---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 09/06/06: 22 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:35:31 AM PST US From: "Steve & Denise" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual radio interference --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve & Denise" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:17:35 AM PST US From: FLYaDIVE@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:11:55 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: What I learned today --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:25:47 AM PST US From: Dave N6030X Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: RG batteries with 35A generators --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:26:40 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: RG batteries with 35A generators --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:37:29 AM PST US From: Ernest Christley Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: methodology for avionics install --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ernest Christley 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:56:48 AM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: What I learned today From: "Chuck Jensen" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:04:04 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Old Cessna filters/capacitors/avionics --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:39:54 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: RG batteries with 35A generators --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" 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 > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:57:47 AM PST US From: "Darwin N. Barrie" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: gmcjetpilot 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:06:12 AM PST US From: Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: RG batteries with 35A generators --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: ---- "Robert L. Nuckolls wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:39:02 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: RG batteries with 35A generators From: "Kelly McMullen" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Kelly McMullen" 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: >> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:10:03 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: gmcjetpilot From: "Eric M. Jones" --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:15:25 AM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: RG batteries with 35A generators --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:34:12 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Process --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 11:07 AM 9/6/2006 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 12:45:15 PM PST US From: "Harold" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: gmcjetpilot --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Harold" 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" Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 2:07 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: gmcjetpilot > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:27:05 PM PST US From: Steve Thomas Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: gmcjetpilot --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Thomas 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:30:26 PM PST US From: "William Slaughter" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Process --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Slaughter" 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" --> At 11:07 AM 9/6/2006 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" >--> > >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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:10:55 PM PST US From: "Bruce McGregor" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Muddy Waters --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bruce McGregor" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:13:22 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: RG batteries with 35A generators --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 11:14 AM 9/6/2006 -0700, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd > >Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:31:26 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: AOPA battery article --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 09:04 AM 9/6/2006 -0700, you wrote: >---- "Robert L. Nuckolls wrote: > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:01:49 PM PST US From: Ken Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Debating on an alternator or two batteries? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken 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 >