Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:14 AM - Re: battery cables & Relays - Now G's (FLYaDIVE@aol.com)
2. 05:14 AM - Re: battery cables & Relays - Now G's (FLYaDIVE@aol.com)
3. 05:25 AM - Re: Now G's (FLYaDIVE@aol.com)
4. 05:31 AM - Re: battery cables & Relays - Now G's (FLYaDIVE@aol.com)
5. 05:39 AM - Re: battery cables & Relays - Now G's (FLYaDIVE@aol.com)
6. 05:41 AM - Re: battery cables & Relays - Now G's (Bill Denton)
7. 05:46 AM - Alternator test lead (Bill Bradburry)
8. 06:09 AM - Re: battery cables & Relays - Now G's (FLYaDIVE@aol.com)
9. 06:16 AM - Re: battery cables & Relays - Now G's (FLYaDIVE@aol.com)
10. 06:18 AM - Re: Now G's (bob noffs)
11. 06:47 AM - Re: Now G's (Dan Brown)
12. 06:58 AM - Re: Brass bolt for firewall ground. (Eric M. Jones)
13. 07:15 AM - Re: Alternator test lead (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 07:20 AM - Re: battery cables & Relays - Now G's (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
15. 07:23 AM - Re: Now G's (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 07:26 AM - Re: Re: Brass bolt for firewall ground. (Dave N6030X)
17. 07:47 AM - Strange Electrical failure in flight (Ron Patterson)
18. 08:10 AM - Re: battery cables & Relays 'G's" skunk stink (Eric M. Jones)
19. 08:33 AM - Re: Now G's (Bill Denton)
20. 08:34 AM - Connectors vs. Straight Wire (Dennis Johnson)
21. 09:02 AM - Re: Re: battery cables & Relays 'G's" skunk stink (Dave N6030X)
22. 09:15 AM - Glowing LED Warning Lights, Too Dark Now-LM317 (CardinalNSB@aol.com)
23. 09:33 AM - fat wire - skinny wires (Ernest Christley)
24. 10:11 AM - Re: Re: battery cables & Relays 'G's" skunk stink ()
25. 10:58 AM - Re: Now G's (Gilles Thesee)
26. 01:39 PM - Garmin 396/496 Connections (Mark Chamberlain)
27. 02:09 PM - Re: Re: Mogas versus 100LL (Mostly Off Topic) (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
28. 02:09 PM - Re: Connectors vs. Straight Wire (Alan K. Adamson)
29. 03:14 PM - Re: Garmin 396/496 Connections (James Redmon)
30. 05:27 PM - Re: Connectors vs. Straight Wire (Dennis Johnson)
31. 06:05 PM - Re: Re: Connectors vs. Straight Wire (Alan K. Adamson)
32. 06:26 PM - Re: Connectors vs. Straight Wire (SteinAir, Inc.)
33. 06:57 PM - Re: Connectors vs. Straight Wire (Jim Baker)
34. 07:36 PM - Re: Glowing LED Warning Lights, Too Dark Now-LM317 (Ken)
35. 08:03 PM - Re: fat wire - skinny wires (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
36. 09:07 PM - Re: Connectors vs. Straight Wire (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
37. 09:08 PM - Re: Re: battery cables & Relays 'G's" skunk stink (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
38. 09:14 PM - Re: Re: battery cables & Relays 'G's" skunk stink (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: battery cables & Relays - Now G's |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
In a message dated 10/1/06 11:58:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca writes:
> Barry;
>
> I don't know, but it's going to be pretty high as the deceleration
distance
> is extremely small, and you have to provide enough force to overcome
> distorting the plastic past the detents. The weight of the cap is tiny, the
> force required a few ounces, so the G's will be extreme. (now there's a
> quantified term for you )
>
> Bob McC
===============================
EXCELLENT Bob, EXCELLENT!
Now I know this is going to sound really crazy but ...
It averaged 200 g's
g's can be measure in either acceleration or deceleration and as the joke
goes ... It is not the fall that kills you, it is the sudden stop.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: battery cables & Relays - Now G's |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
Hi Bill:
- Bill's thoughts -
Interesting test, but not really valid here...
You "Bic pen" test measured essentially two things:
Friction
Sealing
These are the two factor that determine the ease (or lack thereof) with
which the cap can be seated on the pen.
Gravity would have been a negligible factor in this type of test.
[Barry] -
Friction - YES
Sealing - NO
The test does not care if the cap seals, all it cares about is overcoming
friction and moving the cap to is closed position.
Other factors is the weight of the pen, weight of the cap and distance
dropped, velocity of the objects before stopping and force absorption on the objects
and impact surface. KE = 1/2 M x V2
But, take a guess on how many 'g's' were developed?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- Bill's thoughts -
Assume that, if operated vertically, the solenoid can lift a 15 lb weight.
Also assume that the movable contactor portion of the device weighs 1 lb.
Obviously, it would take a gravitational force of greater than 15 g's to
open the contactor.
[Barry] - Good analogy, but what happened to the FRICTION, if it is part of
the pen it is part of the solenoid. And there is also the constant opposite
pull of the coil/solenoid for as long as power is applied.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- Bill's thoughts -
In an aircraft flying aerobatics, such factors as acceleration would also
play a part in the equation...
[Barry] - And when would acceleration be encountered? Especially at Max
acceleration?
NOT in straight and level flight! For the only acceleration then would be
Rearward. Not pulling down on the plunger of the solenoid. (Vertically mounted
relay)
If you consider the acceleration {But it really isn't, it is the g force you
are feeling} when you pull out of a dive ... That is a change in velocity
which equates to g forces.
When you pull out of a dive the plane slows down, it does not increase in
speed. It is only the g force you feel that gives that impression.
There is a difference between Velocity and Speed. ;-)
Questions:
If you point the nose of the plane down, say 3 degrees and the prop RPM is
fixed will the plane increase in speed until it hits something?
If you feel the g force (greater than 1 g) only during acceleration why can
you feel the g force in a centrifuge at a constant speed?
If you point the nose of the plane down, say 3 degrees and the prop RPM is
fixed will there be an increase in g force until it hits something?
Ain't physics grand? An Exlax a day keeps everybody away.
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
In a message dated 10/1/06 12:37:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr writes:
> Those clear Bic pens are still around in my area.
> What I'do is weigh the cap with a precision scale, then push the cap on
> against a larger scale. And then do the math to get the gs...
>
>
> Regards,
> Gilles Thesee
> Grenoble, France
> http://contrails.free.fr
===========================
Gilles:
What you would be measuring there would be FORCE, not g's. It is the force
to overcome the friction of the pen's closing mechanism. Don't use your hand
in the test. It will adsorb some of the force in the opposite direction and
give you a lower reading. You should hook up something like a screw / c-clamp
fixture. Also, there is basically no acceleration in this test. But, you can
work out the Mass of the entire pen use acceleration of 32 ft per second squared
(sorry I do not recall the metric conversion) and apply it to the test. The
number will not match the 200 g's I mentioned but it will be quite
interesting, quite high.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
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: battery cables & Relays - Now G's |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
In a message dated 10/1/06 12:58:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
N6030X@DaveMorris.com writes:
> Barry, I think when I worked in a government lab I must have had more
> fun than you. We were shooting down missiles using an airborne laser
> in a KC-135. You should see what a gigawatt pulsed CO2 laser does to
> a BIC cap, or a chunk of asbestos concrete.
>
> :)
>
> Dave Morris
=====================
Dave:
You are a sick puppy ... But I like the way you think! (Punch line taken
from a joke)
I don't know who had more fun, but it sure was interesting. So, do we use
LASER cannons today? Where can I get one? Are they small enough to mount on my
car?
Probably too expensive ... Just send me the schematic, I'll build one.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
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: battery cables & Relays - Now G's |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
In a message dated 10/1/06 11:37:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
khorton01@rogers.com writes:
> How did you determine the relationship between the reading on
> accelerometer when the pen landed on it and the acceleration that the
> pen cap was subjected to?
>
> If the accelerometer wasn't mounted on the pen cap, I'm not really
> sure what you were measuring.
>
> Kevin Horton
> Ottawa, Canada
Hi Kevin:
By starting off in low increments of height and dropping the pen; at some
height the cap would snap onto the barrel. Since all parts were falling as one
unit the acceleration was the same for both the cap and the barrel. The
accelerometer just read of the force of the impact in g's.
Sort of like the egg drop experiment but in reverse. We did not want to
preserve the egg ;-)
We were making egg salad ;-).
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | battery cables & Relays - Now G's |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
Just for fun, a couple of points...
I threw in "sealing" in the Bic pen discussion to deal with the air trapped
in the cap. Given sufficient sealing, you would never be able to get the cap
farther down than the compressibility of air would permit.
I ignored friction in the solenoid as it would actually increase the force
required to open the contacts.
Interesting discussion...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of
FLYaDIVE@aol.com
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2006 7:13 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: battery cables & Relays - Now G's
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
Hi Bill:
- Bill's thoughts -
Interesting test, but not really valid here...
You "Bic pen" test measured essentially two things:
Friction
Sealing
These are the two factor that determine the ease (or lack thereof) with
which the cap can be seated on the pen.
Gravity would have been a negligible factor in this type of test.
[Barry] -
Friction - YES
Sealing - NO
The test does not care if the cap seals, all it cares about is overcoming
friction and moving the cap to is closed position.
Other factors is the weight of the pen, weight of the cap and distance
dropped, velocity of the objects before stopping and force absorption on the
objects
and impact surface. KE = 1/2 M x V2
But, take a guess on how many 'g's' were developed?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- Bill's thoughts -
Assume that, if operated vertically, the solenoid can lift a 15 lb weight.
Also assume that the movable contactor portion of the device weighs 1 lb.
Obviously, it would take a gravitational force of greater than 15 g's to
open the contactor.
[Barry] - Good analogy, but what happened to the FRICTION, if it is part of
the pen it is part of the solenoid. And there is also the constant opposite
pull of the coil/solenoid for as long as power is applied.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- Bill's thoughts -
In an aircraft flying aerobatics, such factors as acceleration would also
play a part in the equation...
[Barry] - And when would acceleration be encountered? Especially at Max
acceleration?
NOT in straight and level flight! For the only acceleration then would be
Rearward. Not pulling down on the plunger of the solenoid. (Vertically
mounted
relay)
If you consider the acceleration {But it really isn't, it is the g force you
are feeling} when you pull out of a dive ... That is a change in velocity
which equates to g forces.
When you pull out of a dive the plane slows down, it does not increase in
speed. It is only the g force you feel that gives that impression.
There is a difference between Velocity and Speed. ;-)
Questions:
If you point the nose of the plane down, say 3 degrees and the prop RPM is
fixed will the plane increase in speed until it hits something?
If you feel the g force (greater than 1 g) only during acceleration why can
you feel the g force in a centrifuge at a constant speed?
If you point the nose of the plane down, say 3 degrees and the prop RPM is
fixed will there be an increase in g force until it hits something?
Ain't physics grand? An Exlax a day keeps everybody away.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
"Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the third
time."
Yamashiada
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: | Alternator test lead |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Bradburry" <bbradburry@allvantage.com>
A couple of days ago, Bob referred to a method to attach a test lead to
the alternator field wire to do easy troubleshooting of the alternator.
A 1K ohm, 1/2 watt resistor was specified to isolate the test lead from
the field. Would this same resistor work for a 28V system, or would a
different resistor be required?
Thanks,
Bill Bradburry
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: battery cables & Relays - Now G's |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
In a message dated 10/1/06 11:19:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
Fiveonepw@aol.com writes:
> Man, you sure can tell it's the weekend...
=============
And a RAINY one here in the Mid Atlantic - NJ
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: battery cables & Relays - Now G's |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
In a message dated 10/1/06 4:41:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
nuckollsr@cox.net writes:
> I suspect the
> accelerometer was used as a timing device . . . I.e,
> measurement of the force interval for stopping the
> pen's fall, not as a direct measurement of acceleration.
>
> In any case, numbers in the hundreds of g's would not
> surprise me.
>
> Bob . . .
=======================
Righty O! Bob ...
Averaged 200 g's
The accelerometer read out in g's and the output was also shown on an
O'scope. There was also other numbers, I don't recall, probably Newtons.
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "bob noffs" <icubob@newnorth.net>
what am i missing? i dont see how acceleration enters in this equation? i
was thinking the weight of the pen body divided into the force needed would
give the g's. the 32 fps fps would be used to tell you how fast the pen was
traveling when it hit the floor.
bob noffs
----- Original Message -----
From: <FLYaDIVE@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 7:24 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Now G's
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 10/1/06 12:37:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr writes:
>
>> Those clear Bic pens are still around in my area.
>> What I'do is weigh the cap with a precision scale, then push the cap on
>> against a larger scale. And then do the math to get the gs...
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Gilles Thesee
>> Grenoble, France
>> http://contrails.free.fr
> ===========================
> Gilles:
>
> What you would be measuring there would be FORCE, not g's. It is the
> force
> to overcome the friction of the pen's closing mechanism. Don't use your
> hand
> in the test. It will adsorb some of the force in the opposite direction
> and
> give you a lower reading. You should hook up something like a screw /
> c-clamp
> fixture. Also, there is basically no acceleration in this test. But, you
> can
> work out the Mass of the entire pen use acceleration of 32 ft per second
> squared
> (sorry I do not recall the metric conversion) and apply it to the test.
> The
> number will not match the 200 g's I mentioned but it will be quite
> interesting, quite high.
>
> Barry
> "Chop'd Liver"
>
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dan Brown <dan@familybrown.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
bob noffs wrote:
> what am i missing? i dont see how acceleration enters in this equation?
> i was thinking the weight of the pen body divided into the force needed
> would give the g's. the 32 fps fps would be used to tell you how fast
> the pen was traveling when it hit the floor.
Gs are a measurement of acceleration, and you're correct that they can
be determined from the weight of the pen body (or cap, depending on
orientation) and the force required to seat the cap.
The equation is F = m * a, where F is force, m is mass, and a is
acceleration. If you want to solve for a, you just rearrange the
equation to a = F / m.
- --
Dan Brown, KE6MKS, dan@familybrown.org
"Since all the world is but a story, it were well for thee to buy the
more enduring story rather than the story that is less enduring."
-- The Judgment of St. Colum Cille
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFFIRkRyQGUivXxtkERAvq5AKDeGRnPMk2UAYiP4QAp8XI+NdPKNwCfWJdL
bLJVFHzm1dqYohgrcErp9X0
=M3H8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
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: Brass bolt for firewall ground. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
Instead of using a brass or copper bolt, consider using a U-shaped bar of copper
that is slipped in like a paper clip or bobby-pin. That way the fixturing and
current conducting functions are separated. If this were on the edge of the
firewall, no hole through the firewall might need to be made.
"The man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can be learned
in no other way." - Mark Twain
--------
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=65176#65176
Message 13
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Alternator test lead |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:47 AM 10/2/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Bradburry"
><bbradburry@allvantage.com>
>
>A couple of days ago, Bob referred to a method to attach a test lead to
>the alternator field wire to do easy troubleshooting of the alternator.
>A 1K ohm, 1/2 watt resistor was specified to isolate the test lead from
>the field. Would this same resistor work for a 28V system, or would a
>different resistor be required?
ANY 1/2 watt resistor of 200 to 2000 ohms would do at any voltage.
It's a protective measure to prevent a shorted test line from taking
the alternator system down. You could put an in-line 1A fuse there
too. The resistor is smaller and less 'lumpy' when inserted under
heatshrink in the test line.
With the resistor (or fuse) in place, a short downstream on
the test wire won't upset the alternator system. Adding the
resistor has a negligible effect on readings needed to diagnose
the system.
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 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: battery cables & Relays - Now G's |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:38 AM 10/2/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 10/1/06 11:37:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
>khorton01@rogers.com writes:
>
> > How did you determine the relationship between the reading on
> > accelerometer when the pen landed on it and the acceleration that the
> > pen cap was subjected to?
> >
> > If the accelerometer wasn't mounted on the pen cap, I'm not really
> > sure what you were measuring.
> >
> > Kevin Horton
> > Ottawa, Canada
>
>
>Hi Kevin:
>
>By starting off in low increments of height and dropping the pen; at some
>height the cap would snap onto the barrel. Since all parts were falling
>as one
>unit the acceleration was the same for both the cap and the barrel. The
>accelerometer just read of the force of the impact in g's.
>
>Sort of like the egg drop experiment but in reverse. We did not want to
>preserve the egg ;-)
Yeah, but if the accelerometer were stationary on
the 'floor' then it's already at-rest when the pen
hits it. The only data one might expect from the accelerometer
is duration of the deceleration event, not its magnitude
but I've not convinced myself that would work either.
Accelerometers are sensitive to delta-v. If the critter
is stuck to a relatively rigid surface like a concrete
floor, whacking it with a falling pen would impart no
motion.
I think Gilles' suggestion for calculating the ratio
of seating force to cap mass would yield the most
meaningful result.
Bob . . .
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>
Those clear Bic pens are still around in my area.
What I'do is weigh the cap with a precision scale, then push the cap on
against a larger scale. And then do the math to get the gs...
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
===========================
Gilles:
What you would be measuring there would be FORCE, not g's. It is the force
to overcome the friction of the pen's closing mechanism. Don't use your hand
in the test. It will adsorb some of the force in the opposite direction and
give you a lower reading. You should hook up something like a screw / c-clamp
fixture. Also, there is basically no acceleration in this test. But, you can
work out the Mass of the entire pen use acceleration of 32 ft per second
squared
(sorry I do not recall the metric conversion) and apply it to the test. The
number will not match the 200 g's I mentioned but it will be quite
interesting, quite high.
Force is force is force . . . whether it's applied with
the hand or any other device is not material to the
measurement . . . except that to measure PEAK force as
the cap moves over detent might me easier to observe
if the force is applied in very small, smooth increments
like with the clamp.
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 16
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Brass bolt for firewall ground. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
Eric, I can always identify your posts without even looking at the
signature line, because they are so refreshingly outside the
box. But I can't picture what you mean here. Can you explain
further where the U is slipped into?
Dave Morris
At 08:57 AM 10/2/2006, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
>
>Instead of using a brass or copper bolt, consider using a U-shaped
>bar of copper that is slipped in like a paper clip or bobby-pin.
>That way the fixturing and current conducting functions are
>separated. If this were on the edge of the firewall, no hole through
>the firewall might need to be made.
>
> "The man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that can
> be learned in no other way." - Mark Twain
>
>--------
>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=65176#65176
>
>
Message 17
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Strange Electrical failure in flight |
Just a note to let those of you who reponded to my question that I found the problem(s).
I did, in fact, have a loose B lead and to some extent a loose main
ground to the firewall. Once I tightened these connections up, no more problems.
Thanks for all the help.
Ron
RV-4 N8ZD
Message 18
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: battery cables & Relays 'G's" skunk stink |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
I think it is time for someone with a little authority to clear this up. My authority
is so little that I have hidden it under one of the periods in this posting.
A prize awaits the one who finds it.
1) Relay mounting. Type 70 Stancor Rodgers White Emerson Tyco. See:
http://www.alliedelec.com/Images/Products/Datasheets/BM/STANCOR/Stancor_Industrial-Control_5760005.pdf
So the manufacturer says, "mount plunger vertical, cap down". I checked into the
engineering data on this part and of course the corporate conglomeratization
has destroyed the engineering knowledge that built the part. The manufacturer
PROMISED they'd get back to me.....It's not DO-160 bubela. And it's only 122
deg F max operating temp. Etc. etc. Use the Kilovac EV200 part if you can.
(Yes, I am selling my Powerlink Jr. III now and I am MONTHS late.)
2) G-forces: [CAUTION-Head May Explode] Jacob Rabinow's Law (not that he called
it that...). Gracefulness is "when the first, second, and third derivatives
of the equation of motion monotonically and simultaneously go to zero." Which
is to say--when the velocity, acceleration and impulse (the change in acceleration)
smoothly and simultaneously go to zero.
So many mysteries--a gyro will be ruined if placed on a workbench hard enough to
be audible, but will do fine in an airplane doing aerobatics or combat. A pencil
held horizontal and dropped 12 inches experiences G-forces that will destroy
an airplane and kill a pilot. Curtis mercury-type elapsed-time meters were
12G-rated but failed if dropped on a workbench.
Motion is composed of displacement, velocity, acceleration and impulse elements.
The stiffness of a system determines which of these can be ignored in any practical
application. Designers and engineers have the job of measuring some of
these elements and constraining the system to prevent the others from becoming
critical. This has other physical science analogues too.
The exercise is left for the student.
"Everything you've learned in school as "obvious" becomes less and less obvious
as you begin to study the universe. For example, there are no solids in the universe.
There's not even a suggestion of a solid. There are no absolute continuums.
There are no surfaces. There are no straight lines."
- R. Buckminster Fuller
--------
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=65198#65198
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: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
"the cap moves over detent"
JFTR: There is no detent, the cap is held in place by friction...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2006 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Now G's
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
Those clear Bic pens are still around in my area.
What I'do is weigh the cap with a precision scale, then push the cap on
against a larger scale. And then do the math to get the gs...
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
===========================
Gilles:
What you would be measuring there would be FORCE, not g's. It is the force
to overcome the friction of the pen's closing mechanism. Don't use your
hand
in the test. It will adsorb some of the force in the opposite direction and
give you a lower reading. You should hook up something like a screw /
c-clamp
fixture. Also, there is basically no acceleration in this test. But, you
can
work out the Mass of the entire pen use acceleration of 32 ft per second
squared
(sorry I do not recall the metric conversion) and apply it to the test. The
number will not match the 200 g's I mentioned but it will be quite
interesting, quite high.
Force is force is force . . . whether it's applied with
the hand or any other device is not material to the
measurement . . . except that to measure PEAK force as
the cap moves over detent might me easier to observe
if the force is applied in very small, smooth increments
like with the clamp.
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 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: | Connectors vs. Straight Wire |
Greetings,
The entire instrument panel on my Lancair Legacy I'm building is
attached to the airframe with only four bolts and is therefore
relatively easy to remove in one large piece. That is, mechanically
easy to remove, if it weren't for a bazillion wires connecting it to the
airframe. On the other hand, the Legacy has a front hinged canopy and a
removable glare shield, which provide reasonably good access to the rear
of the instrument panel while it is in place.
I can either run the wires from the airframe directly to the various
components on the panel or I can insert D-Sub connectors between all the
wires and the instrument panel. If I use connectors, it will make
removing the instrument panel easier for repairs or upgrades. Running
the wires directly to the panel, without connectors, will reduce the
parts count but make future service more difficult.
I'm torn between the two alternatives. My first thought was to add
connectors to every wire in the expectation that I'll almost certainly
want to remove the instrument panel at some point in the future for
troubleshooting, repairs, or upgrades. Working on the panel while it's
on my workbench is soooooo convenient. But there are tons of wires,
many of them shielded, and running every single one of them through a
connector is a big project. Considering that I have reasonable access
to the rear of the panel with the canopy open and the glareshield
removed, should I just plan to service the panel with it in place?
Anybody who's "been there, done that" have any advice?
Thanks,
Dennis Johnson
Lancair Legacy; painting done, still wiring the panel
Message 21
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: battery cables & Relays 'G's" skunk stink |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
Anybody have a centrifuge with accelerometer and want to conduct a
little experiment?
Dave Morris
At 10:07 AM 10/2/2006, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
>
>I think it is time for someone with a little authority to clear this
>up. My authority is so little that I have hidden it under one of the
>periods in this posting. A prize awaits the one who finds it.
>
>1) Relay mounting. Type 70 Stancor Rodgers White Emerson Tyco. See:
>
>http://www.alliedelec.com/Images/Products/Datasheets/BM/STANCOR/Stancor_Industrial-Control_5760005.pdf
>
>So the manufacturer says, "mount plunger vertical, cap down". I
>checked into the engineering data on this part and of course the
>corporate conglomeratization has destroyed the engineering knowledge
>that built the part. The manufacturer PROMISED they'd get back to
>me.....It's not DO-160 bubela. And it's only 122 deg F max operating
>temp. Etc. etc. Use the Kilovac EV200 part if you can.
>
>(Yes, I am selling my Powerlink Jr. III now and I am MONTHS late.)
>
>2) G-forces: [CAUTION-Head May Explode] Jacob Rabinow's Law (not
>that he called it that...). Gracefulness is "when the first, second,
>and third derivatives of the equation of motion monotonically and
>simultaneously go to zero." Which is to say--when the velocity,
>acceleration and impulse (the change in acceleration) smoothly and
>simultaneously go to zero.
>
>So many mysteries--a gyro will be ruined if placed on a workbench
>hard enough to be audible, but will do fine in an airplane doing
>aerobatics or combat. A pencil held horizontal and dropped 12 inches
>experiences G-forces that will destroy an airplane and kill a pilot.
>Curtis mercury-type elapsed-time meters were 12G-rated but failed if
>dropped on a workbench.
>
>Motion is composed of displacement, velocity, acceleration and
>impulse elements. The stiffness of a system determines which of
>these can be ignored in any practical application. Designers and
>engineers have the job of measuring some of these elements and
>constraining the system to prevent the others from becoming
>critical. This has other physical science analogues too.
>
>The exercise is left for the student.
>
>"Everything you've learned in school as "obvious" becomes less and
>less obvious as you begin to study the universe. For example, there
>are no solids in the universe. There's not even a suggestion of a
>solid. There are no absolute continuums. There are no surfaces.
>There are no straight lines."
> - R. Buckminster Fuller
>
>--------
>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=65198#65198
>
>
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: | Glowing LED Warning Lights, Too Dark Now-LM317 |
MikeEasley wrote:
My LED voltage warning lights are now too dark to see in daylight after
adding the resistors in the drawing.
Smaller resistors?
I have been "playing" with leds on a breadboard, controlling them with a
LM317. The LM317 supplies constant voltage, determined by a resistance to (the
control leg, I don't know the real term). I have used a rheostat and been
able to control multiple or single leds, from very bright to very dim/off. I
am planning to make an annunciator for a 300xl gps, which always has 2 leds
on, sometimes 3, sometimes 4. I have the LM317 between the battery positive
and the leds, the leds taking power from the LM317 with their other leg
grounded. The leds are in parallel.
A value to me of the LM317 is to be able to maintain constant brightness of
multiple leds (I plan to use all the same white leds with colored lenses for
colors). The LM317 is from Radio Shack and I have only used the circuit on
the back of the box-LM317, a resistor, and a rheostat, 3 parts. Could I wire
a backup with a zener diode for a constant brightness?
However, I have been told this LM317 won't work, that I need Pulse Width
Modulation. I'm not sure why, the LM317 seems to do what I want at least on my
desk at home, is cheap and low parts count. I would appreciate any reasons
this would not be a proper way to control multiple identical leds-rf
production? Skip Simpson
Message 23
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | fat wire - skinny wires |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
I seem to remember there being some rationale for not running fat wires
in the same bundle with skinny wires, but I can find a specific
reference to it in the "Aero-electric Connenction". Does such a
rationale exist, or am I suffering from delusions of toxic aircraft
chemical fumes?
My #2 battery cable currently follows a rather tortuous path from the
tailpost to the front of the plane, and I could be a lot simple (and a
few pounds lighter), if it just ran down the side with a bunch of wires
that include microphone/headphone leads, taillight, tail strobe, fuel
pump powere, and a linear actuator control leads.
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |
Message 24
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: battery cables & Relays 'G's" skunk stink |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
Hello Eric
You wrote:
"So the manufacturer says, "mount plunger vertical, cap down"
I have never taken apart or looked very close at the relay that is being
talked about.
I can tell you that on old Savin 220 copiers had a lamp relay they called
a K-5.
It had a plunger that rode inside a brown phenolic guide. It was mounted
horizontal.
After some time, the phenolic would wear, and make a quite useful plunger
movement limiting pocket in the phenolic.
It was useful in demonstrating to customers just how a high resistance
connection could cause so much smoke and not trip the main circuit
breaker, that is until flames were a happening and the insulation complete
gave way and then tripped.
It was the contacts wearing out, and the pocket limiting motion. On
machines under contract I modified to a vertical plunger.
Could happen in some cases 10,000 copies. It was a 115V AC 15 amp relay,
the plunger was perhaps 3/16" or 1/4" in diameter. all that was needed was
a .005" pocket.
Ron Parigoris
Message 25
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Hi all,
>
> JFTR: There is no detent, the cap is held in place by friction...
>
That's right, the clear Bic has no detent.
For those interested, I've just done the Bic experiment.
I'll take some pictures tomorrow, and craft a preliminary report on this
major contribution to the advancement of Bic science.
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
Message 26
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Garmin 396/496 Connections |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Chamberlain" <mchamberlain@runbox.com>
Hi folks,
I just purchased a bare wire data lead for the Garmin 396/496. It has several wires
coming out of it, there are a couple labeled: Voice (-), Voice (+), alarm
etc. Unfortunately there are no instructions as to where they are supposed to
go. For example is the "alarm" wire for an audio alarm and therefore needs to
be routed to a unswitched audio hook up? Or should it go to a light on the panel?
What are the "Voice" wires for? Some sort of voice audio warnings or voice
in to the unit? Not sure what they would be for as the audio out of the unit
is stereo and therefor requires 3 wires, not just 2.
If any of you guys have used this data cable to hard wire you GPS could you throw
some light on this?
Thanks,
Mark - RV-7 finishing up last 5%
Message 27
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Mogas versus 100LL (Mostly Off Topic) |
Don Rivera told me directly by email.
Frank
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of 6440
Auto Parts
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mogas versus 100LL (Mostly Off
Topic)
Frank did you go to an AFS seminar ? If so was it worth it ? If not
where did you get the info that their system will run 100% ethanol ? I
have'nt found much real info on their website.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)
<mailto:frank.hinde@hp.com>
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 4:48 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mogas versus 100LL (Mostly
Off Topic)
When i spoke to Superior they stated Vapour lock as the issue
with ethanol mix...But when i asked if they really meant vapour lock or
simply boiling of fuel in the injector lines ...Which is not vapour lock
I did not get an answer. Secondly with my Airflow Performance system it
can run on 100% ethanol if you so desire.
I have high regard for Superior, don't get me wrong but there
are MANY OWTs out there that one is forced to question. ECI states lead
being a lubricant for valve seats as Gospel for example...I don't buy it
because, 1 it sounds ridiculous and 2 there is more and more evidence to
the contrary. Now in order to preserve the warranty (if there really is
one) ECI demand that you use 100LL duting break in...OK for sure i will
only start feeding in mogas after 25 hours or so...Not worth the risk.
Soo..if you have a properly designed fuel system (my pumps are
in the wingroots) I'm having a hard time understanding the objection to
ethanol mixes...Apart from the fact we're getting short changed (lower
grade fuel)to support our totally excessive farm production of
course...:)
Now it maybe the injector line boiling is so bad it s difficult
to get the engine to run smooth...Definatly a possibility.
I will phone Todd Peterson next week who has offered to fill me
in (metaphorically speaking) on why ehtanol in mogas is a really bad
thing....Not saying that he will be incorrect, just I don't understand
why not at the moment.
Frank
Another 5 hours and i start filling gas cans...Non ethanol...for
now..:)
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Jerry2DT@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 2:05 PM
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Mogas versus 100LL (Mostly Off
Topic)
Excellent article on Ethanol in current Consumer Reports. A
couple things for sure are that Ethanol has 30% less BTU's than Gasoline
125k btu/gal vs. 84.4), thereby translating to 32% less mileage per gal.
Ethanol is cleaner, which I guess is why it is mandated in some parts. I
track my car gas mileage very closely and get 8% less mpg when using a
mix. The math doesn't come out quite right with the btu's, but it is a
fact, at least for my car. It is alleged that Ethanol rots some seals,
gaskets. My 1996 Honda motorcycle specifically disallows it's use. There
is no way I'll ever use a mix of gas/ethanol in my aircraft. Superior
also bans Ethanol btw, although encourages use of premium mogas for
their XP360's...
FWIW, .02, etc.
Jerry Cochran
From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)"
<frank.hinde@hp.com>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Hinde, Frank
George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
Indeed yes are...but do you measure the RVP before you
use it?...Even if
the RVP is a little high you can ajust your flying to
suit.
As a bit of an aside I probably wouldn't store mogas for
6 months before
using it.
More of a question is wat if ethanol appears in the
mix...i have an
invite to phone Todd at Peterson for the low down on why
not to use
Ethanol...I'm not convinced on that one...at least not
yet.
More to come
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
Message 28
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Connectors vs. Straight Wire |
Dennis.
I might be late with this comment.... But Cannon Plugs, Cannon Plugs, Cannon
Plugs..... Did I say Cannon Plugs?
You can get them in various densities. I'd try to keep it to 3 or 4 and
group things together in logical sense.
I know you can get them Lancair, or there are probably other sources as
well. I've not gone there yet, but when I do, it will be Deutch connectors
and Cannon plugs you can be assured.
Also, heat-shrink labelers are pretty cheap and are available on ebay to
help keep things grouped and sorted and labeled.
Alan
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dennis
Johnson
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 11:34 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Connectors vs. Straight Wire
Greetings,
The entire instrument panel on my Lancair Legacy I'm building is attached to
the airframe with only four bolts and is therefore relatively easy to remove
in one large piece. That is, mechanically easy to remove, if it weren't for
a bazillion wires connecting it to the airframe. On the other hand, the
Legacy has a front hinged canopy and a removable glare shield, which provide
reasonably good access to the rear of the instrument panel while it is in
place.
I can either run the wires from the airframe directly to the various
components on the panel or I can insert D-Sub connectors between all the
wires and the instrument panel. If I use connectors, it will make removing
the instrument panel easier for repairs or upgrades. Running the wires
directly to the panel, without connectors, will reduce the parts count but
make future service more difficult.
I'm torn between the two alternatives. My first thought was to add
connectors to every wire in the expectation that I'll almost certainly want
to remove the instrument panel at some point in the future for
troubleshooting, repairs, or upgrades. Working on the panel while it's on
my workbench is soooooo convenient. But there are tons of wires, many of
them shielded, and running every single one of them through a connector is a
big project. Considering that I have reasonable access to the rear of the
panel with the canopy open and the glareshield removed, should I just plan
to service the panel with it in place? Anybody who's "been there, done
that" have any advice?
Thanks,
Dennis Johnson
Lancair Legacy; painting done, still wiring the panel
Message 29
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Garmin 396/496 Connections |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James Redmon" <james@berkut13.com>
Actually, you do have instructions - they are in the GPS unit's Pilot's
Guide toward the back. Even has a diagram to show you how it all hooks up.
The "Voice" lines are external speaker lines for the auto-navigation speak
output - "turn right in 100 feet", etc. Has nothing to do with "aviation"
related features as all of those warnings and XM music all come out the
audio plug.
Hope that helps.
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Chamberlain" <mchamberlain@runbox.com>
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 3:37 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Garmin 396/496 Connections
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark Chamberlain"
> <mchamberlain@runbox.com>
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I just purchased a bare wire data lead for the Garmin 396/496. It has
> several wires coming out of it, there are a couple labeled: Voice (-),
> Voice (+), alarm etc. Unfortunately there are no instructions as to where
> they are supposed to go. For example is the "alarm" wire for an audio
> alarm and therefore needs to be routed to a unswitched audio hook up? Or
> should it go to a light on the panel? What are the "Voice" wires for? Some
> sort of voice audio warnings or voice in to the unit? Not sure what they
> would be for as the audio out of the unit is stereo and therefor requires
> 3 wires, not just 2.
>
> If any of you guys have used this data cable to hard wire you GPS could
> you throw some light on this?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark - RV-7 finishing up last 5%
Message 30
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Connectors vs. Straight Wire |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis Johnson" <pinetownd@volcano.net>
Hi Alan,
Thanks for the reply to my question about connectors to allow removing the instrument
panel. You suggested Cannon plugs. It seems to me that Cannon plugs are
more expensive and less convenient to install than D-Sub connectors. I hope
there's not a fundamental problem with D-Subs because nearly every electronic
component I installed came with D-Subs on the back.
Best,
Dennis
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=65345#65345
Message 31
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Connectors vs. Straight Wire |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" <aadamson@highrf.com>
Oh, I think they would work ok... Except, I had one bad experience. I had a
monitor with a 15pin D-Sub on it. It worked for a couple of years and then
all of a sudden it started to flake out... I found that the "tension" on the
female pins started to fail. I would have to "cock" the connector in order
that the colors on the monitor appeared correct. Finally, it just wouldn't
take any jiggling to get the colors right and I had to buy a new monitor.
YMMV, but there are lots of kinds of Cannon plugs, and it's a one time
investment. For something like interconnects that have to survive in
"hostile" environments, its just my preference, but I'll use cannon plugs.
Good luck btw, can't wait to see yours sometime :)...
Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dennis
Johnson
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 8:26 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Connectors vs. Straight Wire
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dennis Johnson"
--> <pinetownd@volcano.net>
Hi Alan,
Thanks for the reply to my question about connectors to allow removing the
instrument panel. You suggested Cannon plugs. It seems to me that Cannon
plugs are more expensive and less convenient to install than D-Sub
connectors. I hope there's not a fundamental problem with D-Subs because
nearly every electronic component I installed came with D-Subs on the back.
Best,
Dennis
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=65345#65345
Message 32
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: | Connectors vs. Straight Wire |
My comment will probably be a little different from the typical..but, I'd
push you to do as much straight wiring as possible. On my 1st plane I did
the Canon Plug thing all over the place.....have you ever tried to
troubleshoot an electrical gremlin through a bunch of canon plugs or D-Subs?
It's a pain in the rear. Once you add hundreds of pins, that's hundreds of
new joints that are potential future problem areas.
Next, why do you really need them? Sure, it sounds like a great idea, but
really....how many times do you actually take a panel in and out of plane?
As far as individual components, it only takes a couple screws to drop out
any of the EFIS's out there, radios slide out of trays, etc..., so you don't
get much advantage there. Next, even if you wanted you shouldn't run
everything through canon plugs. Audio Wires specifically can get really
touchy running them through connectors...all the headset, mic, aux leads
are/should be shielded and breaking that shield just creates another area
for noise and more gremlins to move in. You can't shouldn't split EGT/CHT
wires, nor some other sensor wires along with the heavy wires. Basically,
it looks good at airshows and in magazines, but the truth of the matter is
it's almost impossible to get by NOT hooking some things directly to your
panel anyway and then there you are with a bunch of nice looking canon
plugs, then you Still have to remove things from the panel anyway....point
is no matter what your intentions you'll still probably have a bunch of
stuff hooked directly to the panel anyway (pitot tubing, static tubing,
maybe some antennas, fat battery wires, 02 lines if you have them, "P" leads
which shouldn't be broke, air vents lines, push/pull cables, so on and so
forth).
I guess I'm trying to say that anytime you added un-needed connections to a
particular system you are just asking for longer term troubles and an
overall reduction in reliability. Keep It Simple! Most of today's major
components come out of the panels so easily that I can't see a huge benefit
of just adding connectors in case someday you might want to yank the whole
panel out?
The point is you should wire and build your airplane for the 99th percentile
of it's functionality and reliability, not the 1% "whatifs". I don't know
if this all makes sense or not, but if it were me (and it is dozens of times
we discuss panels with customers), I really try to put function ahead of
form and convince people to do what makes sense from a functional, reliable
and simplicity standpoint. You can't beat it!
Cheers,
Stein.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dennis
Johnson
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 10:34 AM
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Connectors vs. Straight Wire
Greetings,
The entire instrument panel on my Lancair Legacy I'm building is attached
to the airframe with only four bolts and is therefore relatively easy to
remove in one large piece. That is, mechanically easy to remove, if it
weren't for a bazillion wires connecting it to the airframe. On the other
hand, the Legacy has a front hinged canopy and a removable glare shield,
which provide reasonably good access to the rear of the instrument panel
while it is in place.
I can either run the wires from the airframe directly to the various
components on the panel or I can insert D-Sub connectors between all the
wires and the instrument panel. If I use connectors, it will make removing
the instrument panel easier for repairs or upgrades. Running the wires
directly to the panel, without connectors, will reduce the parts count but
make future service more difficult.
I'm torn between the two alternatives. My first thought was to add
connectors to every wire in the expectation that I'll almost certainly want
to remove the instrument panel at some point in the future for
troubleshooting, repairs, or upgrades. Working on the panel while it's on
my workbench is soooooo convenient. But there are tons of wires, many of
them shielded, and running every single one of them through a connector is a
big project. Considering that I have reasonable access to the rear of the
panel with the canopy open and the glareshield removed, should I just plan
to service the panel with it in place? Anybody who's "been there, done
that" have any advice?
Thanks,
Dennis Johnson
Lancair Legacy; painting done, still wiring the panel
Message 33
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: | Connectors vs. Straight Wire |
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41)
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@msbit.net>
> I guess I'm trying to say that anytime you added un-needed connections to a particular
system
> you are just asking for longer term troubles and an overall reduction in reliability.
____________________________________________
Spot on! Besides, you'll have a lot of the panel terminated in
connectors of one sort or another anyway....how hard to remove
those.....
Tho I kinda wish the D-sub folks would go back to the old
Centronics wire bail form of shell attachment. No trying to get
the screw driver on the screw head in a spot you can't easily see.
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
Elmore City, OK
Message 34
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: Glowing LED Warning Lights, Too Dark Now-LM317 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
The brightness of an LED is proportional to the current going through
it. You need a resistor in series with each LED to limit the max
current and max brightness. Connecting all those resistors to the output
of your LM317 should do what you want. When you dim (lower the voltage
ouput of the LED) there will be less voltage drop through each resistor
and the brightness will reduce. That brightness should not change
regardless of how many LED's are on because each LED has its own
resistor. I think that is your answer - a separate resistor for each
LED. Of course with this description, it is assumed that individual
LED's are turned on by connecting its negative lead to ground.
Ken L.
CardinalNSB@aol.com wrote:
> MikeEasley wrote:
>
> My LED voltage warning lights are now too dark to see in daylight
> after
> adding the resistors in the drawing.
>
> Smaller resistors?
>
> I have been "playing" with leds on a breadboard, controlling them with
> a LM317. The LM317 supplies constant voltage, determined by a
> resistance to (the control leg, I don't know the real term). I have
> used a rheostat and been able to control multiple or single leds, from
> very bright to very dim/off. I am planning to make an annunciator for
> a 300xl gps, which always has 2 leds on, sometimes 3, sometimes 4. I
> have the LM317 between the battery positive and the leds, the leds
> taking power from the LM317 with their other leg grounded. The leds
> are in parallel.
>
> A value to me of the LM317 is to be able to maintain constant
> brightness of multiple leds (I plan to use all the same white
> leds with colored lenses for colors). The LM317 is from Radio Shack
> and I have only used the circuit on the back of the box-LM317, a
> resistor, and a rheostat, 3 parts. Could I wire a backup with a zener
> diode for a constant brightness?
>
> However, I have been told this LM317 won't work, that I need Pulse
> Width Modulation. I'm not sure why, the LM317 seems to do what I want
> at least on my desk at home, is cheap and low parts count. I would
> appreciate any reasons this would not be a proper way to control
> multiple identical leds-rf production? Skip Simpson
>
>================
>
>
Message 35
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: fat wire - skinny wires |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 12:32 PM 10/2/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ernest Christley
><echristley@nc.rr.com>
>
>I seem to remember there being some rationale for not running fat wires in
>the same bundle with skinny wires, but I can find a specific reference to
>it in the "Aero-electric Connenction". Does such a rationale exist, or am
>I suffering from delusions of toxic aircraft chemical fumes?
That was a tongue-in-cheek reference to the fact that the
FAT wires are those that carry largest system currents,
generate the largest local magnetic fields and TEND
to be ranked on the antagonistic side for noise.
Audio, signal and small control wires are SKINNY
types that TEND to be potential victims.
Having said all that, it's easy to design systems
having a mix of antagonistic and victim wires in
very close proximity to each other in same bundles.
But it does take some time, attention and experience
to do this with consistent success.
>My #2 battery cable currently follows a rather tortuous path from the
>tailpost to the front of the plane, and I could be a lot simple (and a few
>pounds lighter), if it just ran down the side with a bunch of wires that
>include microphone/headphone leads, taillight, tail strobe, fuel pump
>powere, and a linear actuator control leads.
As long as you've followed the guidelines for avoiding
multiple grounds (ground loops) within single systems,
the noise risk for bundling the wires you've listed
is very low.
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 36
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: | Connectors vs. Straight Wire |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:56 PM 10/2/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jim Baker" <jlbaker@msbit.net>
>
> > I guess I'm trying to say that anytime you added un-needed connections
> to a particular system
> > you are just asking for longer term troubles and an overall reduction
> in reliability.
>____________________________________________
>
>Spot on! Besides, you'll have a lot of the panel terminated in
>connectors of one sort or another anyway....how hard to remove
>those.....
>
>Tho I kinda wish the D-sub folks would go back to the old
>Centronics wire bail form of shell attachment. No trying to get
>the screw driver on the screw head in a spot you can't easily see.
There ARE wire bails for keeping d-subs together. My favorite for
cable-to-cable d-subs is remove the jack-screw hardware and use
tye-wraps to keep them together.
Also, I'd ALWAYS use the machined d-sub pins. They're of the
same pedigree as the older and larger 'Cannon' plugs, etc.
I'm REALLY disappointed that folks who sell really expensive
avionics ship those sheet-metal, b-crimp pins with their
radios.
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 37
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: battery cables & Relays 'G's" skunk stink |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 05:09 PM 10/2/2006 +0000, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
>
>Hello Eric
>
>You wrote:
>
>"So the manufacturer says, "mount plunger vertical, cap down"
>
>I have never taken apart or looked very close at the relay that is being
>talked about.
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/S701-1a.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/S701-1b.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/S701-1c.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/S701-1e.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Contactors/S701-1f.jpg
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 38
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: battery cables & Relays 'G's" skunk stink |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 10:59 AM 10/2/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
>
>Anybody have a centrifuge with accelerometer and want to conduct a little
>experiment?
>
>Dave Morris
I've done this already . . . but the rationale for mounting
the contactor in any particular orientation has yet to be
supported by the underlying simple-ideas.
Yes, that's what the data sheet says but fails to explain
why. An there's a famous Tyco white paper that makes some
perfectly good measurements from which the authors then
infer but never demonstrate deleterious effects that
are not driven by the same science.
There IS a reason why mounting the contactor under
discussion cap down is a good idea and we've already
hat-danced around it . . . and it's for consideration
of g-forces.
Bob . . .
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! --
|