Today's Message Index:
----------------------
0. 12:12 AM - If You Got This Email, You Haven't Made A Contribution Yet! :-) (Matt Dralle)
1. 09:29 PM - Clarification On New Contribution Module Operation... (Matt Dralle)
2. 05:43 AM - Re: Definition of Alternator B-lead? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 05:44 AM - Re: LED extension (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 05:55 AM - Re: Transorb voltage for 14V system (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 06:07 AM - Re: PROBABLE SPAM> Re: Transorb voltage for 14V system (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 06:29 AM - Reasonable qualification for flight hardware? (Dr. Andrew Elliott)
7. 06:42 AM - Groud Power Recptacle (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 06:47 AM - Re: Reasonable qualification for flight hardware? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 07:47 AM - Re: PROBABLE SPAM> Re: Transorb voltage for 14V system (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
10. 08:45 AM - Re: LED extension (Carlos Trigo)
11. 09:15 AM - Re: Reasonable qualification for flight hardware? (Dave N6030X)
12. 02:46 PM - Re: LED extension (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 04:53 PM - Re: Making 28v from 2 14v sources - Revisited (Deems Davis)
Message 0
| 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: | If You Got This Email, You Haven't Made A Contribution |
Yet! :-)
If you received this particular Matronics List Email message, its because you haven't
yet made a Contribution to support your Lists! This is the first PBS-like
funds drive message under the new distribution system. The new system selectively
sends out the Contribution messages ONLY to those that forgot to whip
out the 'ol credit card this year to support the continued operation and upgrade
of the Matronics Email Lists! Don't you wish PBS worked that way? :-)
You heard that right. Once you make your Contribution, these support requests
messages during November will suddenly stop coming to your personal email inbox!
Pardon me if I seem kind of excited about the new feature. I've wanted to
implement something like this for a number of years now, but it was always such
a daunting task to modify the back-end List processing code, that I just kept
putting it off. Finally this year, I just decided to bite the bullet and put
the code-pounding time it to make it work. A few days later, bam! A working
system!
Anyway, I'll stop gushing now. I really do appreciate each and every one of your
individual Contributions to support the Lists. It is your support that enables
me to upgrade the hardware and software that are required to run a List Site
like this. It also goes to pay for the Commercial-Grade Internet connection
and to pay the rather huge electric bill to keep the computer gear running
and the air conditioner powered up.
Your personal Contribution matters because when combined with other Listers such
as yourself, it pays the bills to keep this site up and running. I accept exactly
ZERO advertising dollars for the Matronics Lists sites. I can't stand
the pop-up ads and all other commercialism that is so prevalent on the Internet
these days and I particularly don't want to have it on my Email List site.
I'm pretty sure you don't either.
If you appreciate the ad-free, grass-roots, down-home feel of the Matronics Email
Lists, please make a Contribution today to keep it that way!!
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
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: | Clarification On New Contribution Module Operation... |
Dear Listers,
A number of Listers emailed and indicated that, even though they had made a Contribution
this year, they still received the Contribution message yesterday.
I looked into it and I found a slight anomaly (ok, bug) in the new code specifically
as it related to Listers that had made their Contribution through PayPal
AND have a DIFFERENT email address for their PayPal account and for their Matronics
List subscription.
If your PayPal account email address is DIFFERENT than the email address you are
subscribed to the Matronics List(s) as, then my new code module couldn't tell
that you had made a Contribution, since it was using the PayPal email address
instead of the List email.
I've fixed this issue for any new PayPal Contributions, but I don't have any easy
way of resolving this for any of the previous Contribtuions. Again, this is
ONLY an issue if your PayPal and Matronics List email addresses ARE NOT the
same. Otherwise, everything works great.
If you made a PayPal Contribution before 11/09/06 AND your email addresses don't
match, please drop me an email at " info@matronics.com " (do not reply to this
message!) and give me your Name, and both Email Addresses and I will manually
update the records so that things will work as advertised.
Sorry for the hassle! New code; new bugs... :-)
To make a Contribution, please see: http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administration
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: Definition of Alternator B-lead? |
At 06:18 PM 11/7/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>
>
<snip>
>If the engine is in the nose, and the battery is behind the cockpit,
>obviously, the B-lead/starter_feed will go through the cockpit..
but easily kept low on the firewall and under the floorboards . . .
> If you
>have a choice, keep that wire further from the panel than you would other
>wiring. Don't use the starter end of that wire to power anything else -
>make all connections as close to the battery contactor as possible.
If the battery is in the rear, then the starter contactor
becomes the forward local power distribution point for
fat wires that connect to the alternator and main bus.
Keeping the b-lead out of the cockpit focused very narrowly
on the decades old practice of feeding generators/alternators
onto the bus with panel mounted breakers.
For fat wires in general, SEPARATION from compass for reducing
magnetic effects is a good thing to do . . . but in small airplanes,
it's probably impossible to get the fat wires so far from the
compass that noticeable effects are zero. This is why compass
swinging procedures call for making note of what electro-whizzies
are ON during the procedure. Magnetic coupling of noise to other
systems is easily handled by not bundling victim wires with
fat wires.
Bob . . .
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LED extension |
At 07:43 PM 11/7/2006 +0000, you wrote:
><trigo@mail.telepac.pt>
>
>Bob and listers
>
>
>I am installing an electronic circuit (Flap Positioning System) which has a
>3 colour LED on it. I am puting this box inside the flap enclosure of my RV,
>thus hiden in a place out of sight.
>Since I need, for some operations, to see the LED, I am thinking in puting
>another 3 colour LED somewhere in the panel. How should I connect the pannel
>LED to the circuit LED? Is it just a 3 wire connection? And both LED's would
>show the same?
>
>TIA
>Carlos
Difficult to advise without having a schematic of your
hardware. Do the installation instructions for this
system offer any options for remote indication at all?
What do these lights indicate?
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Transorb voltage for 14V system |
At 01:42 PM 11/7/2006 +0000, you wrote:
>
>Bob
>
>I didn't measure the voltage the transorb opened but it was clearly enough
>open at 12.5 volts which was the battery voltage to blow a 25amp fuse.
I'm lost. Was this experiment conducted just to see if
you could open the 25A fuse with a conducting Transorb?
It's not that the experiment didn't yield meaningful data,
I'm not clear where you're proposing to connect a Transorb
of any voltage and what you expect it to do for you.
>I'm using a prestolite externally regulated 60amp alternator with a
>Zeftronics regulator.
Okay, from an architecture perspective, this looks like
Z-11. Where would you install the Transorb in Z-11?
>I don't know if there are any transients that a transorb might solve but
>I'm only intending to put one across the power panel and at $10 it seems
>like cheap insurance with no obvious downside
One can probably buy really cheap insurance against
pink elephant stampedes and meteor strikes too. Of course
it's your airplane and you can do anything you like. But for
the benefit of 1300+ folks who watch this List go by, let
us be clear on features that meet quantifiable and demonstrable
design goals . . . and those that are cheap and simply feel good.
When you ask the question about sizing a Transorb for use
in your system, the question is unanswerable without knowing
exactly what you expect the device to accomplish and whether
or not it's capable of meeting your expectations.
Bob . . .
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Transorb voltage for 14V system |
At 05:58 PM 11/6/2006 -0600, you wrote:
><paul.mcallister@qia.net>
>
>Bob et al.
>
>Some time ago my aircraft took a lightning hit which damaged many electronic
>devices, with the exception of the Apollo GX60 and SL70. Now I don't know
>if this was because these are well designed products or they were just
>having a lucky day, but my question, would a heavy duty transorb help in a
>catastrophic even like this ?
>
>Paul
Yeah, I recall that. When we do DO-160 qualification for
the effects of lightning, there are a bunch of levels of test
stress presumably based on real world indirect effects (device
and associated wiring doesn't take stroke current) and direct
effects (device takes the hit . . . like your strobes).
The levels are adjusted depending on the material from
which the airplane is built and on the device's position
on the airplane. Obviously, direct effects to an antenna
stuck out the top is a stronger test value than for some
3-wire transducer hiding somewhere inside the engine
where only common mode indirect effects are expected.
For your case, you've got the highest/steepest hill to
climb for 'certifiable' resistance to lightning stroke.
In fact, under the current design rules, no plastic airplane
can be expected or tested to withstand much of anything in
terms of real-world effects of lightning.
The short answer to you question is, yeah we COULD design
an electrical system for your airplane that would have
a 95% chance of standing off a direct effects stroke but
the cost, weight and volume of the finished system would
probably be more than you'd want to consider . . . and it
would involve a whole lot more than sprinkling a few
Transorbs around the system.
Bob . . .
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Reasonable qualification for flight hardware? |
I am testing out a new LED comet-like flasher and 48-diode lamp to be
used as a beacon under a clear rudder tip fairing. Both are inexpensive
Chinese imports designed for automotive application. Brightness and
flash rate/pattern are very good, but I was wondering what is a
"reasonable" test period to run the thing on the ground before
installing one in the OBAM plane? 100 hours, 2000 hours?
Clearly it should also depend on whether there is any failure, whether
the failure is the lamp or the flasher, and whether it is a single diode
burn out or total failure. Also, after the testing, which will not be
comprehensive like a commercial venture (no statistics here), would it
be preferable to install the already-tested hardware or a completely new
set?
Any guidance here?
Andy Elliott
N601GE (601XL/TD, Corvair, building)
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: | Groud Power Recptacle |
>Comments/Questions: Bob,
>
>
>Can I hook up a short 4 guage wire to the positive battery terminal, then
>when I want to either charge the battery or use ground power, hook up to
>the appropriate ground power, a positive lead jumper cable to the 4 guage
>wire I hooked up to the battery terminal, and the negative ground jumper
>cable to the exhause pipe? Would this provide the same ground power and
>charging capability as installing a ground power recepticle?
No. The schematics for ground power include
reverse polarity protection, pilot control of
ground power from the cockpit and over voltage
protection. Further, the receptacle offers a means
by which many FBO's can provide you the ground
power service by using a connector that's common
to their suite of ramp tools.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
( Experience and common sense cannot be )
( replaced with policy and procedures. )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
-----------------------------------------
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: Reasonable qualification for flight hardware? |
At 07:23 AM 11/8/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>I am testing out a new LED comet-like flasher and 48-diode lamp to be used
>as a beacon under a clear rudder tip fairing. Both are inexpensive
>Chinese imports designed for automotive application. Brightness and flash
>rate/pattern are very good, but I was wondering what is a "reasonable"
>test period to run the thing on the ground before installing one in the
>OBAM plane? 100 hours, 2000 hours?
Why not use the OBAM aircraft as the test bed. It's
your airplane and nothing is preventing you from using
whatever lighting schemes you choose.
>
>Clearly it should also depend on whether there is any failure, whether the
>failure is the lamp or the flasher, and whether it is a single diode burn
>out or total failure. Also, after the testing, which will not be
>comprehensive like a commercial venture (no statistics here), would it be
>preferable to install the already-tested hardware or a completely new set?
Is it your desire/intent that this product meet
FAA requirements for lighting under FAR91? That's
a wholly different ball game. Here the questions are
not so much one of service life but of gross intensity
along the various axis external to the aircraft. A really
tedious test to do and requires some equipment with
reasonable expectations for accuracy.
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 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: Transorb voltage for 14V system |
So that would be a maybe?
-----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, November 08, 2006 8:07 AM
Subject: RE: PROBABLE SPAM> Re: AeroElectric-List: Transorb voltage for
14V system
--> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 05:58 PM 11/6/2006 -0600, you wrote:
><paul.mcallister@qia.net>
>
>Bob et al.
>
>Some time ago my aircraft took a lightning hit which damaged many
>electronic devices, with the exception of the Apollo GX60 and SL70.
>Now I don't know if this was because these are well designed products
>or they were just having a lucky day, but my question, would a heavy
>duty transorb help in a catastrophic even like this ?
>
>Paul
Yeah, I recall that. When we do DO-160 qualification for
the effects of lightning, there are a bunch of levels of test
stress presumably based on real world indirect effects (device
and associated wiring doesn't take stroke current) and direct
effects (device takes the hit . . . like your strobes).
The levels are adjusted depending on the material from
which the airplane is built and on the device's position
on the airplane. Obviously, direct effects to an antenna
stuck out the top is a stronger test value than for some
3-wire transducer hiding somewhere inside the engine
where only common mode indirect effects are expected.
For your case, you've got the highest/steepest hill to
climb for 'certifiable' resistance to lightning stroke.
In fact, under the current design rules, no plastic airplane
can be expected or tested to withstand much of anything in
terms of real-world effects of lightning.
The short answer to you question is, yeah we COULD design
an electrical system for your airplane that would have
a 95% chance of standing off a direct effects stroke but
the cost, weight and volume of the finished system would
probably be more than you'd want to consider . . . and it
would involve a whole lot more than sprinkling a few
Transorbs around the system.
Bob . . .
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: LED extension |
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 07:43 PM 11/7/2006 +0000, you wrote:
>
>><trigo@mail.telepac.pt>
>>
>>Bob and listers
>>
>>
>>I am installing an electronic circuit (Flap Positioning System) which has
>>a
>>3 colour LED on it. I am puting this box inside the flap enclosure of my
>>RV,
>>thus hiden in a place out of sight.
>>Since I need, for some operations, to see the LED, I am thinking in puting
>>another 3 colour LED somewhere in the panel. How should I connect the
>>pannel
>>LED to the circuit LED? Is it just a 3 wire connection? And both LED's
>>would
>>show the same?
>>
>>TIA
>>Carlos
>
> Difficult to advise without having a schematic of your
> hardware. Do the installation instructions for this
> system offer any options for remote indication at all?
>
> What do these lights indicate?
>
> Bob . . .
The installation instructions don't provide any option for remote
indication.
This LED indicates the mode of operation (number of blinks in Red color
showing mode 1 to 6), programming mode (blinking yellow) and memory erased
(blinking green).
The 3 color LED is soldered to the circuit by its 3 "legs".
What I'm asking is if I can connect a similar LED installed in my panel with
a 3 wire cable to the 3 circuit LED contacts.
Carlos
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Reasonable qualification for flight hardware? |
You probably need to find out whether the FARs on light intensity
apply to experimental aircraft or not. Google around a bit, because
some pretty smart people have already done a lot of testing of LEDs
for use in aircraft external lighting.
It is common in the electronics manufacturing world to do "burn-in"
testing for at least 2 or 3 days, during which time the device is
cycled on for a few hours, off for a few hours, preferably including
and possibly exceeding the temperature ranges in which the device is
likely to be operating. Most electronic component failures are
infant-mortality type, meaning that if they survive a few days of
intensive testing, they will probably last a long time.
Dave Morris
At 08:23 AM 11/8/2006, you wrote:
>I am testing out a new LED comet-like flasher and 48-diode lamp to
>be used as a beacon under a clear rudder tip fairing. Both are
>inexpensive Chinese imports designed for automotive
>application. Brightness and flash rate/pattern are very good, but I
>was wondering what is a "reasonable" test period to run the thing on
>the ground before installing one in the OBAM plane? 100 hours, 2000 hours?
>
>Clearly it should also depend on whether there is any failure,
>whether the failure is the lamp or the flasher, and whether it is a
>single diode burn out or total failure. Also, after the testing,
>which will not be comprehensive like a commercial venture (no
>statistics here), would it be preferable to install the
>already-tested hardware or a completely new set?
>
>Any guidance here?
>
>Andy Elliott
>N601GE (601XL/TD, Corvair, building)
>
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: LED extension |
>>
>> Difficult to advise without having a schematic of your
>> hardware. Do the installation instructions for this
>> system offer any options for remote indication at all?
>>
>> What do these lights indicate?
>>
>> Bob . . .
>
>The installation instructions don't provide any option for remote indication.
>
>This LED indicates the mode of operation (number of blinks in Red color
>showing mode 1 to 6), programming mode (blinking yellow) and memory erased
>(blinking green).
>The 3 color LED is soldered to the circuit by its 3 "legs".
>
>What I'm asking is if I can connect a similar LED installed in my panel
>with a 3 wire cable to the 3 circuit LED contacts.
Sounds good to me. You won't be able to wire in parallel
with the existing LED . . . take it out and drop your three
wires into the same holes where the LED used to reside.
Bob . . .
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: Making 28v from 2 14v sources - Revisited |
Well based on the response form Bob and others I revisited the
Engine/Belt driven A/C system. It turns out that with my engine and cowl
combination that there is not room enough to mount both a compressor and
an alternator. So, it looks like my options are; either to convert my
electric system to 28v (ugh!). or pursue the 'stacked' approach.
Bob:
When you say 'electrically isolated' are you saying that the "top"
system would have to NOT share a common ground with the bottom system?
what other 'isolation' would be required
"This would require a special alternator for the #2 machine." I assume
you are referring to the "top" system (?) could the SD-20 perform this
function as the alternator for the #2 machine, what is the "Special"
requirement of this alternator.
A bottom alternator large enough to carry ship's load plus the A/C load
is not a problem.
Re: backing up the bottom with the top. When you say 'complex switching'
I infer this is more than just the cross feed contactor approach in Z14,
care to elaborate any further?
Thanks for the information and advice so far and for any additional
insight you can provide.
Deems Davis # 406
Finishing - ( A Misnomer ! )
http://deemsrv10.com/
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 11:10 AM 11/2/2006 -0700, you wrote:
>
>> <deemsdavis@cox.net>
>>
>> I have built a 14v dual battery, dual alternator system. (Z14). I
>> live in AZ and am interested in installing an air conditioning
>> system. In researching a/c systems, I'm uncomfortable with the added
>> mechanical complexity of running hoses and the engine driven
>> compressor into the engine compartment. I concede that this may be a
>> more efficient means of generating the power for the a/c, but it adds
>> complexity/weight and a load in an area that I would prefer not to. I
>> have identified a couple of sources that provide 28v AC systems. I
>> have too much invested into my build re 14 v components to warrant
>> redoing the electrical system (to 28v). So in noodling it seems to me
>> that _conceptually_ one should be able to take a feed from each of
>> the 14v systems and couple them together to produce the 28v required
>> for the ac unit. So, for those of you further along the electro
>> learning curve than I, is this _practically_ possible? If so what
>> components would be required to make the connection to produce 28V?
>>
>> Thanks in advance for any consideration and input.
>>
>> PS Thanks for all of the input on the IPOD connect
>
>
> Not easy. You'd need to craft an electrically isolated
> 14 volt system to "stack" on top of the grounded system.
> This would require a special alternator for the #2 machine.
> Further, the "bottom" alternator would need to be scaled
> to carry normal ship's loads + the a/c.
>
> The "top" system would not be useable for backing up
> the bottom system without some complex switching.
> The pitfalls of all this are considerable not to mention
> the time and $ to implement it.
>
> I'd jump on a belt driven compressor in a heartbeat.
>
>
> 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! --
|