---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 01/27/07: 46 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 02:44 AM - Re: The problem with George () 2. 05:13 AM - Re: Re: The problem with George (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 3. 05:15 AM - shielded wires (bob noffs) 4. 06:30 AM - Re: Re: The problem with George (Richard Girard) 5. 06:52 AM - Re: Re: The problem with George (Gaye and Vaughn) 6. 07:26 AM - Re: Re: The problem with George (Walter Fellows) 7. 07:28 AM - Re: Solder tab connectors (Ernest Christley) 8. 07:46 AM - Re: Re: The problem with George (John Coloccia) 9. 08:04 AM - Re: Re: The problem with George (Dave N6030X) 10. 09:00 AM - Avionics Master - Yes or No? (Ron Patterson) 11. 09:09 AM - Re: Re: The problem with George (Michael T. Ice) 12. 09:12 AM - Re: Re: The problem with George (Michael T. Ice) 13. 09:51 AM - Re: Homemade Audio Panel (Mike Lehman) 14. 10:02 AM - Re: Re: The problem with George (Steve Thomas) 15. 10:25 AM - Re: Re: The problem with George (Michael T. Ice) 16. 10:31 AM - Spike catcher diodes (Terry Miles) 17. 10:37 AM - Re: Re: The problem with George (Terry Watson) 18. 10:40 AM - Fuel Press Xducer Vision Microsystems () 19. 10:43 AM - Re: Avionics Master - Yes or No? (Bret Smith) 20. 10:59 AM - Re: Avionics Master - Yes or No? (Gilles Thesee) 21. 11:58 AM - Re: Avionics Master - Yes or No? (John Coloccia) 22. 01:33 PM - Re: Avionics Master - Yes or No? (jetboy) 23. 01:50 PM - 430 to 330 config changes? (Alan K. Adamson) 24. 02:56 PM - Re: Avionics Master - Yes or No? (Kevin Horton) 25. 02:58 PM - Re: Re: The problem with George (jdalton77@comcast.net) 26. 02:58 PM - Re: Re: The problem with George (jdalton77@comcast.net) 27. 02:58 PM - Re: Avionics Master - Yes or No? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 28. 03:15 PM - Re: Re: The problem with George (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 29. 05:41 PM - Re: Is garbage picked SWR meter useful? (Robert Feldtman) 30. 06:52 PM - Re: The problem with George (Speedy11@aol.com) 31. 07:19 PM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 01/26/07 (Lee Logan) 32. 07:37 PM - Re: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 01/26/07 (Michael T. Ice) 33. 08:08 PM - Re: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 01/26/07 (Dave N6030X) 34. 08:21 PM - Re: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 01/26/07 (Bill Boyd) 35. 08:31 PM - z-13/8 (Pete Howell) 36. 08:58 PM - Re: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 01/26/07 (Ernest Christley) 37. 08:58 PM - The simple ideas . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 38. 08:59 PM - Re: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 01/26/07 (Michel Creek) 39. 09:13 PM - Re: Re: The problem with George (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 40. 09:16 PM - Re: Avionics Master - Yes or No? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 41. 09:32 PM - Re: Re: The problem with George (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 42. 09:40 PM - Re: Alternator selection (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 43. 09:49 PM - Re: z-13/8 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 44. 09:58 PM - Re: Solder tab connectors (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 45. 10:01 PM - Re: Re: The problem with George (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 46. 10:20 PM - Re: Re: The problem with George (Walter Fellows) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 02:44:28 AM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" >George, you've been asked politely before to >cease your disruptive behaviors in this classroom. >If we're to interpret your latest rants as an >unwillingness to comply with a simple-request, >l'll have to make sure new-comers to the List >are aware of your track record. Bob I think new comers are not aware of you track record. I assume this latest attack on me is because I simply stated my opinion that OV relays are a poor choice for I-VR alternators and to quote others, its *Kludgier*. You can disagree but save it. Lesson new-comers, don't disagree with Bob. >I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding >and substance in your last postings. Instead, >I've published a small excerpt from our past >conversations at: Again with the condescending attitude and talking down. Bob you are not going to respond because you don't have a good argument or facts. I do. I also understand adding a big heavy relay on a I-VR alternator is not ideal. I-VR's are not designed for that kind add-on protection. That is all. I also stated there pied piper better approaches. Disagree all you want, but save the vitriolic hateful stuff for someone else. Ho humm boring, every one is bored with this little tiff, give it up Bob. >I considered posting it at the time you were asked >to leave some months ago but held off after you >appeared to honor my request. Since you've chosen >to resume your old counter productive and disruptive >habits, it seems prudent to let everyone know what >you're about and share a snapshot of what we've already >experienced with your unwelcome activities here on >the List. > >Do the honorable thing sir. > >Bob . . . Bob I am not going to play your game and address your Ad hominem attacks. It is childish. If you have some facts or useful info than fine. I think my contribution is useful and I have been told so by many off line thanking me for not being afraid of you. You have a very sharp tongue and criticize and dismissing many ideas and opinions of others, but when you are criticized you don't back your position up and just go ballistic wacky? I just disagree with you. I really do think the OV relay on an ND (I-VR) is NOT great. I do think there are better alternatives: -Do nothing (no OV relay, risk of damaging OV is very low) -Plane Power (excellent product w/ good extra OV protection) -External VR alternator (Plane Power, B&C, Homemade modified ND w/ a V1200 regulator) Bob, as a designer, if you have not seen or used the V1200 VR so don't comment. It is far superior than the B&C unit and cost 1/3rd to 1/4th less. I AM SORRY. We can also do better than a 1970's $10 Ford VR, you recommend. Bob I could make an archive and publish all your inconsistencies, hypocrisy and personal attacks, not only on me but many others, who are very knowledgeable, but I'm not. I'm not out to hurt you like you want to hurt me. I just want to add an alternative opinion, one that is well thought out and based on experience, education and research, not fear and ignorance. How many planes have you built and flown Bob? You turn everything into an argument. Just stop it. I'll not be suckered into another mud sling fest. As expected you have nothing, so you go to personal attacks & accusations. I forgive you. Now lets be civil Bob, please. People are bored with this petty behavior. Just say you disagree and think the OV relay is great and needed. I don't think so. BOB, YOU LEAD PEOPLE INTO THINKING THEY MUST HAVE ADD-ON OV PROTECTION ON NIPPON-DENSO INTERNALLY REGULATED ALTERNATOR. YOU MAKE UNSPACIFIC CLAIMS AND GIVE A SENSE OF URGENCY THAT IS NOT NEEDED IN MY OPINION. THAT IS ALL. FACTS PLEASE? Disagree but stop trying to slander and defame me. Cheers George What is Bob talking about now? The problem with George. The problem with George is Bob has a personal animosity against him. (George has engineering degrees and Bob hates engineers. He thinks engineers are stupid). George, disagrees with Bob and calls him on his unsupported claims and opinions from time time, mostly about I-VR alternators and OV relays. Bob hates that. Instead of supplying facts, to support his position, Bob personally attacks George, OR he'll talk a bunch flowery words with analogy's & parables till your head explodes & you don't care any more. George is not the only one. There's long list of really good people that Bob has bullied off the list. Even people not on the list, like Van of Van's Aircraft, who Bob called ignorant. Ironically Bob now agrees with Van, trip an OV relay on a good ND alternator, it will damage it. When Van said it, Van was ignorant according to Bob. Van is educated engineer by the way. Bob has expressed frustration that Van's Aircraft had not embrace Bob's offer to teach them the aeroelectric method of wiring. Fact is DC aircraft wiring is basically the same as it has been for +50 years. This is not rocket science. Bob's method incorporates many automotive techniques like hidden fuses, which is not standard for aircraft. Still Van's Aircraft felt after 42 years building planes and 27 years in the kit plane business, they could wire planes and Bob's feeling where hurt. Therefore Van is ignorant. Don't think so. http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/pers-van.htm George thinks there have been many untruths and misunderstandings about I-VR NipponDenso alternators and the dreaded OV condition. Bob is the purveyor of some unsubstantiated folklore. George is the only one that dares defend internally regulated alternators on the list and at least present facts on the subject or tries to get facts. Bob, has admitted he does not know much about I-VR's, but he's suggesting devices to hang onto their wiring which can damage it. You decide. Its you choice. George does not need you to agree of follow his suggestions, just likes giving food for thought. You are the final authority on your project. Typically people new to plane building can be led by system *experts* to add-on all kind of things. At some point you have to say NO to the extras and go fly. Weight, cost, build time, risk v. benefited and type of plane and type of flying you do determines the choice. Listen to Bob and that guy George and others and than make a decision, but don't follow one Pied Piper. Bob blows a good Pipe and the melody sounds convincing, but in fact it is one OPINION not God's law. Usually Bob is right or has great ideas, just not on the OV relay in George's opinion. So does George deserve to be attacked for speaking his mind? I think not. Bob has a personal problem and should write George off line so he can call Bob and talk to him man the man and not bother everyone with this petty feud. If Bob just wants to try to embarrass and aggravate George, than he will keep making stupid post that start with, the problem with George. Sadly Bob probably likes to fight and will keep wasting time. --------------------------------- Bored stiff? Loosen up... Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 05:13:07 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George At 02:42 AM 1/27/2007 -0800, you wrote: >>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" ><nuckollsr@cox.net> > > >George, you've been asked politely before to > >cease your disruptive behaviors in this classroom. > >If we're to interpret your latest rants as an > >unwillingness to comply with a simple-request, > >l'll have to make sure new-comers to the List > >are aware of your track record. > >Bob I think new comers are not aware of you track record. I >assume this latest attack on me is because I simply stated >my opinion that OV relays are a poor choice for I-VR alternators >and to quote others, its *Kludgier*. You can disagree but save >it. Lesson new-comers, don't disagree with Bob. No, my response was published long before your statement about "Kludgier". > > > >I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding > >and substance in your last postings. Instead, > >I've published a small excerpt from our past > >conversations at: > > >Again with the condescending attitude and talking down. Bob >you are not going to respond because you don't have a good >argument or facts. I do. I also understand adding a big heavy >relay on a I-VR alternator is not ideal. I-VR's are not designed >for that kind add-on protection. That is all. I also stated there >pied piper better approaches. Disagree all you want, but save >the vitriolic hateful stuff for someone else. Ho humm boring, >every one is bored with this little tiff, give it up Bob. Let's do this little experiment George. Like Paul and Greg, I'm betting that you cannot focus on a single issue and debate it based on the practice, science, or desires of the builder. You have hat-danced around every point I've made with respect to your lack of understanding. You claim to be a CFI yet you don't teach, you preach. You claim to be ATP rated yet you brush off the goals stated by myself and my builders to exploit practices and features found in the world's safest mode of transportation. You cannot differentiate between condescension and the unwillingness of a teacher to maintain standards of both behavior and technical excellence in his classroom. You cannot differentiate between "vitriolic hateful stuff" and considered observations of your aberrant, uncooperative and sometimes belligerent behavior. I have dozens of your writings that call me all kinds of names and cast aspersion upon my skills, motives and honor. At the same time, I've never cited your behavior for anything except fuzzy thinking and actions unbefitting an exchange of ideas amongst honorable individuals. So here is your pop quiz George. Take the question below and share with us the understanding that demonstrates any shortfall in the logic I've offered. I'll address the latest pails of sand throwing separately or perhaps never. Let us concentrated on one issue at a time. Here it is: Answer one question George. Is it, or is it not a valid design goal for the builder to desire any time, any conditions, no-risk, ON-OFF control of the alternator? If "no" then please explain your rationale for this departure from conventions practiced in aviation since the first generator was installed on an aircraft. If "yes", then please explain and provide schematics of your suggested alternatives to the "kludgier" relay . . . Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 05:15:36 AM PST US From: "bob noffs" Subject: AeroElectric-List: shielded wires have used bobs illustrations and have done a good job making pigtails and daisy chaining the shielded wires for my ptt switch. now i notice the 2 wire shielded cable a little stiff to easily slip into my control stick. wouldnt it work to attach the shield to my alum. control stick and then use plain 22ga wire inside the stick? wont the stick act as the shield? appreciate any input, bob noffs ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 06:30:45 AM PST US From: "Richard Girard" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George I really don't want to get into this, but I'd just like to ask a question. GMCjetpilot, George, whoever, I believe in what I see. Where's your website? Can I get a copy of your book? Do you ever address anything else but IR alternators or are you just a one trick PITA? Thanks, Rick On 1/27/07, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > nuckollsr@cox.net> > > At 02:42 AM 1/27/2007 -0800, you wrote: > >>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > ><nuckollsr@cox.net> > > > > >George, you've been asked politely before to > > >cease your disruptive behaviors in this classroom. > > >If we're to interpret your latest rants as an > > >unwillingness to comply with a simple-request, > > >l'll have to make sure new-comers to the List > > >are aware of your track record. > > > >Bob I think new comers are not aware of you track record. I > >assume this latest attack on me is because I simply stated > >my opinion that OV relays are a poor choice for I-VR alternators > >and to quote others, its *Kludgier*. You can disagree but save > >it. Lesson new-comers, don't disagree with Bob. > > No, my response was published long before your statement > about "Kludgier". > > > > > > >I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding > > >and substance in your last postings. Instead, > > >I've published a small excerpt from our past > > >conversations at: > > > > > >Again with the condescending attitude and talking down. Bob > >you are not going to respond because you don't have a good > >argument or facts. I do. I also understand adding a big heavy > >relay on a I-VR alternator is not ideal. I-VR's are not designed > >for that kind add-on protection. That is all. I also stated there > >pied piper better approaches. Disagree all you want, but save > >the vitriolic hateful stuff for someone else. Ho humm boring, > >every one is bored with this little tiff, give it up Bob. > > Let's do this little experiment George. Like Paul and > Greg, I'm betting that you cannot focus on a single issue > and debate it based on the practice, science, or desires > of the builder. You have hat-danced around every point > I've made with respect to your lack of understanding. You > claim to be a CFI yet you don't teach, you preach. You > claim to be ATP rated yet you brush off the goals stated > by myself and my builders to exploit practices and features > found in the world's safest mode of transportation. > > You cannot differentiate between condescension and the > unwillingness of a teacher to maintain standards of > both behavior and technical excellence in his classroom. > You cannot differentiate between "vitriolic hateful stuff" > and considered observations of your aberrant, uncooperative > and sometimes belligerent behavior. I have dozens of your > writings that call me all kinds of names and cast aspersion > upon my skills, motives and honor. At the same time, > I've never cited your behavior for anything except fuzzy > thinking and actions unbefitting an exchange of ideas > amongst honorable individuals. > > So here is your pop quiz George. Take the question below > and share with us the understanding that demonstrates > any shortfall in the logic I've offered. I'll address > the latest pails of sand throwing separately or perhaps > never. Let us concentrated on one issue at a time. Here > it is: > > Answer one question George. Is it, or is it not > a valid design goal for the builder to desire any > time, any conditions, no-risk, ON-OFF control of > the alternator? If "no" then please explain your > rationale for this departure from conventions > practiced in aviation since the first generator > was installed on an aircraft. If "yes", then please > explain and provide schematics of your suggested > alternatives to the "kludgier" relay . . . > > Bob . . . > > -- Rick Girard "Ya'll drop on in" takes on a whole new meaning when you live at the airport. ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 06:52:22 AM PST US From: "Gaye and Vaughn" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George Since automobiles seem to feel that a malfunction light will tell you all that you need to know, I thought that my 3 month old Mercury Cougar was discharging when thae light came on. I drove the rest of the 20 miles home in that condition. When I lifted the hood, my battery was the shape of a balloon instead of rectangular and the smell of battery acid was strong. I quickly closed the hood and waited 4 or 5 hours untill things cooled down before addressing the problem. So much for the theory that IR alternators aren't subject to the runaway charging problem. Sorry, but my limited experience won't let me trust them. That's all I will say about that and I don't want to hear anything in argument. Europa912 ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Girard To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 9:29 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George I really don't want to get into this, but I'd just like to ask a question. GMCjetpilot, George, whoever, I believe in what I see. Where's your website? Can I get a copy of your book? Do you ever address anything else but IR alternators or are you just a one trick PITA? Thanks, Rick On 1/27/07, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: nuckollsr@cox.net> At 02:42 AM 1/27/2007 -0800, you wrote: >>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" ><nuckollsr@cox.net> > > >George, you've been asked politely before to > >cease your disruptive behaviors in this classroom. > >If we're to interpret your latest rants as an > >unwillingness to comply with a simple-request, > >l'll have to make sure new-comers to the List > >are aware of your track record. > >Bob I think new comers are not aware of you track record. I >assume this latest attack on me is because I simply stated >my opinion that OV relays are a poor choice for I-VR alternators >and to quote others, its *Kludgier*. You can disagree but save >it. Lesson new-comers, don't disagree with Bob. No, my response was published long before your statement about "Kludgier". > > > >I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding > >and substance in your last postings. Instead, > >I've published a small excerpt from our past > >conversations at: > > >Again with the condescending attitude and talking down. Bob >you are not going to respond because you don't have a good >argument or facts. I do. I also understand adding a big heavy >relay on a I-VR alternator is not ideal. I-VR's are not designed >for that kind add-on protection. That is all. I also stated there >pied piper better approaches. Disagree all you want, but save >the vitriolic hateful stuff for someone else. Ho humm boring, >every one is bored with this little tiff, give it up Bob. Let's do this little experiment George. Like Paul and Greg, I'm betting that you cannot focus on a single issue and debate it based on the practice, science, or desires of the builder. You have hat-danced around every point I've made with respect to your lack of understanding. You claim to be a CFI yet you don't teach, you preach. You claim to be ATP rated yet you brush off the goals stated by myself and my builders to exploit practices and features found in the world's safest mode of transportation. You cannot differentiate between condescension and the unwillingness of a teacher to maintain standards of both behavior and technical excellence in his classroom. You cannot differentiate between "vitriolic hateful stuff" and considered observations of your aberrant, uncooperative and sometimes belligerent behavior. I have dozens of your writings that call me all kinds of names and cast aspersion upon my skills, motives and honor. At the same time, I've never cited your behavior for anything except fuzzy thinking and actions unbefitting an exchange of ideas amongst honorable individuals. So here is your pop quiz George. Take the question below and share with us the understanding that demonstrates any shortfall in the logic I've offered. I'll address the latest pails of sand throwing separately or perhaps never. Let us concentrated on one issue at a time. Here it is: Answer one question George. Is it, or is it not a valid design goal for the builder to desire any time, any conditions, no-risk, ON-OFF control of the alternator? If "no" then please explain your rationale for this departure from conventions practiced in aviation since the first generator was installed on an aircraft. If "yes", then please explain and provide schematics of your suggested "Ya'll drop on in" takes on a whole new meaning when you live at the airport. ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 07:26:57 AM PST US From: "Walter Fellows" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George Bob I have been a member of this forum off and on for over 5 years. You are a man that has a deep knowledge of this subject and is dedicated to helping us build robust and cost effective electrical systems. I have disagreed with you on some matters and have found you very open to other views and willing to agree to disagree if there is no fundamental problem with the facts. (Such as 28v electical systems versus 14 volt, etc.) This guy George seems to be selling something and you indicate he is not willing to come clean on his identity and motives. I am sorry to see these interchanges and the amount of time you must have to waste replying to him and trying to get him to go away. I vote for you banning him outright so we can get back to the sort of healthy interchanges for which this forum in known. Walter Fellows On 1/27/07, Gaye and Vaughn wrote: > > Since automobiles seem to feel that a malfunction light will tell you all > that you need to know, I thought that my 3 month old Mercury Cougar was > discharging when thae light came on. I drove the rest of the 20 miles home > in that condition. When I lifted the hood, my battery was the shape of a > balloon instead of rectangular and the smell of battery acid was strong. I > quickly closed the hood and waited 4 or 5 hours untill things cooled down > before addressing the problem. So much for the theory that IR alternators > aren't subject to the runaway charging problem. Sorry, but my limited > experience won't let me trust them. That's all I will say about that and I > don't want to hear anything in argument. > > Europa912 > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Richard Girard > *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > *Sent:* Saturday, January 27, 2007 9:29 AM > *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George > > I really don't want to get into this, but I'd just like to ask a question. > GMCjetpilot, George, whoever, I believe in what I see. Where's your > website? Can I get a copy of your book? Do you ever address anything else > but IR alternators or are you just a one trick PITA? > > Thanks, > Rick > > On 1/27/07, Robert L. Nuckolls, III > wrote: > > > > nuckollsr@cox.net> > > > > At 02:42 AM 1/27/2007 -0800, you wrote: > > >>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > > ><nuckollsr@cox.net> > > > > > > >George, you've been asked politely before to > > > >cease your disruptive behaviors in this classroom. > > > >If we're to interpret your latest rants as an > > > >unwillingness to comply with a simple-request, > > > >l'll have to make sure new-comers to the List > > > >are aware of your track record. > > > > > >Bob I think new comers are not aware of you track record. I > > >assume this latest attack on me is because I simply stated > > >my opinion that OV relays are a poor choice for I-VR alternators > > >and to quote others, its *Kludgier*. You can disagree but save > > >it. Lesson new-comers, don't disagree with Bob. > > > > No, my response was published long before your statement > > about "Kludgier". > > > > > > > > > >I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding > > > >and substance in your last postings. Instead, > > > >I've published a small excerpt from our past > > > >conversations at: > > > > > > > > >Again with the condescending attitude and talking down. Bob > > >you are not going to respond because you don't have a good > > >argument or facts. I do. I also understand adding a big heavy > > >relay on a I-VR alternator is not ideal. I-VR's are not designed > > >for that kind add-on protection. That is all. I also stated there > > >pied piper better approaches. Disagree all you want, but save > > >the vitriolic hateful stuff for someone else. Ho humm boring, > > >every one is bored with this little tiff, give it up Bob. > > > > Let's do this little experiment George. Like Paul and > > Greg, I'm betting that you cannot focus on a single issue > > and debate it based on the practice, science, or desires > > of the builder. You have hat-danced around every point > > I've made with respect to your lack of understanding. You > > claim to be a CFI yet you don't teach, you preach. You > > claim to be ATP rated yet you brush off the goals stated > > by myself and my builders to exploit practices and features > > found in the world's safest mode of transportation. > > > > You cannot differentiate between condescension and the > > unwillingness of a teacher to maintain standards of > > both behavior and technical excellence in his classroom. > > You cannot differentiate between "vitriolic hateful stuff" > > and considered observations of your aberrant, uncooperative > > and sometimes belligerent behavior. I have dozens of your > > writings that call me all kinds of names and cast aspersion > > upon my skills, motives and honor. At the same time, > > I've never cited your behavior for anything except fuzzy > > thinking and actions unbefitting an exchange of ideas > > amongst honorable individuals. > > > > So here is your pop quiz George. Take the question below > > and share with us the understanding that demonstrates > > any shortfall in the logic I've offered. I'll address > > the latest pails of sand throwing separately or perhaps > > never. Let us concentrated on one issue at a time. Here > > it is: > > > > Answer one question George. Is it, or is it not > > a valid design goal for the builder to desire any > > time, any conditions, no-risk, ON-OFF control of > > the alternator? If "no" then please explain your > > rationale for this departure from conventions > > practiced in aviation since the first generator > > was installed on an aircraft. If "yes", then please > > explain and provide schematics of your suggested > > "Ya'll drop on in" > > takes on a whole new meaning > > when you live at the airport. > > > > * > > > > href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > > href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com > > * > > > > * > > > * > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 07:28:31 AM PST US From: Ernest Christley Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Solder tab connectors Rodney Dunham wrote: > > > Greg, > > Try this link... > > www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Jack_Tab_Soldering/Jack_Tab_Soldering.html > > Rod > For the totally anal out there, the joint shown in that link would have failed the soldering class I took at Community College oh-so-many years ago. The prescribed practice we were taught was to tin the wire, and then bend the end to make a hook. Hook the hole, then clamp the wire so that it squeezes the tab. Now flow in just enough solder so that there is a good fillet flowing into the tab, but the individual wire strands are still visible. The wire strands should retain the original twist. The idea is that: 1) joint can be inspected to verify that there is good wet out of the wire and the connector 2) the joint has the mechanical strength of the hook 3) the joint is easily disassembled later by reflowing the solder. In practice, if I'm forced to solder instead of using a crimped Fast-On connector, I make a hook without tinning the wire first, and flow in enough solder to get a good fillet. I may or may not put in to much solder, depending on if I have a good Kester or .050 Radio Shack stuff on hand. ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 07:46:44 AM PST US From: John Coloccia Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George Since I'm the one who introduced the word "kludgier", I'll explain. The solid state crowbar is a very elegant design. Voltage goes up, trips, field to ground (or open on the other side of the regulator....whatever), circuit breaker eventually trips to save the wiring. Very simple, very straightforward. The crowbar on a relay coil IS a kludge. There's no reason to crowbar in this case since regardless of how fast you denergize the coil, you're certainly limited by the speed of the spreading contacts. In the first case, the crowbar solves the problem...the CB then pops to save the wires. In this case, the crowbar detects the problem and removes power, then the relay opens and actually fixes it. There are a dozens of different ways to accomplish the same thing. On the other hand, how else do you do it that makes it any better? Oh well. If you feel you need this sort of control over your alternator and are dead set on I-VR, then that's really the only practical solution so you go with it. The crowbar itself (or whatever device you use to remove coil power) is not the kludge here...it's the fact you have to go through a relay. Maybe a better way would be to dump an I-VR's output into a dynamic load instead of disconnecting it completely. Weight, complexity, cost.... BLECH. Regardless, it's CERTAINLY less of a kludge than the "adjust your engine's RPM" method that I've heard mentioned many times when talking about controlling an I-VR runaway. Apparently, some people fly over farms all day long. Come out to the Mojave dessert some day and I'll take you on a flight in 110 degree weather when the DA on the ground is 5000FT+ to begin with. Then we'll try to hop on over the mountains. You'll find that power reduction is not an option. Electrical problems should NOT be life threatening by requiring power reduction. The real question is if anyone wanted to have this kind of OV control, why on Earth would you make it harder on yourself with an I-VR alternator? You can have your cake and it eat but sometimes the cake tastes like broccoli, if you know what I mean. Bob: don't get upset for me calling it a kludge. It really is but until someone comes up with a better way of doing it, it's the best solution to the given problem. Bottom line, though, is that is works so you use it until something better comes along. There's no law that says things need to be perfect and that you can't use something today because new technology might make a better one tommorow. -John Coloccia www.ballofshame.com Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > At 02:42 AM 1/27/2007 -0800, you wrote: >> >From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" >> <nuckollsr@cox.net> >> >> >George, you've been asked politely before to >> >cease your disruptive behaviors in this classroom. >> >If we're to interpret your latest rants as an >> >unwillingness to comply with a simple-request, >> >l'll have to make sure new-comers to the List >> >are aware of your track record. >> >> Bob I think new comers are not aware of you track record. I >> assume this latest attack on me is because I simply stated >> my opinion that OV relays are a poor choice for I-VR alternators >> and to quote others, its *Kludgier*. You can disagree but save >> it. Lesson new-comers, don't disagree with Bob. > > No, my response was published long before your statement > about "Kludgier". >> >> >> >I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding >> >and substance in your last postings. Instead, >> >I've published a small excerpt from our past >> >conversations at: >> >> >> Again with the condescending attitude and talking down. Bob >> you are not going to respond because you don't have a good >> argument or facts. I do. I also understand adding a big heavy >> relay on a I-VR alternator is not ideal. I-VR's are not designed >> for that kind add-on protection. That is all. I also stated there >> pied piper better approaches. Disagree all you want, but save >> the vitriolic hateful stuff for someone else. Ho humm boring, >> every one is bored with this little tiff, give it up Bob. > > Let's do this little experiment George. Like Paul and > Greg, I'm betting that you cannot focus on a single issue > and debate it based on the practice, science, or desires > of the builder. You have hat-danced around every point > I've made with respect to your lack of understanding. You > claim to be a CFI yet you don't teach, you preach. You > claim to be ATP rated yet you brush off the goals stated > by myself and my builders to exploit practices and features > found in the world's safest mode of transportation. > > You cannot differentiate between condescension and the > unwillingness of a teacher to maintain standards of > both behavior and technical excellence in his classroom. > You cannot differentiate between "vitriolic hateful stuff" > and considered observations of your aberrant, uncooperative > and sometimes belligerent behavior. I have dozens of your > writings that call me all kinds of names and cast aspersion > upon my skills, motives and honor. At the same time, > I've never cited your behavior for anything except fuzzy > thinking and actions unbefitting an exchange of ideas > amongst honorable individuals. > > So here is your pop quiz George. Take the question below > and share with us the understanding that demonstrates > any shortfall in the logic I've offered. I'll address > the latest pails of sand throwing separately or perhaps > never. Let us concentrated on one issue at a time. Here > it is: > > Answer one question George. Is it, or is it not > a valid design goal for the builder to desire any > time, any conditions, no-risk, ON-OFF control of > the alternator? If "no" then please explain your > rationale for this departure from conventions > practiced in aviation since the first generator > was installed on an aircraft. If "yes", then please > explain and provide schematics of your suggested > alternatives to the "kludgier" relay . . . > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 08:04:23 AM PST US From: Dave N6030X Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George This is a Spock and Bones situation. I just re-read the entire exchange that Bob posted, and it becomes quite clear after reading it that George is reacting emotionally to Bob's cold, calm, and purely logical arguments. Bob presents facts, and if George can't refute them, he goes off in another direction trying to pull Bob into a different argument. You seem to be a feeler, and Bob is obviously a thinker. Nothing wrong with that as long as both people understand the conflict that naturally imposes on their interactions. Look, George, having a mechanical engineering degree and flying 767s does not make you qualified as an expert on the design of electrical systems. You have been a "user" of electrical systems. Bob has been designing them for a very long time, according to specifications and design goals, and has real-world experience creating fault tolerant systems. You seem to want to use anecdotal evidence from the automotive world to refute his designs and wave away the need for fault tolerance. I just don't see you presenting any factual rebuttals to Bob's concerns about internal regulation. So, please, be less emotional and more factual and you'll get the same respect that Bob gets. Until then, it just sounds like another re-run of StarTrek, except that we've already seen all the re-runs and it's getting boring. Give us some new data. Dave Morris ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 09:00:44 AM PST US From: Ron Patterson Subject: AeroElectric-List: Avionics Master - Yes or No? I'm confused.... I believe the general consensus has been that an Avioics Master is unnecessary with "modern" avionics/radios we are using today. However, I just had to send in my Comm radio (XCOM - transmits but won't receive now) for repair because the technician told me that starting the engine with the radio on was a definate no-no, and (in doing so) I messed up the computer inside the radio that now needed to be reset on the bench. He also informed me he'd seen many transponders/navs etc that get damaged by the "20 volt spike" that occurs on start-up. I do sometimes have to reset my Dynon after start-up because it gets all goofy and unreadable. Is it time to rewire my Avionics Master back in? I sure don't want more of this to have to deal with/pay for. Tell me what you think.... Ron ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 09:09:04 AM PST US From: "Michael T. Ice" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George Richard, George responds to lots of questions, check out Van's Air Force web site. He provides lots of interesting approaches and ideas. If we don't like them all you have to do is hit the delete button. Mike Ice ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Girard To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 5:29 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George I really don't want to get into this, but I'd just like to ask a question. GMCjetpilot, George, whoever, I believe in what I see. Where's your website? Can I get a copy of your book? Do you ever address anything else but IR alternators or are you just a one trick PITA? Thanks, Rick On 1/27/07, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: At 02:42 AM 1/27/2007 -0800, you wrote: >>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" ><nuckollsr@cox.net> > > >George, you've been asked politely before to > >cease your disruptive behaviors in this classroom. > >If we're to interpret your latest rants as an > >unwillingness to comply with a simple-request, > >l'll have to make sure new-comers to the List > >are aware of your track record. > >Bob I think new comers are not aware of you track record. I >assume this latest attack on me is because I simply stated >my opinion that OV relays are a poor choice for I-VR alternators >and to quote others, its *Kludgier*. You can disagree but save >it. Lesson new-comers, don't disagree with Bob. No, my response was published long before your statement about "Kludgier". > > > >I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding > >and substance in your last postings. Instead, > >I've published a small excerpt from our past > >conversations at: > > >Again with the condescending attitude and talking down. Bob >you are not going to respond because you don't have a good >argument or facts. I do. I also understand adding a big heavy >relay on a I-VR alternator is not ideal. I-VR's are not designed >for that kind add-on protection. That is all. I also stated there >pied piper better approaches. Disagree all you want, but save >the vitriolic hateful stuff for someone else. Ho humm boring, >every one is bored with this little tiff, give it up Bob. Let's do this little experiment George. Like Paul and Greg, I'm betting that you cannot focus on a single issue and debate it based on the practice, science, or desires of the builder. You have hat-danced around every point I've made with respect to your lack of understanding. You claim to be a CFI yet you don't teach, you preach. You claim to be ATP rated yet you brush off the goals stated by myself and my builders to exploit practices and features found in the world's safest mode of transportation. You cannot differentiate between condescension and the unwillingness of a teacher to maintain standards of both behavior and technical excellence in his classroom. You cannot differentiate between "vitriolic hateful stuff" and considered observations of your aberrant, uncooperative and sometimes belligerent behavior. I have dozens of your writings that call me all kinds of names and cast aspersion upon my skills, motives and honor. At the same time, I've never cited your behavior for anything except fuzzy thinking and actions unbefitting an exchange of ideas amongst honorable individuals. So here is your pop quiz George. Take the question below and share with us the understanding that demonstrates any shortfall in the logic I've offered. I'll address the latest pails of sand throwing separately or perhaps never. Let us concentrated on one issue at a time. Here it is: Answer one question George. Is it, or is it not a valid design goal for the builder to desire any time, any conditions, no-risk, ON-OFF control of the alternator? If "no" then please explain your rationale for this departure from conventions practiced in aviation since the first generator was installed on an aircraft. If "yes", then please explain and provide schematics of your suggested "Ya'll drop on in" takes on a whole new meaning when you live at the airport. ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 09:12:44 AM PST US From: "Michael T. Ice" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George Walter, Whoa, big fella. Banning sucks. Are you next? Or me? If you don't want to read this junk, just hit the delete button. Mike Ice RV-9 main electrical done PS, I elected to not do an over voltage protection system. I did get the Plane Power alternator which has one built right in. ----- Original Message ----- From: Walter Fellows To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 6:26 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George Bob I have been a member of this forum off and on for over 5 years. You are a man that has a deep knowledge of this subject and is dedicated to helping us build robust and cost effective electrical systems. I have disagreed with you on some matters and have found you very open to other views and willing to agree to disagree if there is no fundamental problem with the facts. (Such as 28v electical systems versus 14 volt, etc.) This guy George seems to be selling something and you indicate he is not willing to come clean on his identity and motives. I am sorry to see these interchanges and the amount of time you must have to waste replying to him and trying to get him to go away. I vote for you banning him outright so we can get back to the sort of healthy interchanges for which this forum in known. Walter Fellows On 1/27/07, Gaye and Vaughn wrote: Since automobiles seem to feel that a malfunction light will tell you all that you need to know, I thought that my 3 month old Mercury Cougar was discharging when thae light came on. I drove the rest of the 20 miles home in that condition. When I lifted the hood, my battery was the shape of a balloon instead of rectangular and the smell of battery acid was strong. I quickly closed the hood and waited 4 or 5 hours untill things cooled down before addressing the problem. So much for the theory that IR alternators aren't subject to the runaway charging problem. Sorry, but my limited experience won't let me trust them. That's all I will say about that and I don't want to hear anything in argument. Europa912 ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Girard To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 9:29 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George I really don't want to get into this, but I'd just like to ask a question. GMCjetpilot, George, whoever, I believe in what I see. Where's your website? Can I get a copy of your book? Do you ever address anything else but IR alternators or are you just a one trick PITA? Thanks, Rick On 1/27/07, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: At 02:42 AM 1/27/2007 -0800, you wrote: >>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" >< nuckollsr@cox.net> > > >George, you've been asked politely before to > >cease your disruptive behaviors in this classroom. > >If we're to interpret your latest rants as an > >unwillingness to comply with a simple-request, > >l'll have to make sure new-comers to the List > >are aware of your track record. > >Bob I think new comers are not aware of you track record. I >assume this latest attack on me is because I simply stated >my opinion that OV relays are a poor choice for I-VR alternators >and to quote others, its *Kludgier*. You can disagree but save >it. Lesson new-comers, don't disagree with Bob. No, my response was published long before your statement about "Kludgier". > > > >I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding > >and substance in your last postings. Instead, > >I've published a small excerpt from our past > >conversations at: > > >Again with the condescending attitude and talking down. Bob >you are not going to respond because you don't have a good >argument or facts. I do. I also understand adding a big heavy >relay on a I-VR alternator is not ideal. I-VR's are not designed >for that kind add-on protection. That is all. I also stated there >pied piper better approaches. Disagree all you want, but save >the vitriolic hateful stuff for someone else. Ho humm boring, >every one is bored with this little tiff, give it up Bob. Let's do this little experiment George. Like Paul and Greg, I'm betting that you cannot focus on a single issue and debate it based on the practice, science, or desires of the builder. You have hat-danced around every point I've made with respect to your lack of understanding. You claim to be a CFI yet you don't teach, you preach. You claim to be ATP rated yet you brush off the goals stated by myself and my builders to exploit practices and features found in the world's safest mode of transportation. You cannot differentiate between condescension and the unwillingness of a teacher to maintain standards of both behavior and technical excellence in his classroom. You cannot differentiate between "vitriolic hateful stuff" and considered observations of your aberrant, uncooperative and sometimes belligerent behavior. I have dozens of your writings that call me all kinds of names and cast aspersion upon my skills, motives and honor. At the same time, I've never cited your behavior for anything except fuzzy thinking and actions unbefitting an exchange of ideas amongst honorable individuals. So here is your pop quiz George. Take the question below and share with us the understanding that demonstrates any shortfall in the logic I've offered. I'll address the latest pails of sand throwing separately or perhaps never. Let us concentrated on one issue at a time. Here it is: Answer one question George. Is it, or is it not a valid design goal for the builder to desire any time, any conditions, no-risk, ON-OFF control of the alternator? If "no" then please explain your rationale for this departure from conventions practiced in aviation since the first generator was installed on an aircraft. If "yes", then please explain and provide schematics of your suggested "Ya'll drop on in" takes on a whole new meaning when you live at the airport. href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List"> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List href="http://forums.matronics.com"> http://forums.matronics.com http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List http://forums.matronics.com ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 09:51:26 AM PST US From: "Mike Lehman" Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Homemade Audio Panel Tom wrote: "I have an experimental aircraft I built. It currently has one comm radio. I am interested in adding a second comm radio. To do this, one must be able to switch between the radios. The common method for this is to install in audio panel of which there are many versions on the market. The problem with these solutions is that they have lots of switches such as nav radios, dme, adf, etc. Does anyone know if a unit that only has switches for 2 comm radios? <...> Any thoughts/comments would be appreciated." Tom, My solution was simply a 4 pole, double throw toggle switch. The 'phones out' from the not-selected radio is switched into an auxiliary audio input of the selected com. This allows monitoring of a 2nd frequency regardless of whether com 1 or 2 is selected. Works fine for me. Mike ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 10:02:38 AM PST US From: Steve Thomas Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George Mike, This is not the issue. If you want the whole story, look in the archives. According to George, there is only one solution to these arguments; his own. Then he proceeds to personally attack Bob rather than to present logical arguments and concrete solutions. While his ideas may have some merit, they are couched in such poisonous rhetoric that not only is the point lost, but everyone on the list is thoroughly offended by his posts. The poison overwhelms any possible benefit. I've been on this list for 4 years and no current poster has come close to the acrimony that George brings to the table. If he wants to continue to post on the Van's site, have at it. But I would prefer that he just go away from this list. His overwhelmingly poisonous attitude has no place here. Best Regards, Steve ____________________________________________________________________ On Jan 27, 2007, at 9:08 AM, Michael T. Ice wrote: > Richard, > > George responds to lots of questions, check out Van's Air Force web > site. > He provides lots of interesting approaches and ideas. If we don't > like them all you have to do is hit the delete button. > > Mike Ice ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 10:25:16 AM PST US From: "Michael T. Ice" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George Steve, I have been reading these lists for about as long as you. I agree that the belly bumping between these two is getting pretty thin. I just think the easy solution is: If you don't like it ignore it, hit the delete button and make it go away. Or if we were in the Wizard of Oz, just click our heels together and repeat three times, "there's no place like Nome". Remember the canary in the coal mine story? When the canaries quit singing the miners were in big trouble. When I don't hear any disagreement I worry. I am a contrarian (is that a word) by nature. Again, hit the delete button if you don't want to read something. That even refers to anything I post. Mike Ice Alaska Do not archive this junk, please ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Thomas To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 9:00 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George Mike, This is not the issue. If you want the whole story, look in the archives. According to George, there is only one solution to these arguments; his own. Then he proceeds to personally attack Bob rather than to present logical arguments and concrete solutions. While his ideas may have some merit, they are couched in such poisonous rhetoric that not only is the point lost, but everyone on the list is thoroughly offended by his posts. The poison overwhelms any possible benefit. I've been on this list for 4 years and no current poster has come close to the acrimony that George brings to the table. If he wants to continue to post on the Van's site, have at it. But I would prefer that he just go away from this list. His overwhelmingly poisonous attitude has no place here. Best Regards, Steve ____________________________________________________________________ On Jan 27, 2007, at 9:08 AM, Michael T. Ice wrote: Richard, George responds to lots of questions, check out Van's Air Force web site. He provides lots of interesting approaches and ideas. If we don't like them all you have to do is hit the delete button. Mike Ice ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 10:31:52 AM PST US From: "Terry Miles" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Spike catcher diodes Bob, I want to refer you to p 43 in your FAQ where you suggest the use of spike suppression diodes in high draws contactors/solenoids.and to articles/s704inst.jpg where there is a pic of the 1N4005 wired into a relay. Here's my question. I have a robust 30a starter switch in a line of switches on an overhead switch panel. The starter button is going out directly to a Skytec starter contactor that is looking for 5 amps say Skytec. In their suggested wiring they show an optional 1N4002 in the 14awg line between my starter button and their contactor. I will do this. I understand to help limit the inductance kick when I release the button. This will be a long circuit run from the cockpit to the starter on a canard. Does it matter where I physically install the diode? 2nd question: Is the starter button location going to be a problem for me? I have placed the starter button between my LH Mag on/off and my Electronic Ign on/off. (maybe .3 of an inch spacing) Is there a concern that this spike could jump over and hit it's neighbor's s700 1-2 lug or is the only risk across the starter button terminals? Thanks. Terry ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 10:37:35 AM PST US From: "Terry Watson" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George Then let's get George off this list. I'm all for using the delete button and I do every time I see his name on an email, but someone always has to respond to him and that brings his crap in under some other s name and I have to wade through that until I realize it's just more George. He has other places to massage his ego in public. I wish Matt would block him from this one. Terry _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael T. Ice Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 9:08 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George Richard, George responds to lots of questions, check out Van's Air Force web site. He provides lots of interesting approaches and ideas. If we don't like them all you have to do is hit the delete button. Mike Ice ----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Girard Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 5:29 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George I really don't want to get into this, but I'd just like to ask a question. GMCjetpilot, George, whoever, I believe in what I see. Where's your website? Can I get a copy of your book? Do you ever address anything else but IR alternators or are you just a one trick PITA? Thanks, Rick On 1/27/07, Robert L. Nuckolls, III > wrote: nuckollsr@cox.net> At 02:42 AM 1/27/2007 -0800, you wrote: >>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" >< >nuckollsr@cox.net> > > >George, you've been asked politely before to > >cease your disruptive behaviors in this classroom. > >If we're to interpret your latest rants as an > >unwillingness to comply with a simple-request, > >l'll have to make sure new-comers to the List > >are aware of your track record. > >Bob I think new comers are not aware of you track record. I >assume this latest attack on me is because I simply stated >my opinion that OV relays are a poor choice for I-VR alternators >and to quote others, its *Kludgier*. You can disagree but save >it. Lesson new-comers, don't disagree with Bob. No, my response was published long before your statement about "Kludgier". > > > >I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding > >and substance in your last postings. Instead, > >I've published a small excerpt from our past > >conversations at: > > >Again with the condescending attitude and talking down. Bob >you are not going to respond because you don't have a good >argument or facts. I do. I also understand adding a big heavy >relay on a I-VR alternator is not ideal. I-VR's are not designed >for that kind add-on protection. That is all. I also stated there >pied piper better approaches. Disagree all you want, but save >the vitriolic hateful stuff for someone else. Ho humm boring, >every one is bored with this little tiff, give it up Bob. Let's do this little experiment George. Like Paul and Greg, I'm betting that you cannot focus on a single issue and debate it based on the practice, science, or desires of the builder. You have hat-danced around every point I've made with respect to your lack of understanding. You claim to be a CFI yet you don't teach, you preach. You claim to be ATP rated yet you brush off the goals stated by myself and my builders to exploit practices and features found in the world's safest mode of transportation. You cannot differentiate between condescension and the unwillingness of a teacher to maintain standards of both behavior and technical excellence in his classroom. You cannot differentiate between "vitriolic hateful stuff" and considered observations of your aberrant, uncooperative and sometimes belligerent behavior. I have dozens of your writings that call me all kinds of names and cast aspersion upon my skills, motives and honor. At the same time, I've never cited your behavior for anything except fuzzy thinking and actions unbefitting an exchange of ideas amongst honorable individuals. So here is your pop quiz George. Take the question below and share with us the understanding that demonstrates any shortfall in the logic I've offered. I'll address the latest pails of sand throwing separately or perhaps never. Let us concentrated on one issue at a time. Here it is: Answer one question George. Is it, or is it not a valid design goal for the builder to desire any time, any conditions, no-risk, ON-OFF control of the alternator? If "no" then please explain your rationale for this departure from conventions practiced in aviation since the first generator was installed on an aircraft. If "yes", then please explain and provide schematics of your suggested "Ya'll drop on in" takes on a whole new meaning when you live at the airport. ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 10:40:09 AM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fuel Press Xducer Vision Microsystems Hello group, I got the a.m. Xducer by chance and want to use it in my Lancair 360 carburated project. Unfortunately I have no schematic how to wire the latter - so my question is whether someone can help me out how to wire it, i.e. which of the 4 pins is representing what. The exact description is 15 PSI TSO -C113 30. In addition there are some numbers on the probe itself saying 3010016. The manufacturer seems to be Honeywell. Thanks in advance, Peter ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 10:43:49 AM PST US From: "Bret Smith" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Avionics Master - Yes or No? Ron, doesn't your XCOM and transponder have their own on-off power switch? Is the technician saying that simply having power direct to the unit during start-up is capable of damaging the unit? Bret Smith RV-9A (91314) Mineral Bluff, GA www.FlightInnovations.com _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Patterson Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 11:59 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Avionics Master - Yes or No? I'm confused.... I believe the general consensus has been that an Avioics Master is unnecessary with "modern" avionics/radios we are using today. However, I just had to send in my Comm radio (XCOM - transmits but won't receive now) for repair because the technician told me that starting the engine with the radio on was a definate no-no, and (in doing so) I messed up the computer inside the radio that now needed to be reset on the bench. He also informed me he'd seen many transponders/navs etc that get damaged by the "20 volt spike" that occurs on start-up. I do sometimes have to reset my Dynon after start-up because it gets all goofy and unreadable. Is it time to rewire my Avionics Master back in? I sure don't want more of this to have to deal with/pay for. Tell me what you think.... Ron ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 10:59:46 AM PST US From: Gilles Thesee Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics Master - Yes or No? Ron Patterson a crit : > > He also informed me he'd seen many transponders/navs etc that get > damaged by the "20 volt spike" that occurs on start-up. He's not seem a Becker ATC 4401 transponder : voltage supply is 9.0-32.2 volts ;-) Regards, Gilles Thesee Grenoble, France http://contrails.free.fr ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 11:58:23 AM PST US From: John Coloccia Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics Master - Yes or No? I'm not even going to go into the the whole avionics master yes/no argument. XCOM claims that they test to DO-160D. We can mince words and say that they didn't claim they met the specification, only that they tested to it....but let's assume they meet spec (there is a LOT of stuff in this document, btw. If you know someone who's a member of RTCA, have a read through it). It should simply shrug off a 20V "spike". This is trivial to test. Find a buddy with a scope (portable fluke would be sweet) and put it on the bus as you crank. Set it to trigger at 16 volts and see what you get. Tell your EE friend you're looking for transients above 16 volts. He'll know just what to do. Your Dynon is most likely getting confused because of because of low voltage, not high. Once again, easy to show with a scope (or even just a VOM if it's not too noisy while you're cranking). You'll probably see the bus drop below 10V. Notice, though, that it's brains don't get "scrambled", whatever that means. The tech you talked is just confused. My guess is that the most likely killer of solid state electronics during engine start is poor design somewhere in the electronic itself that would allow a low voltage situation (such as you expect to get on engine starts at least SOME of the time) to take switching transistors out of saturation. When it's saturated, the resistance, and therefore the heat generated, is next to nothing. Same when the "switch" is off. When the transistor is partially on, as might happen in a low voltage situation, the transitor essentially behaves as a resistor and both restricts current and dissapates enourmous amounts of heat. Enormous in this case means "WAY more than the designer intended". He intended 0". This is how I typically used to blow stuff up, anyway. :) Maybe Bob can weigh in here since he had more experience with avionics before I was born than I'll ever have in a lifetime. It's just a guess. Avionics master won't hurt things, and will keep you from having to reboot your Dynon (and maybe protects whatever it is the XCOM can't deal with, although it was probably just flaky to begin with) but really, things just shouldn't be blowing up regardless. Should and do are two different things, I guess. Sorry for rambling. My fingers have a life of their own sometimes. -John www.ballofshame.com Ron Patterson wrote: > I'm confused.... > I believe the general consensus has been that an Avioics Master is > unnecessary with "modern" avionics/radios we are using today. However, > I just had to send in my Comm radio (XCOM - transmits but won't > receive now) for repair because the technician told me that starting > the engine with the radio on was a definate no-no, and (in doing so) I > messed up the computer inside the radio that now needed to be reset on > the bench. > > He also informed me he'd seen many transponders/navs etc that get > damaged by the "20 volt spike" that occurs on start-up. I do sometimes > have to reset my Dynon after start-up because it gets all goofy and > unreadable. Is it time to rewire my Avionics Master back in? I sure > don't want more of this to have to deal with/pay for. > > Tell me what you think.... > Ron > * > > > * ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 01:33:00 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Avionics Master - Yes or No? From: "jetboy" Ron I agree with the replies youve had and that if the radio was anywhere close to DO-160 spec there would be no issue. A friend has just got his Xcom back for the 3rd time and it seems to be fixed now. The dealer also loaned him a replacement which had the same fault and had to be sent away. The problem we experienced was identified by the company as a software issue and repaired under warranty though there has been no announcment about it yet on their website. Maybe it will go away. he problem we had was a condition that could occur where although the receiver was getting a signal (witnessed by the RX indication) there would be no audio delivered to the headsets. There would be no noise even if the squelch control was adjusted to make noise. Usually the audio would start working if the transmitter was operated. But the receiver could go to sleep at any time, and repowering the radio didnt help. sometimes you cannot power these down without pulling a fuse. Then you will end up with a glitched radio as described. You will be told you need an avionics master. And reminded about the requirement for a capacitor. My friends installation, being a Rotax 912, already has the capacitor, installed across the regulator. Xcom wiring for the capacitor suggests installation after the avionics master, IMHO this is incorrect practice as it will exceeed the ratings for the switch, with excessive inrush currents. In my aircraft, I have no avionics master and routinely leave the radios / transponder on during startup. Yes, in the 60's the new transistorised radios were susceptible and flying schools taught to start up with everything turned off then go thru and set all the units on. Most of the radios failed because the volume controls wore out. In summary, if you become aware of sleepy rx on the Xcom the factory should know about it, you just have to get past the 'must be a faulty installation" barrier - oh, and dont forget to clean the headset connections. Ralph -------- Ralph - CH701 / 2200a Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=90887#90887 ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 01:50:19 PM PST US From: "Alan K. Adamson" Subject: AeroElectric-List: 430 to 330 config changes? All, I have a 430 that I *believe* is connected correctly to a 330 on ARINC #1. I just configured the 430 to use highspeed ARINC and told it that it was connected to a 330. Is there any other software configuration changes that are needed? I'll be flying it soon to confirm, but just wanted to check with those doing similar? Thanks, Alan ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 02:56:55 PM PST US From: Kevin Horton Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics Master - Yes or No? Bob Nuckolls posted a summary of some of the DO-160 requirements in a message titled "DO-160 in a nutshell", back in May 2001. A device that has passed the DO-160 tests for power should function normally with bus voltages from 13 to 15v, and should still function acceptably down to 10.5v. It should not be damaged by power drop outs to 0v. It should be able to handle 20v for 1 second, and 40v for 0.1 second. So, if the XCOM has passed the DO-160 tests, as they claim, then it should survive just fine being on during engine start and shut down. Kevin Horton On 27 Jan 2007, at 14:57, John Coloccia wrote: > > > I'm not even going to go into the the whole avionics master yes/no > argument. XCOM claims that they test to DO-160D. We can mince > words and say that they didn't claim they met the specification, > only that they tested to it....but let's assume they meet spec > (there is a LOT of stuff in this document, btw. If you know > someone who's a member of RTCA, have a read through it). It should > simply shrug off a 20V "spike". > This is trivial to test. Find a buddy with a scope (portable fluke > would be sweet) and put it on the bus as you crank. Set it to > trigger at 16 volts and see what you get. Tell your EE friend > you're looking for transients above 16 volts. He'll know just what > to do. > > Your Dynon is most likely getting confused because of because of > low voltage, not high. Once again, easy to show with a scope (or > even just a VOM if it's not too noisy while you're cranking). > You'll probably see the bus drop below 10V. Notice, though, that > it's brains don't get "scrambled", whatever that means. > > The tech you talked is just confused. My guess is that the most > likely killer of solid state electronics during engine start is > poor design somewhere in the electronic itself that would allow a > low voltage situation (such as you expect to get on engine starts > at least SOME of the time) to take switching transistors out of > saturation. When it's saturated, the resistance, and therefore the > heat generated, is next to nothing. Same when the "switch" is > off. When the transistor is partially on, as might happen in a low > voltage situation, the transitor essentially behaves as a resistor > and both restricts current and dissapates enourmous amounts of > heat. Enormous in this case means "WAY more than the designer > intended". He intended 0". This is how I typically used to blow > stuff up, anyway. :) Maybe Bob can weigh in here since he had > more experience with avionics before I was born than I'll ever have > in a lifetime. It's just a guess. > > Avionics master won't hurt things, and will keep you from having to > reboot your Dynon (and maybe protects whatever it is the XCOM can't > deal with, although it was probably just flaky to begin with) but > really, things just shouldn't be blowing up regardless. Should and > do are two different things, I guess. > > Sorry for rambling. My fingers have a life of their own sometimes. > > -John > www.ballofshame.com > > Ron Patterson wrote: >> I'm confused.... >> I believe the general consensus has been that an Avioics Master is >> unnecessary with "modern" avionics/radios we are using today. >> However, I just had to send in my Comm radio (XCOM - transmits but >> won't receive now) for repair because the technician told me that >> starting the engine with the radio on was a definate no-no, and >> (in doing so) I messed up the computer inside the radio that now >> needed to be reset on the bench. >> He also informed me he'd seen many transponders/navs etc that get >> damaged by the "20 volt spike" that occurs on start-up. I do >> sometimes have to reset my Dynon after start-up because it gets >> all goofy and unreadable. Is it time to rewire my Avionics Master >> back in? I sure don't want more of this to have to deal with/pay for. >> Tell me what you think.... >> Ron >> * >> >> >> * ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 02:58:09 PM PST US From: jdalton77@comcast.net Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George I don't enjoy it either - but it's a free country and Bob seems to do all right defending himself. If George wants to think he has all the answers then that's OK with me - I don't have to listen to any of it. He posts a lot of idiocy on Vans Airforce too. Banning is a bad idea - the Internet should be open to all - whether or not they are jerks. Jeff -------------- Original message -------------- From: Steve Thomas Mike, This is not the issue. If you want the whole story, look in the archives. According to George, there is only one solution to these arguments; his own. Then he proceeds to personally attack Bob rather than to present logical arguments and concrete solutions. While his ideas may have some merit, they are couched in such poisonous rhetoric that not only is the point lost, but everyone on the list is thoroughly offended by his posts. The poison overwhelms any possible benefit. I've been on this list for 4 years and no current poster has come close to the acrimony that George brings to the table. If he wants to continue to post on the Van's site, have at it. But I would prefer that he just go away from this list. His overwhelmingly poisonous attitude has no place here. Best Regards, Steve ____________________________________________________________________ On Jan 27, 2007, at 9:08 AM, Michael T. Ice wrote: Richard, George responds to lots of questions, check out Van's Air Force web site. He provides lots of interesting approaches and ideas. If we don't like them all you have to do is hit the delete button. Mike Ice
I don't enjoy it either - but it's a free country and Bob seems to do all right defending himself.  If George wants to think he has all the answers then that's OK with me - I don't have to listen to any of it.  He posts a lot of idiocy on Vans Airforce too. 
 
Banning is a bad idea - the Internet should be open to all - whether or not they are jerks.
 
Jeff
 
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Steve Thomas <lists@stevet.net>
Mike,

This is not the issue. If you want the whole story, look in the archives. According to George, there is only one solution to these arguments; his own. Then he proceeds to personally attack Bob rather than to present logical arguments and concrete solutions.

While his ideas may have some merit, they are couched in such poisonous rhetoric that not only is the point lost, but everyone on the list is thoroughly offended by his posts. The poison overwhelms any possible benefit.

I've been on this list for 4 years and no current poster has come close to the acrimony that George brings to the table. If he wants to continue to post on the Van's site, have at it. But I would prefer that he just go away from this list. His overwhelmingly poisonous attitude has no place here.

< SPAN c lass=Apple-style-span style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px; -khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -apple-text-size-adjust: auto; orphans: 2; widows: 2">
Best Regards,

Steve
____________________________________________________________________


On Jan 27, 2007, at 9:08 AM, Michael T. Ice wrote:

Richard,
George responds to lots of questions, check out Van's Air Force web site.
He provides lots of interesting approaches and ideas. If we don't like them all you have to do is hit the delete button.
Mike Ice
________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 02:58:36 PM PST US From: jdalton77@comcast.net Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George Yea, and while we're at it, Bob hasn't exactly shied away from the arguing either. Maybe we can all get back to electronics eh? -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Michael T. Ice" Steve, I have been reading these lists for about as long as you. I agree that the belly bumping between these two is getting pretty thin. I just think the easy solution is: If you don't like it ignore it, hit the delete button and make it go away. Or if we were in the Wizard of Oz, just click our heels together and repeat three times, "there's no place like Nome". Remember the canary in the coal mine story? When the canaries quit singing the miners were in big trouble. When I don't hear any disagreement I worry. I am a contrarian (is that a word) by nature. Again, hit the delete button if you don't want to read something. That even refers to anything I post. Mike Ice Alaska Do not archive this junk, please ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Thomas Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 9:00 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George Mike, This is not the issue. If you want the whole story, look in the archives. According to George, there is only one solution to these arguments; his own. Then he proceeds to personally attack Bob rather than to present logical arguments and concrete solutions. While his ideas may have some merit, they are couched in such poisonous rhetoric that not only is the point lost, but everyone on the list is thoroughly offended by his posts. The poison overwhelms any possible benefit. I've been on this list for 4 years and no current poster has come close to the acrimony that George brings to the table. If he wants to continue to post on the Van's site, have at it. But I would prefer that he just go away from this list. His overwhelmingly poisonous attitude has no place here. Best Regards, Steve ____________________________________________________________________ On Jan 27, 2007, at 9:08 AM, Michael T. Ice wrote: Richard, George responds to lots of questions, check out Van's Air Force web site. He provides lots of interesting approaches and ideas. If we don't like them all you have to do is hit the delete button. Mike Ice
Yea, and while we're at it, Bob hasn't exactly shied away from the arguing either.  Maybe we can all get back to electronics eh?
 
 
 
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Michael T. Ice" <aurbo@ak.net>
Steve,
 
I have been reading these lists for about as long as you.  I agree that the belly bumping between these two is getting pretty thin. I just think the easy solution is: If you don't like it ignore it, hit the delete button and make it go away. Or if we were in the Wizard of Oz, just click our heels together and repeat three times, "there's no place like Nome".
 
Remember the canary in the coal mine story? When the canaries quit singing the miners were in big trouble. When I don't hear any disagreement I worry. I am a contrarian (is that a word) by nature.
 
Again, hit the delete button if you don't want to read something. That even refers to anything I post.
 
Mike Ice
Alaska 
 
Do not archive this junk, please
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George

Mike, 

This is not the issue.  If you want the whole story, look in the archives.  According to George, there is only one solution to these arguments; his own.  Then he proceeds  to personally attack Bob rather than to present logical arguments and concrete solutions.  

While his ideas may have some merit, they are couched in such poisonous rhetoric that not only is the point lost, but everyone on the list is thoroughly offended by his posts.  The poison overwhelms any possible benefit. 

I've been on this list for 4 years and no current poster has come close to the acrimony that George brings  to the table.  If he wants to continue to post on the Van's site, have at it.  But I would prefer that he just go away from this list.  His overwhelmingly poisonous attitude has no place here.

< SPAN c lass=Apple-style-span style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px; -khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -apple-text-size-adjust: auto; orphans: 2; widows: 2">
Best Regards,

Steve 
< SPAN c lass=Apple-style-span style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px; -khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -apple-text-size-adjust: auto; orphans: 2; widows: 2">
____________________________________________________________________


On Jan 27, 2007, at 9:08 AM, Michael T. Ice wrote:

Richard,
 
George responds to lots of questions, check out Van's Air Force web site.
He provides lots of interesting approaches and ideas. If we don't like them all you have to do is hit the delete button.
 
Mike Ice
________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 02:58:40 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics Master - Yes or No? At 08:59 AM 1/27/2007 -0800, you wrote: >I'm confused.... >I believe the general consensus has been that an Avioics Master is >unnecessary with "modern" avionics/radios we are using today. However, I >just had to send in my Comm radio (XCOM - transmits but won't receive now) >for repair because the technician told me that starting the engine with >the radio on was a definate no-no, and (in doing so) I messed up the >computer inside the radio that now needed to be reset on the bench. The radio has an ON/OFF switch, no? If the radio is indeed sensitive to ANYTHING real or imagined that MIGHT happen during starting . . . it's pretty easy to have it turned off at the time > >He also informed me he'd seen many transponders/navs etc that get damaged >by the "20 volt spike" that occurs on start-up. As far as I've been able to determine, the start-up "spikes" are a figment of someone's imagination . . . we helped start that rumor back in the 60's when Cessna put the avionics master in. After years of hunting the elusive "snipe spike" during startup, I've quite looking. Virtually every time I've had 'scopes or high speed data acquisition systems tied to everything from S.E. Cessnas to Bizjets, I have yet to capture the elusive start up spike. I've yet to see anyone else's trophy either. It's a phenomenon very long on discussion and promulgation but exceedingly lacking in repeatable experiment. > I do sometimes have to reset my Dynon after start-up because it gets all > goofy and unreadable. This is probably due to some sensitivity to brownout, not over voltage transient. The curves below were plotted of the battery terminals of two cars sitting in my driveway. Note the short term drop to very low voltage while the battery is subject to 1000A or so of starter inrush currents. Note further the LOWER voltage taken from the terminals of the Saturn . . . which has a PM starter. Higher inrush currents, lower voltage. http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/95_GMC_Safari_1.gif http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/95_GMC_Safari_3.gif http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/99_Saturn_SL1.jpg http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/99_Saturn_SL1_2.gif Note that none of these traces show UPWARD transients. Further, the time that the voltage stays below 9v is short. Tens of milliseconds. . . but PLENTY of time for a microprocessor to wander off into the weeds. One might properly state that an avionics master switch left off during start and turned on only after start would fix the to problems cited. So would judicious use of the radio's own power switch. I've often noted that devices confused by the startup brownout phenomenon were not designed to live in the real world of vehicular DC power systems. We don't have to fuss with things on our cars . . . At the time I was handling Microair, they were unwilling to upgrade their products to take the 20V, 1-second surge. I don't know about brown-out tolerance. Was unable to do tests myself and didn't get any feedback from customers. But that one reason out of several I decided not to continue my relationship with them. The short answer is that I can deduce no value for having an AMS that cannot be equally addressed by using the device's own power switch . . . and buying into the notion that startup events are potentially harmful to a device is founded on suspect science. > Is it time to rewire my Avionics Master back in? I sure don't want more > of this to have to deal with/pay for. If it worries you and having the switch would mitigate the worries, then why not? My father is paying $thousands$ for some treatments that I believe are pure snake oil but he believes they're helpful. In his case, he can afford it and if he's happy with the results, then I'm not going to get inside that loop. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 03:15:33 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George At 07:26 AM 1/27/2007 -0800, you wrote: Bob I have been a member of this forum off and on for over 5 years. You are a man that has a deep knowledge of this subject and is dedicated to helping us build robust and cost effective electrical systems. I have disagreed with you on some matters and have found you very open to other views and willing to agree to disagree if there is no fundamental problem with the facts. (Such as 28v electrical systems versus 14 volt, etc.) This guy George seems to be selling something and you indicate he is not willing to come clean on his identity and motives. I am sorry to see these interchanges and the amount of time you must have to waste replying to him and trying to get him to go away. I vote for you banning him outright so we can get back to the sort of healthy interchanges for which this forum in known. Not a problem sir and I wouldn't spend the time if I did not see value in it at some level. Quite frankly, some of my exchanges here on the list have prepared me to deal professionally with loose cannons in other venues. Blocking him directly is possible and if it becomes useless at every level to communicate with him, I'll probably see to it. There is an underlying point to all this that has nothing to do with George or this particular conversation. For the time being, just delete what you don't want to be concerned or bothered with. I'll refer the readers to a recently updated tag on my signature. It's amazing how many citizens get bent out of shape for someone's inability to deal with certain situations even when that service is part of their name and job description. Take FEMA. They'll never live down the fact that they don't have the first clue as to management of emergency logistics while the Home Depot, Walmart and similar organizations can mount the needed tasks with ease. The difference? These are folks who do huge inventory and deployment tasks every day. FMEA does it rarely and it's never managed by someone with hands-on experience. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 05:41:34 PM PST US From: Robert Feldtman Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Is garbage picked SWR meter useful? On Friday 26 January 2007 11:57, rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us wrote: It will work fine. I am a ham and a pilot and use my amateur SWR meters to check my airplane SWR. Has to do with the frequency characteristics of the diode in the circuit. Hook it up, turn the knob to "cal" and flip the switch to SWR - if it is less than 3:1 it is just okay. If it is 1:1 it is perfect. Anything in between is fine. Bobf 125GS (glastar) W5RF (amateur extra class) > > I acquired form a garbage pick (Ham gave it to me some years back) a > Micronta Field Strength / SWR Tester > > On bottom it says MFGed for Rat Shack with a CAT# 21-525B > > The connectors in the backfor ANT and TRANS have a serrated crown, are > 610" in diameter and the center hole looks like it takes a pin .150" in > diameter. > > The SWR goes from 1 to 3 and a red area from bout 3 to 4 that says CAL > > Also below that scale is a scale (%)REF POWER and ranges from 0 to 5 > > There is a switch that has a setting for REF and FWD and an adjustable > knob that is labeled CAL > > One more thing, a small hole in the top that looks like you plug into that > is labeled FS ANT and is ~ .077" in diameter. > > > Sorry bout these Newbie questions: > > Could I use this meter to test my Becker Mode C Transponder and Com.? > > What settings and scale would I use and what am I looking for? > > If this is unusable, any recommendations on what would be a good tool for > the job? > > Thx. > Ron Parigoris > > ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 06:52:48 PM PST US From: Speedy11@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George George, Bob is right. Why do you have to be so over-the-top with your comments? I really enjoy your input to the discussions, but your grovelling in the language gutter is embarrassing. I'm embarrassed for you. Stan Sutterfield Tampa George, you've been asked politely before to cease your disruptive behaviors in this classroom. If we're to interpret your latest rants as an unwillingness to comply with a simple-request, I'll have to make sure new-comers to the List are aware of your track record. I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding and substance in your last postings. Instead, I've published a small excerpt from our past conversations at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/gmcjetpilot.html I considered posting it at the time you were asked to leave some months ago but held off after you appeared to honor my request. Since you've chosen to resume your old counter productive and disruptive habits, it seems prudent to let everyone know what you're about and share a snapshot of what we've already experienced with your unwelcome activities here on the List. Do the honorable thing sir. ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 07:19:44 PM PST US From: "Lee Logan" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 01/26/07 Bob: You said, "I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding and substance in your last postings" in your response to George's comments on internally regulated alternators. But isn't he just saying pretty much what the Plane Power people, brochures, and product specs say? Tough for us "pilots" out here to know the "electrical truth" when the experts are this far apart on the "facts". Allow me to summarize what I believe I have heard over the last several months on this forum and where I think this leaves those of us who just want to build a safe, operationally flexible airplane and FLY it: One side says that modern internally regulated alternators are reliable and fundamentally sound, and indeed, cutting edge designs. They are said to rarely fail and when they do to do so generally in an orderly fashion. The Plane Power design for one, is said even to eliminate the last vestiges of the concerns in the anti-internally regulated argument. The "other side" says this is not true and that internally regulated alternators are fundamentally and fatally flawed with respect to their penchant for a potentially damaging and dangerous runaway voltage/amperage excursion. They are not foolproof by any means and in fact, fail often enough to give legitimate pause to anyone considering their use. A potential "fix" is said to be in the works for some as yet, unannounced future date, however. These two positions are about as far apart as it is possible to be, it seems to me and has left me and perhaps others wondering which system to "bet" on in our own aircraft. I for one, have listened to the debate in this forum for months and am no better informed at this point than I was when I started. Technically, I suppose, that is not accurate. I know a GREAT deal more than I did before (thanks very much to all who have contributed), but with respect to the fundamental issue of which systems works best or is most suitable for a high end OBAM all electric aircraft, I STILL don't know which has been better justified through this debate. And, like many others I suspect, I don't really have a horse in this race---I just want to make the right choice for my aircraft. If it is true that there is neither "understanding" nor "substance" to the arguments made in favor of the internally regulated Plane Power alternator (and perhaps others like them which claim orderly and infrequent failure modes), then it seems to me they should be taken off the market and prevented from endangering the aircraft they might be installed in. I'm having trouble believeing that is the case with these modern and apparently cutting edge designs, but I'm also having trouble reading your most recent comments any other way. I have no connection to any entity in this debate and none with Plane Power or any other manufacturer. I'm just trying to figure out which alternator to put on my airplane. Are internally regulated alternators now considered by forum experts to be so fundamentally flawed and inapproprite in OBAM aircraft as to be beyond discussion? Scratching my head in South Carolina, Lee... ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 07:37:02 PM PST US From: "Michael T. Ice" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 01/26/07 Lee, I scratched my head in Alaska and decided to use the Plane Power route. And "horrors" I will not be using any other over voltage protection! But if and when I do have a problem I will be glad to share it with others. Done scratching and now I will continue on with building an "experimental" aircraft. Mike Ice Anchorage, Alaska RV-9 electrical almost done canopy next. ----- Original Message ----- From: Lee Logan To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 6:18 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 01/26/07 Bob: You said, "I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding and substance in your last postings" in your response to George's comments on internally regulated alternators. But isn't he just saying pretty much what the Plane Power people, brochures, and product specs say? Tough for us "pilots" out here to know the "electrical truth" when the experts are this far apart on the "facts". Allow me to summarize what I believe I have heard over the last several months on this forum and where I think this leaves those of us who just want to build a safe, operationally flexible airplane and FLY it: One side says that modern internally regulated alternators are reliable and fundamentally sound, and indeed, cutting edge designs. They are said to rarely fail and when they do to do so generally in an orderly fashion. The Plane Power design for one, is said even to eliminate the last vestiges of the concerns in the anti-internally regulated argument. The "other side" says this is not true and that internally regulated alternators are fundamentally and fatally flawed with respect to their penchant for a potentially damaging and dangerous runaway voltage/amperage excursion. They are not foolproof by any means and in fact, fail often enough to give legitimate pause to anyone considering their use. A potential "fix" is said to be in the works for some as yet, unannounced future date, however. These two positions are about as far apart as it is possible to be, it seems to me and has left me and perhaps others wondering which system to "bet" on in our own aircraft. I for one, have listened to the debate in this forum for months and am no better informed at this point than I was when I started. Technically, I suppose, that is not accurate. I know a GREAT deal more than I did before (thanks very much to all who have contributed), but with respect to the fundamental issue of which systems works best or is most suitable for a high end OBAM all electric aircraft, I STILL don't know which has been better justified through this debate. And, like many others I suspect, I don't really have a horse in this race---I just want to make the right choice for my aircraft. If it is true that there is neither "understanding" nor "substance" to the arguments made in favor of the internally regulated Plane Power alternator (and perhaps others like them which claim orderly and infrequent failure modes), then it seems to me they should be taken off the market and prevented from endangering the aircraft they might be installed in. I'm having trouble believeing that is the case with these modern and apparently cutting edge designs, but I'm also having trouble reading your most recent comments any other way. I have no connection to any entity in this debate and none with Plane Power or any other manufacturer. I'm just trying to figure out which alternator to put on my airplane. Are internally regulated alternators now considered by forum experts to be so fundamentally flawed and inapproprite in OBAM aircraft as to be beyond discussion? Scratching my head in South Carolina, Lee... ________________________________ Message 33 ____________________________________ Time: 08:08:14 PM PST US From: Dave N6030X Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 01/26/07 I'll take a crack at it. At several points in the past, Bob has referred to "dark and stormy night stories" that happened to spam cans and discussed how these could have been easily avoided with active notification of overvoltage and undervoltage and the ability to take alternators offline in the former case and shed loads in the latter. My 1960 Mooney does not come with any overvoltage or undervoltage notification. The plane has flown for 46 years and as far as I know, nobody has ever fallen out of the sky. But the first thing I did when I bought it was to install an overvoltage / undervoltage notification system so that I have options and do not appear in the next "dark and stormy night" story in Plane and Pilot or Flying magazine. I want to eventually install some nice expensive avionics, and I don't want it ruined by a runaway electrical system that I could have prevented. You guys can do what you want, nobody is twisting your arm. Dave Morris At 08:18 PM 1/27/2007, you wrote: >Bob: You said, "I'm not going to respond to the lack of >understanding and substance in your last postings" in your response >to George's comments on internally regulated alternators. But isn't >he just saying pretty much what the Plane Power people, brochures, >and product specs say? Tough for us "pilots" out here to know the >"electrical truth" when the experts are this far apart on the "facts". > >Allow me to summarize what I believe I have heard over the last >several months on this forum and where I think this leaves those of >us who just want to build a safe, operationally flexible airplane >and FLY it: One side says that modern internally regulated >alternators are reliable and fundamentally sound, and indeed, >cutting edge designs. They are said to rarely fail and when they >do to do so generally in an orderly fashion. The Plane Power design >for one, is said even to eliminate the last vestiges of the concerns >in the anti-internally regulated argument. > >The "other side" says this is not true and that internally regulated >alternators are fundamentally and fatally flawed with respect to >their penchant for a potentially damaging and dangerous runaway >voltage/amperage excursion. They are not foolproof by any means and >in fact, fail often enough to give legitimate pause to anyone >considering their use. A potential "fix" is said to be in the works >for some as yet, unannounced future date, however. > >These two positions are about as far apart as it is possible to be, >it seems to me and has left me and perhaps others wondering which >system to "bet" on in our own aircraft. I for one, have listened to >the debate in this forum for months and am no better informed at >this point than I was when I started. Technically, I suppose, that >is not accurate. I know a GREAT deal more than I did before (thanks >very much to all who have contributed), but with respect to the >fundamental issue of which systems works best or is most suitable >for a high end OBAM all electric aircraft, I STILL don't know which >has been better justified through this debate. And, like many >others I suspect, I don't really have a horse in this race---I just >want to make the right choice for my aircraft. > >If it is true that there is neither "understanding" nor "substance" >to the arguments made in favor of the internally regulated Plane >Power alternator (and perhaps others like them which claim orderly >and infrequent failure modes), then it seems to me they should be >taken off the market and prevented from endangering the aircraft >they might be installed in. I'm having trouble believeing that is >the case with these modern and apparently cutting edge designs, but >I'm also having trouble reading your most recent comments any other >way. I have no connection to any entity in this debate and none >with Plane Power or any other manufacturer. I'm just trying to >figure out which alternator to put on my airplane. Are internally >regulated alternators now considered by forum experts to be so >fundamentally flawed and inapproprite in OBAM aircraft as to be >beyond discussion? > >Scratching my head in South Carolina, > >Lee... > > >http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > ________________________________ Message 34 ____________________________________ Time: 08:21:49 PM PST US From: "Bill Boyd" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 01/26/07 Lee, It will be interesting to hear what Bob's latest thinking is on this big question as you have phrased it (great job, BTW). Meanwhile, here is how I have forged ahead, while awaiting the promised protection circuit module from Bob's R&D efforts: I am putting a 55 amp I-VR alternator in the plane with a backup SD-8 alternator (basic Z-13/8 so far...) My essentials or endurance bus is actually an avionics bus; all my expensive glass-cockpit IFR goodies go there. This bus has a tiny backup battery to allow the avionics to initialize while the big Odyssey battery handles engine cranking chores, and to keep the avionics booted up in what follows below. The avionics bus has an alternate feed path from the always-hot battery bus that is normally OPEN. Primary feed of power to the avionics bus is from the main bus, where the heavy, resistive loads like lights, seat heaters, pitot heat reside, and this feed is through a small Bosch ice cube relay governed by a solid state OV module from Perihelion Design. An overvolt event of 16.2 volts immediately trips out the relay and isolates the avionics bus from the surging alternator and the main bus and big battery, which are left connected to the alternator (no big load dump so far...) Manual switching in an orderly left-to-right sequence on my switch sub-panel takes the main bus offline, then opens the battery contactor (two-stage load dump) and brings alive the SD-8, which is connected to the main battery and needs no bootstrap circuit to bring the regulator alive. One more switch flick ties the avionics bus to the battery bus, drawing power from the Odyssey and the SD-8. Such pilot switch-throwing is anathema to some designer's goals, but takes about two seconds and can be done without looking, the way mine are laid out. If a reset of the OV module seems to clear the fault, and it looks like it was a nuisance trip, reversing the switch sequence restores everything to the way it was before the event, provided the big alternator was not harmed. The part I like best is that the protection of the high-dollar and mission-critical avionics suite is automatic and instantaneous (okay, I'm not sure of the relay action times but it's darned fast). If the stuff on the main bus gets fried by a few seconds of rising voltage, gee, that's too bad. Light bulbs and seat heaters can be replaced cheaply. The battery should be able to endure a few seconds without catastrophic failure before it, too, is isolated from the overvoltage. Not the perfect system, but it was cheap and light and easy to design and implement and has what I like. I've gone out of my way to engineer the human-switch interface to make the handling of an event straightforward in my RV. That said, I hope I never have to practice that particular drill. I'll forward the Excel schematic to any interested parties. The more people who look this over before it actually flies, the happier I'll be. -Bill B On 1/27/07, Lee Logan wrote: > Bob: You said, "I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding and > substance in your last postings" in your response to George's comments on > internally regulated alternators. But isn't he just saying pretty much what > the Plane Power people, brochures, and product specs say? Tough for us > "pilots" out here to know the "electrical truth" when the experts are this > far apart on the "facts". > > Allow me to summarize what I believe I have heard over the last several > months on this forum and where I think this leaves those of us who just want > to build a safe, operationally flexible airplane and FLY it: One side says > that modern internally regulated alternators are reliable and fundamentally > sound, and indeed, cutting edge designs. They are said to rarely fail and > when they do to do so generally in an orderly fashion. The Plane Power > design for one, is said even to eliminate the last vestiges of the concerns > in the anti-internally regulated argument. > > The "other side" says this is not true and that internally regulated > alternators are fundamentally and fatally flawed with respect to their > penchant for a potentially damaging and dangerous runaway voltage/amperage > excursion. They are not foolproof by any means and in fact, fail often > enough to give legitimate pause to anyone considering their use. A potential > "fix" is said to be in the works for some as yet, unannounced future date, > however. > > These two positions are about as far apart as it is possible to be, it seems > to me and has left me and perhaps others wondering which system to "bet" on > in our own aircraft. I for one, have listened to the debate in this forum > for months and am no better informed at this point than I was when I > started. Technically, I suppose, that is not accurate. I know a GREAT deal > more than I did before (thanks very much to all who have contributed), but > with respect to the fundamental issue of which systems works best or is most > suitable for a high end OBAM all electric aircraft, I STILL don't know which > has been better justified through this debate. And, like many others I > suspect, I don't really have a horse in this race---I just want to make the > right choice for my aircraft. > > If it is true that there is neither "understanding" nor "substance" to the > arguments made in favor of the internally regulated Plane Power alternator > (and perhaps others like them which claim orderly and infrequent failure > modes), then it seems to me they should be taken off the market and > prevented from endangering the aircraft they might be installed in. I'm > having trouble believeing that is the case with these modern and apparently > cutting edge designs, but I'm also having trouble reading your most recent > comments any other way. I have no connection to any entity in this debate > and none with Plane Power or any other manufacturer. I'm just trying to > figure out which alternator to put on my airplane. Are internally regulated > alternators now considered by forum experts to be so fundamentally flawed > and inapproprite in OBAM aircraft as to be beyond discussion? > > Scratching my head in South Carolina, > > Lee... > > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List > > ________________________________ Message 35 ____________________________________ Time: 08:31:15 PM PST US From: "Pete Howell" Subject: AeroElectric-List: z-13/8 Hello, I am helping a friend design an electrical system for his RV-7A. We are working with Z-13/8 and have come up with a few questions. 1)If the main alt and the SD-8 are both on line(should they ever be?), how does the system balance the power from the 2 alternators? Do you need to worry about power feeding back into the SD-8 from the main alternator? 2)Can you test to see that the SD-8 is working with out turning off the main alternator? If so, how? Thanks, Pete Z-11 with P-mags 65 hours and going strong ________________________________ Message 36 ____________________________________ Time: 08:58:16 PM PST US From: Ernest Christley Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 01/26/07 Lee Logan wrote: > > The "other side" says this is not true and that internally regulated > alternators are fundamentally and fatally flawed with respect to their > penchant for a potentially damaging and dangerous runaway > voltage/amperage > excursion. They are not foolproof by any means and in fact, fail often > enough to give legitimate pause to anyone considering their use. A > potential > "fix" is said to be in the works for some as yet, unannounced future > date, > however. > That doesn't represent what I've come to understand as Bob's position. He has stated repeatedly that the I-VR is reliable and at a very low risk of damaging other systems. He has added the caveat that there IS risk, just not much. His objection is that the pilot does not have the control to shut it down. It's immaterial whether the control is needed for a runaway voltage condition, or to verify the veracity of a back electron pump of some sort. The design goal that he has embraced calls for the pilot to have complete control over all systems, and the IVR takes some of that away. George, OTOH, has argued that the IVR can handle alternator control better than the pilot. The overvoltage failures that have occured with quality hardware were mild in nature and easily dealt with. I don't see Bob taking an issue with that. He contends that the pilot should have control, regardless. I believe Bob has recognized many of the benefits of I-VR (like lower cost, wide availability, and some neato whizzy electronic features), and is working on a system that will alleviate the remaining issue that he has with lack of control. I work in a technical field, and I see this sort of debate all the time. I have issues. You have issues. We bang heads and together arrive at a system that's better than what either of us would have designed alone. That's the good stuff. The rest is noise. ________________________________ Message 37 ____________________________________ Time: 08:58:16 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: The simple ideas . . . At 10:18 PM 1/27/2007 -0500, you wrote: >Bob: You said, "I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding and >substance in your last postings" in your response to George's comments on >internally regulated alternators. But isn't he just saying pretty much >what the Plane Power people, brochures, and product specs say? Tough for >us "pilots" out here to know the "electrical truth" when the experts are >this far apart on the "facts". > >Scratching my head in South Carolina, > >Lee... I can see why you're confused. Please allow me to summarize about 3 or 4 years of the discussions about IR vs. ER alternators in terms of the simple-ideas. First, I have NEVER advised against the use of internally regulated alternators out of any perceptions or beliefs that they were not a really great product and an excellent value. Unlike the products our TC aircraft brethren are stuck with, the OBAM aviation community is free to take advantage of a technology that get better, lighter and less expensive everything the designs roll over. I firmly believe IR alternators are worthy of considerable attention. I'm a systems designer with no small amount of experience both in seeking customer satisfaction and getting hardware qualified onto certificated aircraft. I believe I have a unique perspective from which I have crafted the following DESIGN GOALS for incorporating this marvelous technology into OBAM aircraft. (1) Seamless integration of the IR alternator into ANY aircraft such that it is transparent to the pilot as to what kind of machine may be churning out the watt-seconds under the cowl. For my design goals this means absolute ON/OFF control under any conditions, any time without concern for the safety of other systems components or the alternator itself. This is a feature our brothers flying TC aircraft have enjoyed since day-one. Whether my detractors embrace this idea is irrelevant. If I'm going to put my name on a recommendation for any material or process, I first have to believe it's at least support if not enhancement of the best-we-know-how-to-do. (2) We've all heard numerous reports of what I'll call anomalous output voltage conditions that have caused batteries to get fat . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery/Odyssey_OV/Odyssey_OV_1.jpg http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery/Odyssey_OV/Odyssey_OV_3.jpg . . . pegged ammeters, and various system components to be damaged. My detractors would have us believe these were not "real" runaway, OV events but "mild" aberrations in regulator performance that simply did not warrant any over-reactions that might suggest these admittedly marvelous products are not bullet-proof. My detractors suggest that folks who suffered these events were just asleep at the stick. Had they been paying attention, would would have caught the event in progress and pulled the b-lead breaker before anything bad happened. Only a couple of things wrong with this. First, there has been (under my design goals which echo the industry) to move b-lead breakers off the panel and get the b-lead protection under the cowl. This has been a solid feature in all the Z-figure drawings for over 20 years . . . it's been a practice on many aircraft for longer than that. Question: Is it consistent with anyones design goals to (1) reinstate the b-lead breaker's proud position on the panel simply to (2) afford the alert pilot a means by which he can jump on his white horse, don his white hat and ride over the hill to rescue electro-whizzies in distress from the ravages of an aberrant alternator? Consider that an alternator in a true, unrestrained OV condition has a rate-of-rise in output voltage that is nothing less than spectacular. If you think the heat and fire from an arc-welder's stick is impressive at 70 volts DC, imagine the possibilities from 100-200 volts DC. I seriously doubt that the contact clearances in the panel mounted, finger operated circuit breaker will successfully open runaway alternator's output without itself being destroyed by a tiny sun within that represents the alternator's highest energy dump just before it self destructs. None-the-less, many folks have adopted this policy including those who install Van's wiring as suggested using ANY popular alternator. There are further considerations for integrating the IR alternator into aircraft. Since day-one, we have been able to make the electrical system dead-cold from the pilot's seat by flipping a switch . . . to date I'm aware of NO IR alternator that can be turned off by any means other than stopping the engine. Further, if you have more than one alternator installed would it not be especially convenient if the pilot can turn each one on and off at will during pre-flight to check functionality of the alternators in independent operation and in concert? Finally, there has been much ballyhoo with respect to the "built in" protections afforded us by modern IR alternators. Being right next door to the "Show-Me" state, I'm reluctant to embrace these claims without benefit of what is commonly called critical design review. I.e., "tell me how it works." My most recent detractor cited this device an prima facie evidence of these features . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Semiconductors/MC33092A.pdf So far this is the ONLY regulator schematic I've been able to dissect in detail and I would offer the following points of inspection for the casual observers: The last "bang for the buck bullet" on the first page says: "Undervoltage, Overvoltage and Phase Fault (Broken Belt) Detection" May I emphasize the word DETECTION? A study of the schematic on Page 3 confirms not only that OV detection shares the same sense pathways and control as the regulator portion, an OV event only serves to light the warning light . . . it makes no attempt to shut the alternator down. Further, if transistor Q2 in the schematic shorts, there's nothing the regulator could do about it other than light the light. My detractors may say, "Well, that's an old chip. the new ones are better." Nobody would be happier than I to see the schematic and to know which devices might be compliant with my design goals. But to date, I've not seen it. So what's a mother to do? My design goal includes being able to walk into any parts store, purchase any alternator I can make fit the engine and have it operate per the control features described above which happen to include separate, stand-alone OV protection and automatic shut-down of the offending device. If I achieve those goals, I can offer the OBAM builder a means by which any alternator can be tried with the risks being no worse and hopefully better than those suffered by our spam-can flying brethren. I would have hoped those who so stridently support the IR alternator's future in aviation would have championed my cause and been pleased that I was "joining their side". But alas, just as we have observed in other arenas of the human condition, detractors of ideas are not really about the ideas, they're about counting coup. If I submitted totally to their demands, they'd find some new mission to launch. So, while my detractors make much smoke and brush aside other pilot's experience with smoke, I'm spending a lot of time and cash to acquire testing facilities that will allow me to duplicate the conditions under which my vision of the future needs to operate. Yes, it's slow. This is my night-time, fun-job. I still need to pay bills. But it's moving along much faster than I had hoped. My detractors have pounded me soundly about the head and shoulders when I related first-hand knowledge and experience about B&C's products yet one of them now champions products by Plane Power. I knew the internal workings of B&C's products because I was involve in their design, fabrication and field service. Now we might ask from what perspective does he tout Plane Power? Has he done critical design review? Has he even seen information about the product that goes beyond the sales literature? In fact, one of my detractors made some rather ungentlemanly remarks about a List member who shared his alternator failure experience with us. This was noted by the last two individuals who contacted me directly about their own experiences. Seems they did not want to risk the same abuse and saw fit to keep their experiences private. Know that my goal is for the OBAM airplane builder to be able to install ANY brand, ANY part number alternator with ANY pedigree or service record with the confidence that their choice can result in nothing more serious than a service event. I.e. FAILURE TOLERANT. Now, for those of you who are bewildered by the differences of opinion in what appears to be a "battle of two learned titans" understand this. My detractors have yet to come forward with any simple-ideas that describe either (1) how what I've described can be improved upon, (2) how what I've described cannot function to the design goals or most important (3) why the design goals as stated are not worthy of the $time$ it takes to bring them to practical fruition. If I am successful, my customers will enjoy access to a product with performance claims supported by repeatable experiment and a life-time warranty. Their customers are told to "suck it up Jack . . . and learn to be quicker on that b-lead breaker". Therefore I submit to you that one of us "learned titans" is not only dead wrong but has a mean streak to exercise when his facade begins to crack. I leave to you to decide who is teacher and who are no more than net-hooligans. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 38 ____________________________________ Time: 08:59:57 PM PST US From: "Michel Creek" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 01/26/07 Well put Lee. Thank you for a well written and thought out post. I'm working hard to get my plane flying by this summer and have purchased a IR ND, but I'm really wondering if that is the right choice. I haven't wired the alt system yet so it would be easy to change, but like you I am really wondering what the best solution is at his point so I can charge ahead with the confidence that I'm building a safe bird. Mike C. _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lee Logan Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 7:19 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 21 Msgs - 01/26/07 Bob: You said, "I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding and substance in your last postings" in your response to George's comments on internally regulated alternators. But isn't he just saying pretty much what the Plane Power people, brochures, and product specs say? Tough for us "pilots" out here to know the "electrical truth" when the experts are this far apart on the "facts". Allow me to summarize what I believe I have heard over the last several months on this forum and where I think this leaves those of us who just want to build a safe, operationally flexible airplane and FLY it: One side says that modern internally regulated alternators are reliable and fundamentally sound, and indeed, cutting edge designs. They are said to rarely fail and when they do to do so generally in an orderly fashion. The Plane Power design for one, is said even to eliminate the last vestiges of the concerns in the anti-internally regulated argument. The "other side" says this is not true and that internally regulated alternators are fundamentally and fatally flawed with respect to their penchant for a potentially damaging and dangerous runaway voltage/amperage excursion. They are not foolproof by any means and in fact, fail often enough to give legitimate pause to anyone considering their use. A potential "fix" is said to be in the works for some as yet, unannounced future date, however. These two positions are about as far apart as it is possible to be, it seems to me and has left me and perhaps others wondering which system to "bet" on in our own aircraft. I for one, have listened to the debate in this forum for months and am no better informed at this point than I was when I started. Technically, I suppose, that is not accurate. I know a GREAT deal more than I did before (thanks very much to all who have contributed), but with respect to the fundamental issue of which systems works best or is most suitable for a high end OBAM all electric aircraft, I STILL don't know which has been better justified through this debate. And, like many others I suspect, I don't really have a horse in this race---I just want to make the right choice for my aircraft. If it is true that there is neither "understanding" nor "substance" to the arguments made in favor of the internally regulated Plane Power alternator (and perhaps others like them which claim orderly and infrequent failure modes), then it seems to me they should be taken off the market and prevented from endangering the aircraft they might be installed in. I'm having trouble believeing that is the case with these modern and apparently cutting edge designs, but I'm also having trouble reading your most recent comments any other way. I have no connection to any entity in this debate and none with Plane Power or any other manufacturer. I'm just trying to figure out which alternator to put on my airplane. Are internally regulated alternators now considered by forum experts to be so fundamentally flawed and inapproprite in OBAM aircraft as to be beyond discussion? Scratching my head in South Carolina, Lee... ________________________________ Message 39 ____________________________________ Time: 09:13:59 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George At 10:56 PM 1/27/2007 +0000, you wrote: >Yea, and while we're at it, Bob hasn't exactly shied away from the arguing >either. Maybe we can all get back to electronics eh? What's happening here is just as important as "the electronics." Another List member suggested that maybe we shouldn't be so hard on George . . . after all, the Internet is a public arena. I will suggest that while what we do here is transported via the amazing thing that the 'net has become, it is by no means a public arena. It's the namesake of an endeavor I began 20 years ago at OSH with the first publication of the AeroElectric Connection. It's the mission of the 'Connection (and this List) to advance the state of our art and science through the discovery and assembly of simple-ideas into new inventions. Activities that fall outside that mission may be tolerated even if unwelcome on Usenet groups. I've tried to function in that arena but gave it up after a very short effort. One cannot conduct serious business in the public arena. If we're to continue what I believe is a phenomenal success for crafting a useful and productive venture here on the List, there will have to be boundaries for behavior both technically and personally. Individuals who choose not to honor those boundaries are free to start their own List or join the folks on Usenet but there is no value in tolerating either personal attacks or dissemination of bad science. It's my mission to see that the AeroElectric Connection delivers on its promises whether by way of the book, the website or the list-server. We have a good thing going here folks, I hope you join me in guarding it vigorously. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 40 ____________________________________ Time: 09:16:22 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics Master - Yes or No? At 05:51 PM 1/27/2007 -0500, you wrote: > >Bob Nuckolls posted a summary of some of the DO-160 requirements in a >message titled "DO-160 in a nutshell", back in May 2001. yes. that piece is still on the website at: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/do160.html Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 41 ____________________________________ Time: 09:32:34 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George At 07:45 AM 1/27/2007 -0800, you wrote: > >Since I'm the one who introduced the word "kludgier", I'll explain. The >solid state crowbar is a very elegant design. Voltage goes up, trips, >field to ground (or open on the other side of the regulator....whatever), >circuit breaker eventually trips to save the wiring. Very simple, very >straightforward. No problem. "Kludge" pre-dates this conversation by decades. It's an elegant word in some contexts. I use it on occasion . . . >The crowbar on a relay coil IS a kludge. There's no reason to crowbar in >this case since regardless of how fast you denergize the coil, you're >certainly limited by the speed of the spreading contacts. In the first >case, the crowbar solves the problem...the CB then pops to save the >wires. In this case, the crowbar detects the problem and removes power, >then the relay opens and actually fixes it. There are a dozens of >different ways to accomplish the same thing. Recall that to shut off a runaway IR alternator you MUST physically disconnect it from the rest of the airplane's system. I've looked at various solid state approaches too . . . >On the other hand, how else do you do it that makes it any better? Oh >well. If you feel you need this sort of control over your alternator and >are dead set on I-VR, then that's really the only practical solution so >you go with it. The crowbar itself (or whatever device you use to remove >coil power) is not the kludge here...it's the fact you have to go through >a relay. > >Maybe a better way would be to dump an I-VR's output into a dynamic load >instead of disconnecting it completely. Weight, complexity, cost.... >BLECH. Regardless, it's CERTAINLY less of a kludge than the "adjust your >engine's RPM" method that I've heard mentioned many times when talking >about controlling an I-VR runaway. Apparently, some people fly over farms >all day long. Come out to the Mojave dessert some day and I'll take you >on a flight in 110 degree weather when the DA on the ground is 5000FT+ to >begin with. Then we'll try to hop on over the mountains. You'll find >that power reduction is not an option. >Electrical problems should NOT be life threatening by requiring power >reduction. > >The real question is if anyone wanted to have this kind of OV control, why >on Earth would you make it harder on yourself with an I-VR >alternator? You can have your cake and it eat but sometimes the cake >tastes like broccoli, if you know what I mean. See my post earlier this evening on design goals for incorporating the IR alternator into aircraft . . . >Bob: don't get upset for me calling it a kludge. It really is but until >someone comes up with a better way of doing it, it's the best solution to >the given problem. Bottom line, though, is that is works so you use it >until something better comes along. There's no law that says things need >to be perfect and that you can't use something today because new >technology might make a better one tommorow. In evaluating about a half dozen ways to break the link between ship's wiring and a malcontent alternator, I considered a variety of techniques in trade offs for cost of implementation, parts count, robustness of parts, size, weight, efficiency (energy lost in the switching mechanism) and cost of ownership. Yeah, I agree, that ol' fart S701-1 contactor is not very glitzy. But it won the trade-study in nearly all categories including the fact that it was but one more of perhaps several identical parts already on the airplane. Rather than drive up the number of different parts, it seems wiser to utilize more of the same parts as long as other goals in the design study were met. I'm as eager as anyone to take advantage of the latest and greatest processes an materials to advance the state of our art . . . but at the same time, I don't summarily discount what's worked for decades simply because it has been around for decades. Leaving the relay in Z-24a was no idle decision on my part. There's a sign that used to hang over my desk in the shop that read, "Sometimes, the best way to drive a nail is with a hammer." There's a companion product to the AED9004-1 controller illustrated in . . . http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Adapting_IR_Alternators_to_Aircraft.pdf It will be used to manage the e-bus alternate feed path but will offer some whippy new features that I'm not prepared to discuss yet. And shucky darn . . . the design calls for an S704-1 relay . . . yeah I know, I COULD do it all with transistors but not nearly so efficiently and with a lower parts count. There's some neat things coming over the hill. Can't wait for warmer weather and the time to hammer on the drive stand. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 42 ____________________________________ Time: 09:40:02 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Alternator selection At 08:59 PM 1/27/2007 -0800, you wrote: >Well put Lee. Thank you for a well written and thought out post. > > >I m working hard to get my plane flying by this summer and have purchased >a IR ND, but I m really wondering if that is the right choice. I haven t >wired the alt system yet so it would be easy to change, but like you I am >really wondering what the best solution is at his point so I can charge >ahead with the confidence that I m building a safe bird. > > >Mike C. The IR alternator is not inherently unsafe. But depending on various design features of the thousands of mostly same but different parts available, the risk of ov conditions is not zero. I'm aware of no SE aircraft that become "unsafe" because of the inability of an IR or ER alternator to perform as desired. There have been some tense moments and some very expensive events but nobody I've heard of had any close brushes with injury or death. It's a matter of shared design goals. I believe I've adequately described mine which are based largely on what we've practiced in GA for the past 70 years or so. If you share those goals, know that they cannot be met with any IR alternators we're aware of (except perhaps for Plane Power which may offer direct control of the field windings along with compatible ov protection). But know too that the problem of integrating the stock, plain-vanilla IR alternator into the stated design goals is all but a sure bet needing only $time$ to realize . . . but will probably happen this year. You don't need to make the decision until perhaps one week before first flight . . . Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 43 ____________________________________ Time: 09:49:41 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: z-13/8 At 10:30 PM 1/27/2007 -0600, you wrote: > > >Hello, > >I am helping a friend design an electrical system for his RV-7A. We are >working with Z-13/8 and have come up with a few questions. > >1)If the main alt and the SD-8 are both on line(should they ever be?), how >does the system balance the power from the 2 alternators? Do you need to >worry about power feeding back into the SD-8 from the main alternator? SD-8 backs up the main alternator. They are not intended to operate in concert with each other. See the rationale for Z-13/8 architecture on page 17-10 of the 'Connection. >2)Can you test to see that the SD-8 is working with out turning off the main >alternator? If so, how? No, that's the way you do it. One alternator on at a time to see that it picks up it's expected duties independently of the other. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 44 ____________________________________ Time: 09:58:10 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Solder tab connectors At 10:28 AM 1/27/2007 -0500, you wrote: > > >Rodney Dunham wrote: >> >> >>Greg, >> >>Try this link... >> >>www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Jack_Tab_Soldering/Jack_Tab_Soldering.html >> >>Rod > >For the totally anal out there, the joint shown in that link would have >failed the soldering class I took at Community College oh-so-many years ago. > >The prescribed practice we were taught was to tin the wire, and then bend >the end to make a hook. Hook the hole, then clamp the wire so that it >squeezes the tab. Now flow in just enough solder so that there is a good >fillet flowing into the tab, but the individual wire strands are still >visible. The wire strands should retain the original twist. The idea is that: >1) joint can be inspected to verify that there is good wet out of the wire >and the connector >2) the joint has the mechanical strength of the hook >3) the joint is easily disassembled later by reflowing the solder. >In practice, if I'm forced to solder instead of using a crimped Fast-On >connector, I make a hook without tinning the wire first, and flow in >enough solder to get a good fillet. I may or may not put in to much >solder, depending on if I have a good Kester or .050 Radio Shack stuff on hand. Yeah, I've taken those classes . . . and taught them. That was decades before solder was magically transformed from some status just above library paste to an amazing new material with real structural properties that would hold wires together and/or keep all the parts on an etched circuit board using solder alone. The real key to good solder is clean, flux, 63/37 alloy and support of stranded wires across the transition from immobilized and free-strands. All of these conditions are easy to meet and they essentially pushes aside a great deal of what we used to teach. The most important idea to fall was that "hooking" added mechanical strength while in fact, it's most useful duty was to hold the two halves of the joint immobile should you not have really good solder with which to make the joint. Use good solder, get good flow, protect the stranding transition and whatever else happens is insignificant to the extreme. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 45 ____________________________________ Time: 10:01:00 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George At 09:51 AM 1/27/2007 -0500, you wrote: >Since automobiles seem to feel that a malfunction light will tell you all >that you need to know, I thought that my 3 month old Mercury Cougar was >discharging when thae light came on. I drove the rest of the 20 miles home >in that condition. When I lifted the hood, my battery was the shape of a >balloon instead of rectangular and the smell of battery acid was strong. I >quickly closed the hood and waited 4 or 5 hours untill things cooled down >before addressing the problem. So much for the theory that IR alternators >aren't subject to the runaway charging problem. Sorry, but my limited >experience won't let me trust them. That's all I will say about that and I >don't want to hear anything in argument. Thank you for sharing this. Please know that it's a very high priority with me to bring this feisty little marvel into the bag of tricks for building the best airplanes to have ever flown. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 46 ____________________________________ Time: 10:20:36 PM PST US From: "Walter Fellows" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George Except that it wastes so much of Bob's time to continually write corrections so that readers, especially the newcomers, are not mislead. This forum is Bob's baby, he should determine what is necessary to maintain the standards without seeing his time sucked away to deal with this. On 1/27/07, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > nuckollsr@cox.net> > > At 09:51 AM 1/27/2007 -0500, you wrote: > >Since automobiles seem to feel that a malfunction light will tell you all > >that you need to know, I thought that my 3 month old Mercury Cougar was > >discharging when thae light came on. I drove the rest of the 20 miles > home > >in that condition. When I lifted the hood, my battery was the shape of a > >balloon instead of rectangular and the smell of battery acid was strong. > I > >quickly closed the hood and waited 4 or 5 hours untill things cooled down > >before addressing the problem. So much for the theory that IR alternators > >aren't subject to the runaway charging problem. Sorry, but my limited > >experience won't let me trust them. That's all I will say about that and > I > >don't want to hear anything in argument. > > Thank you for sharing this. Please know that it's > a very high priority with me to bring this feisty little > marvel into the bag of tricks for building the best > airplanes to have ever flown. > > Bob . . . > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message aeroelectric-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.