WORTHY of exchange.
If you believe George has been mis-interpreted then you're welcome
to produce any article you like to translate George-speak into terms
that more of us understand. You know the goals: Assemble simple-ideas
(indisputable fact) into useful inventions. Only then may we compare
with similar inventions to see which advances the best-we-know-how-to-do.
At the same time, be mindful of design goals of those who will spend
$time$ to put these ideas into practice. Use words that inform and
perhaps entertain. Avoid words that persuade or injure. That my friend
is "The Process".
The Process is foolproof. Failures are exclusively assignable
to individuals who either do not understand or choose not to
embrace it . . . and that sir, is a demonstrable byproduct
of arrogance.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Harold" <kayce33@earthlink.net>
My problem with gmc is that he wastes time, both Bobs and everyone else who
subscribes. I for one have had enough on picking flyspecks out of pepper.
Harold
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 2:07 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: gmcjetpilot
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
> <emjones@charter.net>
>
> Count me as one who thinks that banning people from the list discloses a
> failure of process. I think there is a clash of styles that destroys the
> exchange of ideas here. Too bad.
>
> My personal style is to state what I believe, and why; and then go away.
> Arrogance comes quite naturally to me. After a while what I believed is
> usually accepted as obvious--I get no credit for it--and that is just
> fine. I rarely read these bazing disagreements. My Attention Deficit
> Disorder coupled with Time Management skills I think....
>
> Bob--I might have done the same thing. But I think I would have tried to
> avoid having to do it much harder. These are damned smart guys.
>
> "The problem with the world is that only the intelligent people want to be
> smarter, and only the good people want to improve."
> - E. Stobblehouse
>
> --------
> Eric M. Jones
> www.PerihelionDesign.com
> 113 Brentwood Drive
> Southbridge, MA 01550
> (508) 764-2072
> emjones@charter.net
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=59992#59992
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Thomas <lists@stevet.net>
Smart is not enough. You can have the best idea or knowledge base in
the world, but if you cannot communicate, it is worthless. There are
plenty of "damned smart guys" on the list who can communicate. I'll
listen to them.
Best Regards,
Steve Thomas
SteveT.Net
805-569-0336 Office
________________________________________________________________________
On Sep 6, 2006, at 11:07 AM, Eric M. Jones wrote:
> These are damned smart guys.
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Slaughter" <willslau@alumni.rice.edu>
Bob,
I think your analogy of operating a classroom is right on the money. Those
who disagree so vehemently with the instructor are free to drop the class,
or even start their own class if they can convince the school. They do not
have the right to disrupt the class for the other folks who have come to
discuss and learn. I'd suggest going ahead with the actual blocking -
getting him off of this list can't happen too soon for me.
William Slaughter
Yes! I'll actually put my name on my posts! ;-)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 2:32 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Process
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
--> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 11:07 AM 9/6/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
>--> <emjones@charter.net>
>
>Count me as one who thinks that banning people from the list discloses
>a
>failure of process. I think there is a clash of styles that destroys the
>exchange of ideas here. Too bad.
>
>My personal style is to state what I believe, and why; and then go
>away.
>Arrogance comes quite naturally to me. After a while what I believed is
>usually accepted as obvious--I get no credit for it--and that is just
>fine. I rarely read these bazing disagreements. My Attention Deficit
>Disorder coupled with Time Management skills I think....
>
>Bob--I might have done the same thing. But I think I would have tried
>to
>avoid having to do it much harder. These are damned smart guys.
I was of that illusion too . . . the decision did not
come easy and it took YEARS. However, in the time since folks have
e-mailed me privately. Some have forwarded copies of e-mails sent
by George in what I'm sure George believes is a rebuttal of things
I wrote. Had his words dealt with simple-ideas and alternative
ways to assemble them into useful systems, one might properly
classify his behavior as vigorous debate. In fact much of what
he writes to others revealed a breadth and depth of dishonor
I would not have guessed.
I did not "ban" him, I asked him to leave. If he is an honorable
person (which recent revelations places in doubt) he will leave
and make an physical blocking of his membership unnecessary.
>"The problem with the world is that only the intelligent people want to
>be smarter, and only the good people want to improve."
> - E. Stobblehouse
An admirable sentiment. But if you believe George embraces
this philosophy, then you've been bamboozled far worse than
many of us. If you suggesting any degree of arrogance on
my part, please note that arrogant folks cut a wide swath through
any and all individuals or groups who challenge their authority and/or
ideas.
All the way through the so-called debates with George we had
but two debatable issues. (1) He refused to acknowledge a modern
alternator
could experience a gross OV failure in spite of demonstrations
to the contrary. (2) He brushed aside my oft stated design goals
for providing seamless integration of his favorite product (the
IR alternator) into classic aircraft electrical systems. In virtually
every other point with respect to these fine products, we were in
absolute agreement and I said so. I've produced dozens of pages of
explanation for my assertions which he summarily ignored and yet
he produced not one essay of his own to explain his assertions.
We did our level best to invite George into the process and
on his point we disagree . . . the process did not fail.
He was the one cutting the wide swath while I and others were
sifting through the noise for any ideas that were attractive,
i.e. WORTHY of exchange.
If you believe George has been mis-interpreted then you're welcome
to produce any article you like to translate George-speak into terms
that more of us understand. You know the goals: Assemble simple-ideas
(indisputable fact) into useful inventions. Only then may we compare
with similar inventions to see which advances the
best-we-know-how-to-do.
At the same time, be mindful of design goals of those who will spend
$time$ to put these ideas into practice. Use words that inform and
perhaps entertain. Avoid words that persuade or injure. That my friend
is "The Process".
The Process is foolproof. Failures are exclusively assignable
to individuals who either do not understand or choose not to
embrace it . . . and that sir, is a demonstrable byproduct
of arrogance.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce McGregor" <bruceflys@comcast.net>
Paul, Greg and George - a trio of water muddiers from whom I learned little
despite their voluminous posturings and rants. I hope that we have seen the
last of them.
Meanwhile, Bob, thanks so much for your untiring advice in leading us to the
electrical promised land.
Regards, Bruce McGregor
do not archive
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: RG batteries with 35A generators |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 11:14 AM 9/6/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-av@lloyd.com>
>
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> > <nuckollsr@cox.net>
> >
> > At 08:23 AM 9/6/2006 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> > I'm mystified by this. Alternators are inherently current limited.
> > A 'cold' alternator will put out only a handful of amps over and above
> > the nameplate rating. Generators have no such inherent protection and
> > require current sensing and control feature as part of the regulator.
> > This is accomplished with the center of three relay-looking thingys
> > in . . .
>
>Well, here is some speculation, worth every penny you are paying for it.
>
>The actual generating part of a generator is the armature, not the
>stator. Less surface area from which to rid itself of heat. Also, the
>generator has the commutator and its brushes. These are pretty lossy and
>they don't have a good way to get rid of heat either, hence another
>bottle neck. You are also likely to have less wire in the armature so
>you don't have as much I*R loss to limit current.
Understand . . . and agree
>I also suspect that even though alternators and generators have output
>ratings, what they spec as "continuous duty" is probably not really
>continuous duty. I suspect that the real, "you can run it this hard
>until the cows come home," value is something smaller.
>
>If you just knew the temperature rise of the various components you
>could probably figure out what the real ratings are.
That's where I get crosswise in the road. In TC aviation, one
is generally expected to deliver to requirements and to fully
explain ratings and limits for products.
>And his is an interesting but probably not-to-useful observation on
>limits. The Chinese actually put multiple maximum limits on their
>engines. It is like, "you can run it this hard for 5 minutes, this hard
>for 10 minutes, this hard for 15 minutes, this hard for one hour, and
>this hard for ever and ever." This makes a LOT of sense to me.
Yup, we do that too. Starter generators on some of our
products are qualified for continuous duty performance
(nameplate value) and then tested for short term overloads
under certain conditions . . . like a 30-minute requirement
for getting down from altitude with one generator dead and all
the de-ice equipment turned on.
I've been herding electrons in this venue for a long time
and Skip's assertions about battery sizing due to some failure
of the generator to meet nameplate performance continuously
is a first. Certification generally demands that you make
ALL limits known to both system integrators and ultimately
pilots . . . if the knowledge is necessary to prevent accidental
damage to hardware.
Now, it may well be that Skip reports some instances where
folks have put fat RG batteries into 1946 C-140's with
20A generators and the customer had "problems". I'm skeptical
that any detailed failure analysis was conducted and I'll
further confess to no knowledge of how generators were certified
in 1946. I do have a copy of CAR3 somewhere, I'll go dig that
out.
Not a really big deal for us alternator drivers but I would
like to understand more. Will let you know what I find out.
Bob . . .
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: | AOPA battery article |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:04 AM 9/6/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>---- "Robert L. Nuckolls wrote:
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
> >
> > At 12:44 AM 9/6/2006 -0400, you wrote:
> >
> > >The article is in the AOPA pilot magazine Aug or Sept issue, on aircraft
> > >batteries.
> > >Bobs name is mentioned right in the introduction of the article and later
> > >near the end with a reference to the connection. I have a rotax 912
> with a
> > >20Amp generater, was setting up
> > >for an RG battery from B&C, but took out the vented battery box I got
> with
> > >my kit and dusted it off wondering if this article is correct.
> >
> > I don't subscribe to AOPA Pilot any more so I missed
> > the article. It would be interesting/useful to review
> > it. If someone could scan it and email it to me, I'd
> > appreciate it.
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
>Listers,
> The relevent article is on page 133 of the September issue
>Charlie Kuss
Dave sent me a copy. It's an innocuous piece and relatively
accurate. If I were to expand beyond where it stopped short
would be to explain the value in KNOWING what your endurance
loads are and KNOWING if your battery is likely to support
this load for whatever endurance YOU decide.
There was one rather glaring error on the top of page
138 where it's stated that a 1C rated battery is discharged
at 2C, it will deliver energy for 1/2 hour. Twice the
load is ALWAYS less than half the previous capacity. By
the same token, 0.1C load is always more than 10X the
1C label capacity.
Exemplar capacity vs. discharge rates are illustrated
in . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/37AH_Capacity_vs_Load.gif
and
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/17AH_Capcity_vs_Load.gif
These graphs from manufacturer's data show that increasing
loads increases internal losses and that apparent
capacity drops as load increases.
Our perpetual parents on the TC side have decided that
"30 minutes" is the magic number for endurance and
"85% of label capacity" is end of life for the battery.
This makes the certification effort easy and makes FBOs
task of selling batteries easier. This is an excellent example of
standardization that benefits the manufacturers and
regulators while limiting the owner's ability to tailor
realistic targets to match his/her own mission requirements.
Neither one of the 30-minute/85% assertions suggest that
the owner/operator of an airplane might possess tools and
be willing to acquire skills needed increase personal endurance
target to say 1 hour. Or, take the time to monitor a battery
with an eye toward meeting the endurance level such that
70% of label capacity is the TRUE end of life for the battery
in that particular airplane.
Aren't you guys glad you don't have to salute those
flags? I still like "duration of fuel aboard" for
endurance and "pitch it when e-bus loads cannot be
supported for duration of fuel aboard." Of course,
on the OBAM side of the house we're free to select
and operate to our personal design goals.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
Message 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: Debating on an alternator or two batteries? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Hello Tony
Personally with an electric dependant engine, I'd happily trade 4 lbs
or so of battery for a small permanent magnet alternator and I suspect
the alternator would be the lighter option if you have a few hours of
fuel on board.
Bob just posted some references on battery discharging that you will
want to look at.
For a primary battery with no alternator I'd suggest multiplying your
hours of fuel by 2.5 amps and then picking a battery that can supply
that (from its spec. sheet) and then doubling it. Another battery
characteristic is that the deeper you discharge them, the fewer
discharge - charge cycles they last so planning for a 50% discharge when
the fuel runs out might be reasonable. That would also allow for other
sub optimal conditions such as temperature.
Ken
Tony Gibson wrote:
> Hi Group, my name's Tony Gibson, I've been a lurker on the list for
> almost a year now and am building a Sonerai 2L - read 550lb slightly
> underpowered two place! :)
>
> I'm trying to take as much weight out of the plane as I can by keeping
> it simple. There's a lot of reasons I'm considering two batteries
> rather than a battery and an alternator. But saving a bit of weight
> isn't the main reason, the fact that I can move the weight of battery
> where ever I want in the plane is a big bonus for servicing it
> nevermind balancing, and ....the last thing I will do is put lead
> weight back into it!
>
> I have an ignition system that draws ~1 amp and a single fuel pump
> that draws another amp. I decided against the starter and the only
> other amp draws will be two small Stratomaster instruments drawing
> less than half an amp together. Total draw would be less than 2.5 Amps
>
> With the right warning system to indicate a low primary battery
> I'm wondering if something like a 3 - 5 Ah battery would be large
> enough for a backup? What about the primary?
>
> The downside of course is what would I do on a crosscountry trip?
> Argh! :)
>
> Thanx a lot, appreciate any help and opinions!
> Tony
>
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! --
|