AeroElectric-List Digest Archive

Sun 01/28/07


Total Messages Posted: 29



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 03:03 AM - Re: Re: Jack plug question (shielded wires) (Miskelly, Francis G)
     2. 03:32 AM - Re: Aero Electric-List: Re: The problem with George (raymondj)
     3. 04:58 AM - Re: Re: Jack plug question (shielded wires) (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     4. 05:30 AM - Re: The simple ideas . . . (Bill Boyd)
     5. 06:26 AM - Re: The simple ideas . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     6. 06:34 AM - Electrical System Dynamics (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     7. 06:54 AM - Alternator mistake (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
     8. 08:27 AM - Re: Alternator mistake (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     9. 08:27 AM - OK . . Slow down and andswer a simple question (jdalton77@comcast.net)
    10. 08:56 AM - Re: OK . . Slow down and andswer a simple question (Kevin Horton)
    11. 10:02 AM - Re: a simple question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    12. 10:23 AM - Re: Re: Alternator selection (Michel Creek)
    13. 10:46 AM - Re: Alternator mistake (gordon or marge)
    14. 01:04 PM - Re: Re: Jack plug question (shielded wires) (Miskelly, Francis G)
    15. 01:27 PM - Re: Re: Jack plug question (shielded wires) (William Gill)
    16. 01:48 PM - Re: Re: Jack plug question (shielded wires) (Miskelly, Francis G)
    17. 03:14 PM - Re: Re: Jack plug question (shielded wires) (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    18. 04:15 PM - Sonoma CA seminar date is set . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    19. 04:34 PM - Re: Re: Jack plug question (shielded wires) (Mauri Morin)
    20. 04:52 PM - Re: Re: Jack plug question (shielded wires) (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    21. 04:55 PM - Re: Re: Jack plug question (shielded wires) (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    22. 05:05 PM - Re: Re: Jack plug question (shielded wires) (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    23. 05:11 PM - Re: Alternator mistake (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    24. 05:49 PM - push to talk switch (lcottrell)
    25. 06:51 PM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 46 Msgs - 01/27/07 (Lee Logan)
    26. 07:46 PM - Re: Leading edge ideas and inventions (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    27. 08:04 PM - Re: The simple ideas . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    28. 08:40 PM - Re: Alternator mistake (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
    29. 11:19 PM - 8awg line to forrest of tabs (Dennis Jones)
 
 
 


Message 1


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 03:03:51 AM PST US
    Subject: RE: Jack plug question (shielded wires)
    From: "Miskelly, Francis G" <f.miskelly@imperial.ac.uk>
    Hi Bob My harness linking the radio to microphone and headphone jacks do not have shielding. Neither does the positive supply or the PTT switch wires. From another thread on this forum 'shielded wires' i see others use shielded wires in this situation. Your link below recommends shielded wires. Other points are: There is substantial interference in the radio and I wonder are shielded wires more important in a composite aircraft? My questions are a) Is there a method of testing whether a wire should be shielded eg wrap in aluminium foil to see the effect on the interference? b) Do you think it is worth the hassle to return the full harness and ask them to replace the wires to the jacks, the PTT and the positive supply with shielded wires? Many thanks Frank ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Miskelly, Francis G Sent: Wed 24/01/2007 17:16 Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Jack plug question Many thanks Bob. The schematic in your link shows the harness linking the radio to the microphone jack is shielded. Not sure if mine is but will check. I'm afraid i don't have a wiring diagram - they wouldn't give me one. Contacted the technician who did the wiring harness several times and he was vague about the need for a ground. Maybe he thought i had a metal panel or maybe he didn't understand the wiring and was just doing as he was told? Think i'll install an earth on the microphone jack anyway. I presume it won't do any harm and may solve the problem. Also check the shielding Thanks again Frank ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Wed 24/01/2007 05:40 Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Jack plug question <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 03:10 PM 1/22/2007 +0000, you wrote: >Thanks Bob. > >The KX155 is 6 months old. This problem has been there from the beginning. >It came with harness pre-wired and i installed it. Sometimes i use a >handheld (ICOM A20) wired into the a/c power supply and aerial and there's >some ignition noise but not a serious problem. Its just the panel mounted >KX155. The microphone jack interferes with the volume (even with the >squelch turned off) and introduces interference >Two possibles i thought of were >1. The microphone socket may need an earth? The panel is fibreglass and >the socket has 2 wires running into it but is not earthed to the airframe >2. Could the wires in the microphone socket be transposed? > >As the ICOM works OK that seems to exclude power supply or aerial issues? > >Very grateful for your advice. > >Frank If the push to talk circuit is active in your microphone wiring, then the mic jack would need two wires plus a ground. See: http://aeroelectric.com/articles/micjack/micjack.html If your mic jack is intended to handle ONLY microphone audio and PTT is handled with other wiring, then only two wires would be required. Do you have a schematic of the pre-wired harness? Have you checked your harness against the diagram? Bob . . .


    Message 2


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 03:32:56 AM PST US
    From: "raymondj" <raymondj@frontiernet.net>
    Subject: Re: RE: Aero Electric-List: Re: The problem with George
    I view the situation as analogous to sitting in ones living room and talking to some one and a third party starts screaming in the street. Closing the window facilitates hearing the one you want to talk to. It doesn't stop the screamer in the street. Raymond Julian Kettle River, MN. do not archive -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of jdalton77@comcast.net Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 4:55 PM To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com; aeroelectric-list@matronics.com 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 <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 3


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 04:58:43 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: RE: Jack plug question (shielded wires)
    At 11:01 AM 1/28/2007 +0000, you wrote: >Hi Bob >My harness linking the radio to microphone and headphone jacks do not have >shielding. Neither does the positive supply or the PTT switch wires. From >another thread on this forum 'shielded wires' i see others use shielded >wires in this situation. Your link below recommends shielded wires. Other >points are: There is substantial interference in the radio and I wonder >are shielded wires more important in a composite aircraft? > >My questions are >a) Is there a method of testing whether a wire should be shielded eg wrap >in aluminium foil to see the effect on the interference? >b) Do you think it is worth the hassle to return the full harness and ask >them to replace the wires to the jacks, the PTT and the positive supply >with shielded wires? I gotta tell you that shielding used on most wires in small aircraft has only a modicum if not zero benefits. The lengths of wires used to run between various black boxes and other components of a system are so short and the list of potential antagonists of the kind that are held at bay by shields is also tiny if not zero. The headphone and mic wiring of our radios will run just fine with twisted pairs or trios of wires. Having said that, I use a lot of shielded wire here in the shop and in some installations not because the shielding is necessary but because the wire is mechanically and logistically handy. I have off-the-spool, multi-conductor cables that are easy to use and have a sort of universal applicability. But here's the rub on a schematic or wiring diagram . . . there's nothing in the diagram that tells us how long any run of wire is nor what bundles that wire shares with other systems. One system installed in a C-150 would be at zero risk for electro-statically conducted noise in the C-150 where the interconnected devices are inches apart but an entirely different matter when the same electro-whizzy is installed in bizjet with the two boxes perhaps several feet apart and the wires run in bundles with other, potentially antagonistic systems that don't even exist in the C-150. So the rule of thumb is, if there's any risk at any time for any possible installation for conduction of electro- static noise into a potential victim wire - shield it. The cost-delta for using shielded versus unshielded wire in a production environment is trivial . . . it's disappointing that the folks who made your harness "skimped" on this but their perceptions of low-risk are not incorrect. I'd leave the harness alone unless you DO experience a noise problem. Because you're more likely to have a problem due to poor attention to ground systems than because any one set of wires was not shielded. Give me the name of the company that did your harness and their phone number. If you have the name of the technician you talked to, I need his/her name too. I'll give them a call and see about shaking loose some data. There's no excuse for not supplying everything you need to know about a product they supplied to you. Bob . . .


    Message 4


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 05:30:09 AM PST US
    From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: The simple ideas . . .
    Bob: great reply that deserves its own place in the 'Connection Appendices for future reference by all new purchasers of the book. You leave me wondering two things pertaining to the system I've cobbled together and will use until your control unit becomes available: 1. how quickly will a 17AH Odyssey swell and fail under the full output of a runaway IR 55 amp machine; am I okay if I can disconnect within 10 seconds or less? Within 5? 2. will the venreable battery contactor reliably part its contacts under those same runaway conditions when its solenoid is de-energized? (I think it will, but I'm depending on it to do so). Thanks, -Bill B On 1/27/07, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckollsr@cox.net> wrote: > > 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". > > <snip> > > > > >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 5


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 06:26:43 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: The simple ideas . . .
    At 08:29 AM 1/28/2007 -0500, you wrote: > >Bob: great reply that deserves its own place in the 'Connection >Appendices for future reference by all new purchasers of the book. Thank you sir but as noted here . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/What's_the_AeroElectric-List_About.pdf . . . if I were to attempt to put everything we know into "the book" it would be too big and too expensive to attract any customers. No single feature of the AeroElectric Connection effort can be all inclusive. Each experience has the potential for solving an immediate problem . . . or opening doors for further exploration. The success of the venture has less to do with how much is written in what place . . . but upon the amazing random access capabilities of the minds of folks who enjoy total immersion in such things and are ready to offer guidance to any who seek it. I may have recently accepted the duty of maintaining an atmosphere of friendly cooperation in the development and sharing of new ideas . . . but I can only be the conductor. You folks are playing the music. By the way, here's another piece I wrote on the topic of alternator failures . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Alternator_Failures.pdf >You leave me wondering two things pertaining to the system I've >cobbled together and will use until your control unit becomes >available: > >1. how quickly will a 17AH Odyssey swell and fail under the full >output of a runaway IR 55 amp machine; am I okay if I can disconnect >within 10 seconds or less? Within 5? Some years ago I did a little work on the bench to quantify rate of rise across the terminals of a battery when driven by various constant current sources. This is what an alternator does when in a runaway condition. It puts out a relatively constant current with for all practical purposes, an unlimited voltage potential. I launched into a task to explore and write about some issues in electrical system dynamics and I believe I published some work in progress that included some plots of rate-of-rise during potentially hazardous OV events. I can't put my hands on the work right now but I do intend to expand that work and publish it. Some years ago Paul M. went off to "do some studies of alternator performance" on a drive stand. I was elated. "Let's talk man. There's some things we need to know about how these critters behave under various conditions." In spite of much claims as to the work accomplished, no data was forthcoming. That's when I knew that a drive stand was in my own future. In a nutshell, an ov condition does not result in lightning fast voltage excursions. The battery will do its best to soak up the excess energy and does a really good job of keeping the bus voltage from launching for the moon. For example: suppose you had a 60A alternator and was running a 20A system load when the failure occurs. This leaves 40A + of overcharge capability that the battery will attempt to soak up. Depending on size of battery and its condition, the voltage may rise to 16 or so volts over the next second and then climb relatively slowly from there as it succumbs to the overcharge. In my earlier post I cited the alternator's ability to jack up voltage when "unrestrained" . . . a good battery is your system's most capable restrainer. Another point to ponder in your planned battery maintenance routine. It's the guard at the gate that will make everyone else's lives easier when dealing with the recalcitrant alternator. This is the phenomenon George was relying on when he suggested pulling the b-lead breaker after the warning light comes on. Not a totally unreasonable idea IF . . . (1) the breaker will do the job consistently and (2) you want to regress to the older architectures where the b-lead breaker is even on the panel. There's a third aspect to this modus operandi that goes relatively un-discussed. Effective isolation of the runaway alternator may protect the airplane's system but the runaway continues unabated and invariably destroys the alternator field windings. The propose alternator controller will not only detect and disconnect, it will SHUT down the alternator and save it from destroying itself. The loss of regulation will result in nothing more than a maintenance event to replace a regulator. >2. will the venreable battery contactor reliably part its contacts >under those same runaway conditions when its solenoid is de-energized? >(I think it will, but I'm depending on it to do so). ABSOLUTELY. One of the data values I needed from Paul was the energy signature of an alternator's output under various normal and abnormal operating conditions. It is my idea and intent to bring the OV event to a quiet and stress-free stable condition without concern for damage to other components. The proposed battery contactor will hardly know that it's being called upon to stand off an OV event . . . it will be no more stressful than simply shutting the alternator off during normal operations. Bob . . .


    Message 6


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 06:34:54 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Electrical System Dynamics
    I found the article I referenced in my earlier post. It's current form is published at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Crowbar_OV_Protection/DC_Power_System_Dynamics_C.pdf I was doing this in the format of a white paper because I intend to share it with my compatriots at RAC. I might even do a lunchtime learning presentation on the topic. This paper begins to discuss measured TIMES and DURATIONS of events in response to certain conditions. We can readily speak of ov trip points and load-dump voltages but the data is seriously deficient unless you include ALL of the dynamics which includes not only wave shape but TIME. This article will be expanded to include a lot of things we'd like to know and understand about alternators and their relationship to batteries and other components within the system. These are things I MUST know to properly craft the proposed controller for IR alternators . . . as the data become available, it will added to this article. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ----------------------------------------


    Message 7


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 06:54:54 AM PST US
    Subject: Alternator mistake
    From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
    Thought it might be useful to document my rather silly (bonehead stupid) error I made in installng my alt. First off I bought an "Autozone special" for an electrically dependant IFR airplane....It appeared to be functioning OK for a while but clearly IFR is serious business but I really had not put the level of care required when selecting the alt. So I decided to replace with a plane power unit ( I plmbed it into my existing B lead contctor with OV trip) About that time the GNS 430 started acting up with a bunch of unconnected errors. This usually means one thing..Bad grounding. But what could it be? I had a bullet proof "forrest of tabs" ground block and dual path grounds. Turns out as I was removing the old alt from the engine I saw it...I had painted the bracket to prevent corrosion and I believe the alt could not get a good ground connection to the engine block. The new plane power unit has CAD plated hardware and I also added a smear of "malaax" (conductive grease used on household electrical cables from Home Depot etc) to prevent corrosion and ensure a good connection. The alt must have a good connection to the engine block in order to provide a stabilised voltage. Personally I'm amazed I missed the error during install, I could have simply added a grounding strap between the alt and the engine block too. Of couse it may have been the old alt was breaking down but I am pleased to report my instruments are now behaving perfectly...:) Frank 7a, halfway thru IFR training...I hope!


    Message 8


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:27:08 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Alternator mistake
    At 08:54 AM 1/28/2007 -0600, you wrote: ><frank.hinde@hp.com> > > Thought it might be useful to document my rather silly (bonehead >stupid) error I made in installng my alt. > >First off I bought an "Autozone special" for an electrically dependant >IFR airplane....It appeared to be functioning OK for a while but clearly >IFR is serious business but I really had not put the level of care >required when selecting the alt. > >So I decided to replace with a plane power unit ( I plmbed it into my >existing B lead contctor with OV trip) > >About that time the GNS 430 started acting up with a bunch of >unconnected errors. This usually means one thing..Bad grounding. But >what could it be? I had a bullet proof "forrest of tabs" ground block >and dual path grounds. > >Turns out as I was removing the old alt from the engine I saw it...I had >painted the bracket to prevent corrosion and I believe the alt could not >get a good ground connection to the engine block. > >The new plane power unit has CAD plated hardware and I also added a >smear of "malaax" (conductive grease used on household electrical cables >from Home Depot etc) to prevent corrosion and ensure a good connection. > >The alt must have a good connection to the engine block in order to >provide a stabilised voltage. > >Personally I'm amazed I missed the error during install, I could have >simply added a grounding strap between the alt and the engine block too. >Of couse it may have been the old alt was breaking down but I am pleased >to report my instruments are now behaving perfectly...:) Good data sir! Thank you. Some of you may recall some conversations about voltage regulator stability as it relates to shared pathways for both sensing the voltage to be controlled and OTHER duties like supplying field current . . . and in this case conducting output current to the crankcase and ultimately electrical system ground. Even small resistances carrying significant currents produce voltage drops in accordance with Mr. Ohm's famous E=IR. When E is large with respect to the regulator's ability to sense and react to changes in bus voltage, the extraneous voltage signals become a form of "noise" in voltage regulator's control loop. Frank's experiences, investigation and subsequent conclusions go right to this point of system performance. I'll make a note to include some words about alternator case bonding which was only mildly important for ER alternators but exceedingly important for achieving advertised performance from IR alternators. Incidentally Frank, which model of PP alternator did you install? Would you be willing to copy/scan the installation data that comes with it and send it to me? I note that some models on their website speaks of ov votlage protection and they've even used the (ugh!) word "crowabar" in the context of speaking about ov protection. The photo at http://www.plane-power.com/images/AL12_EI70%20Wiring.pdf shows what appears to be an add-on to the back of their product for the purpose of providing OV protection. I'm curious as to whether or not you can turn the alternator OFF by way of the "field switch" after it has once been turned ON. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ----------------------------------------


    Message 9


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:27:20 AM PST US
    From: jdalton77@comcast.net
    Subject: OK . . Slow down and andswer a simple question
    Listers, With all of these these complex questions being discussed I often feel intimidated to ask simple ones. You see, I'm a neophyte. If it's woodworking, I could write the book. If it's software, I'd go toe-to-toe with Bob's eletrical wizardry any time any place. But I'm new to this. So please bear with me as I continue to ask simple questions and don't flame me, tell me I should "look in the archives," read the book, or anything else that would sour my experience. By the way, I've made similar comments on the RV-10 board, and on Vans Airforce, and you would be surprise how many emails I got from people like me thanking me for it. 'nuff said on that. Now my newbie question (and yes, I have the book and have read it). The way I read about contactors, they need power to the "small" terminal to move the switch and allow the two large terminals to join which in turn allows the "real power" to pass through them. But I was confused by the batter contactor (and the ground power contactor), which seems to only need a switch with a connection to the gound at the firewall to be activated. I'm not sure I get how that works. This is not the case for the starter contactor, which needs power to activate. I know I could wire it up and make it work, I just want to know "why" so I am confident in my own work. Jeff <html><body> <DIV>Listers,</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>With all of these these complex questions being discussed I often feel intimidated to ask simple ones.&nbsp; You see, I'm a neophyte.&nbsp; If it's woodworking, I could write the book.&nbsp; If it's software, I'd go toe-to-toe with Bob's eletrical wizardry any time any place.&nbsp; But I'm new to this.&nbsp; So please bear with me as I continue to ask simple questions and don't flame me, tell me I should "look in the archives," read the book, or anything else that would sour my experience.&nbsp; By the way, I've made similar comments on the RV-10 board, and on Vans Airforce, and you would be surprise how many emails I got from people like me thanking me for it.&nbsp; 'nuff said on that.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Now my newbie question (and yes, I have the book and have read it).&nbsp; The way I read about contactors, they need power to the "small" terminal to move the switch and allow the two large terminals to join which in turn allows the "real power" to pass through them.&nbsp; But I was confused by the batter contactor (and the ground power contactor), which seems to only need a switch with a connection to&nbsp;the gound at the firewall&nbsp;to be activated.&nbsp; I'm not sure I get how that works.&nbsp; This is not the case for the starter contactor, which needs power to activate.&nbsp; I know I could wire it up and make it work, I just want to know "why" so I am confident in my own work.</DIV> <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV> <DIV>Jeff</DIV> <pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier"> </b></font></pre></body></html>


    Message 10


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:56:38 AM PST US
    From: Kevin Horton <khorton01@rogers.com>
    Subject: Re: OK . . Slow down and andswer a simple question
    On 28 Jan 2007, at 11:26, jdalton77@comcast.net wrote: > Listers, > > With all of these these complex questions being discussed I often > feel intimidated to ask simple ones. You see, I'm a neophyte. If > it's woodworking, I could write the book. If it's software, I'd go > toe-to-toe with Bob's eletrical wizardry any time any place. But > I'm new to this. So please bear with me as I continue to ask > simple questions and don't flame me, tell me I should "look in the > archives," read the book, or anything else that would sour my > experience. By the way, I've made similar comments on the RV-10 > board, and on Vans Airforce, and you would be surprise how many > emails I got from people like me thanking me for it. 'nuff said on > that. > > Now my newbie question (and yes, I have the book and have read > it). The way I read about contactors, they need power to the > "small" terminal to move the switch and allow the two large > terminals to join which in turn allows the "real power" to pass > through them. But I was confused by the batter contactor (and the > ground power contactor), which seems to only need a switch with a > connection to the gound at the firewall to be activated. I'm not > sure I get how that works. This is not the case for the starter > contactor, which needs power to activate. I know I could wire it > up and make it work, I just want to know "why" so I am confident in > my own work. > With the battery contactor, there is an internal connection that allows it to use the power from the battery to energize the coil on the solenoid that pulls the contactor closed. No power flows through the coil in the solenoid until you provide a ground by closing the battery master switch. As soon as you have provided a ground, now the current can flow from the battery, through the coil, which creates a magnetic field that pulls the solenoid closed. This makes the connection that allows battery power to now flow to the rest of the aircraft. Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit) Ottawa, Canada http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8


    Message 11


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 10:02:37 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: a simple question
    At 11:55 AM 1/28/2007 -0500, you wrote: > >On 28 Jan 2007, at 11:26, jdalton77@comcast.net wrote: > >>Listers, >> >>With all of these these complex questions being discussed I often >>feel intimidated to ask simple ones. You see, I'm a neophyte. If >>it's woodworking, I could write the book. If it's software, I'd go >>toe-to-toe with Bob's eletrical wizardry any time any place. But >>I'm new to this. So please bear with me as I continue to ask >>simple questions and don't flame me, tell me I should "look in the >>archives," read the book, or anything else that would sour my >>experience. By the way, I've made similar comments on the RV-10 >>board, and on Vans Airforce, and you would be surprise how many >>emails I got from people like me thanking me for it. 'nuff said on >>that. >> >>Now my newbie question (and yes, I have the book and have read >>it). The way I read about contactors, they need power to the >>"small" terminal to move the switch and allow the two large >>terminals to join which in turn allows the "real power" to pass >>through them. But I was confused by the batter contactor (and the >>ground power contactor), which seems to only need a switch with a >>connection to the gound at the firewall to be activated. I'm not >>sure I get how that works. This is not the case for the starter >>contactor, which needs power to activate. I know I could wire it >>up and make it work, I just want to know "why" so I am confident in >>my own work. > > >With the battery contactor, there is an internal connection that >allows it to use the power from the battery to energize the coil on >the solenoid that pulls the contactor closed. No power flows through >the coil in the solenoid until you provide a ground by closing the >battery master switch. As soon as you have provided a ground, now >the current can flow from the battery, through the coil, which >creates a magnetic field that pulls the solenoid closed. This makes >the connection that allows battery power to now flow to the rest of >the aircraft. > >Kevin Horton Good put Kevin. I might elaborate on Kevin's explanation by linking you to this drawing: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Contactors_PU_and_PD.pdf I've traced the power paths for energizing both the battery contactor (in red) and the starter contactor (in green). I did not mark the pathways through the grounds common to both systems. Note that while the starter contactor's coil power runs through a lot more switches (and the battery contactor) we still satisfy the need to get 12 volts or so impressed across the contactor's coil terminals by means of switched power that PULLS UP from ground. The battery contactor has it's switch in the ground lead and is said to provide a PULL DOWN to ground to close the coil's power pathway. The PULL down architecture for battery contactors eliminates a need to fuse the circuit . . . there are no faults of wiring that have potential for burning a wire. On the other hand, the starter contactor supply circuit does need a fuse to protect wiring between the bus and contactor. So the key expansion of Mr. Dalton's question is to consider BOTH terminals of the contactor coil . . . and the need to impress 12v or so across the coil. I think he was getting confused by not tracing the full pathway for energizing the coil through both ends of the coil. Bob . . .


    Message 12


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 10:23:31 AM PST US
    From: "Michel Creek" <mwcreek@frontiernet.net>
    Subject: RE: Alternator selection
    Bob, Thanks for your authoritative update putting the issue in perspective. We await the ultimate solution for IR control, when it becomes available. Mike C. -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 9:39 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Alternator selection <nuckollsr@cox.net> 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 13


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 10:46:45 AM PST US
    From: "gordon or marge" <gcomfo@tc3net.com>
    Subject: Alternator mistake
    -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 11:26 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Alternator mistake - Incidentally Frank, which model of PP alternator did you install? Would you be willing to copy/scan the installation data that comes with it and send it to me? I note that some models on their website speaks of ov votlage protection and they've even used the (ugh!) word "crowabar" in the context of speaking about ov protection. The photo at http://www.plane-power.com/images/AL12_EI70%20Wiring.pdf shows what appears to be an add-on to the back of their product for the purpose of providing OV protection. I'm curious as to whether or not you can turn the alternator OFF by way of the "field switch" after it has once been turned ON. Bob . . . Bob: Plane Power have advised me verbally that the alternator can be shut down by way of the "field" switch but their installation drawing is quite primative and I cannot be sure from it whether or not what they say is true. It will be a while before I run the engine but my intent is to check that function when I do run it. The module on the rear is described as a crowbar OV control. I'm actually working on the -8 again. My word. Gordon Comfort N363GC


    Message 14


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 01:04:51 PM PST US
    Subject: RE: Jack plug question (shielded wires)
    From: "Miskelly, Francis G" <f.miskelly@imperial.ac.uk>
    Thanks for the offer (and explanation) Bob but i'm based in London, England and the harness was supplied by Harry Mendelssohn in Edinburgh, Scotland www.gps.co.uk I'm sure you're correct the problems is grounds rather than the harness. You don't need to be on this forum long to realise the importance of grounds. I tried to get a schematic but they said King didn't supply schematics for customers. For info (rather than action) their tel is 0044 131 447 7777 and technician is Danny. I'll focus on the grounds and leave harness for now. Thanks again Frank ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Sun 28/01/2007 12:57 Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Jack plug question (shielded wires) <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 11:01 AM 1/28/2007 +0000, you wrote: >Hi Bob >My harness linking the radio to microphone and headphone jacks do not have >shielding. Neither does the positive supply or the PTT switch wires. From >another thread on this forum 'shielded wires' i see others use shielded >wires in this situation. Your link below recommends shielded wires. Other >points are: There is substantial interference in the radio and I wonder >are shielded wires more important in a composite aircraft? > >My questions are >a) Is there a method of testing whether a wire should be shielded eg wrap >in aluminium foil to see the effect on the interference? >b) Do you think it is worth the hassle to return the full harness and ask >them to replace the wires to the jacks, the PTT and the positive supply >with shielded wires? I gotta tell you that shielding used on most wires in small aircraft has only a modicum if not zero benefits. The lengths of wires used to run between various black boxes and other components of a system are so short and the list of potential antagonists of the kind that are held at bay by shields is also tiny if not zero. The headphone and mic wiring of our radios will run just fine with twisted pairs or trios of wires. Having said that, I use a lot of shielded wire here in the shop and in some installations not because the shielding is necessary but because the wire is mechanically and logistically handy. I have off-the-spool, multi-conductor cables that are easy to use and have a sort of universal applicability. But here's the rub on a schematic or wiring diagram . . . there's nothing in the diagram that tells us how long any run of wire is nor what bundles that wire shares with other systems. One system installed in a C-150 would be at zero risk for electro-statically conducted noise in the C-150 where the interconnected devices are inches apart but an entirely different matter when the same electro-whizzy is installed in bizjet with the two boxes perhaps several feet apart and the wires run in bundles with other, potentially antagonistic systems that don't even exist in the C-150. So the rule of thumb is, if there's any risk at any time for any possible installation for conduction of electro- static noise into a potential victim wire - shield it. The cost-delta for using shielded versus unshielded wire in a production environment is trivial . . . it's disappointing that the folks who made your harness "skimped" on this but their perceptions of low-risk are not incorrect. I'd leave the harness alone unless you DO experience a noise problem. Because you're more likely to have a problem due to poor attention to ground systems than because any one set of wires was not shielded. Give me the name of the company that did your harness and their phone number. If you have the name of the technician you talked to, I need his/her name too. I'll give them a call and see about shaking loose some data. There's no excuse for not supplying everything you need to know about a product they supplied to you. Bob . . .


    Message 15


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 01:27:56 PM PST US
    From: "William Gill" <wgill10@comcast.net>
    Subject: RE: Jack plug question (shielded wires)
    What schematics do you need Frank? I may have something I can email to you. Bill -----Original Message----- From: Miskelly, Francis G [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Miskelly, Francis G Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 3:01 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Jack plug question (shielded wires) Thanks for the offer (and explanation) Bob but i'm based in London, England and the harness was supplied by Harry Mendelssohn in Edinburgh, Scotland www.gps.co.uk I'm sure you're correct the problems is grounds rather than the harness. You don't need to be on this forum long to realise the importance of grounds. I tried to get a schematic but they said King didn't supply schematics for customers. For info (rather than action) their tel is 0044 131 447 7777 and technician is Danny. I'll focus on the grounds and leave harness for now. Thanks again Frank ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Sun 28/01/2007 12:57 Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Jack plug question (shielded wires) <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 11:01 AM 1/28/2007 +0000, you wrote: >Hi Bob >My harness linking the radio to microphone and headphone jacks do not have >shielding. Neither does the positive supply or the PTT switch wires. From >another thread on this forum 'shielded wires' i see others use shielded >wires in this situation. Your link below recommends shielded wires. Other >points are: There is substantial interference in the radio and I wonder >are shielded wires more important in a composite aircraft? > >My questions are >a) Is there a method of testing whether a wire should be shielded eg wrap >in aluminium foil to see the effect on the interference? >b) Do you think it is worth the hassle to return the full harness and ask >them to replace the wires to the jacks, the PTT and the positive supply >with shielded wires? I gotta tell you that shielding used on most wires in small aircraft has only a modicum if not zero benefits. The lengths of wires used to run between various black boxes and other components of a system are so short and the list of potential antagonists of the kind that are held at bay by shields is also tiny if not zero. The headphone and mic wiring of our radios will run just fine with twisted pairs or trios of wires. Having said that, I use a lot of shielded wire here in the shop and in some installations not because the shielding is necessary but because the wire is mechanically and logistically handy. I have off-the-spool, multi-conductor cables that are easy to use and have a sort of universal applicability. But here's the rub on a schematic or wiring diagram . . . there's nothing in the diagram that tells us how long any run of wire is nor what bundles that wire shares with other systems. One system installed in a C-150 would be at zero risk for electro-statically conducted noise in the C-150 where the interconnected devices are inches apart but an entirely different matter when the same electro-whizzy is installed in bizjet with the two boxes perhaps several feet apart and the wires run in bundles with other, potentially antagonistic systems that don't even exist in the C-150. So the rule of thumb is, if there's any risk at any time for any possible installation for conduction of electro- static noise into a potential victim wire - shield it. The cost-delta for using shielded versus unshielded wire in a production environment is trivial . . . it's disappointing that the folks who made your harness "skimped" on this but their perceptions of low-risk are not incorrect. I'd leave the harness alone unless you DO experience a noise problem. Because you're more likely to have a problem due to poor attention to ground systems than because any one set of wires was not shielded. Give me the name of the company that did your harness and their phone number. If you have the name of the technician you talked to, I need his/her name too. I'll give them a call and see about shaking loose some data. There's no excuse for not supplying everything you need to know about a product they supplied to you. Bob . . .


    Message 16


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 01:48:06 PM PST US
    Subject: RE: Jack plug question (shielded wires)
    From: "Miskelly, Francis G" <f.miskelly@imperial.ac.uk>
    Thanks Bill. Its a KX 155 installation manual. Esp the wiring diagram. If that's possible it would be great! Frank ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of William Gill Sent: Sun 28/01/2007 21:27 Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Jack plug question (shielded wires) <wgill10@comcast.net> What schematics do you need Frank? I may have something I can email to you. Bill -----Original Message----- From: Miskelly, Francis G [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Miskelly, Francis G Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 3:01 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Jack plug question (shielded wires) Thanks for the offer (and explanation) Bob but i'm based in London, England and the harness was supplied by Harry Mendelssohn in Edinburgh, Scotland www.gps.co.uk I'm sure you're correct the problems is grounds rather than the harness. You don't need to be on this forum long to realise the importance of grounds. I tried to get a schematic but they said King didn't supply schematics for customers. For info (rather than action) their tel is 0044 131 447 7777 and technician is Danny. I'll focus on the grounds and leave harness for now. Thanks again Frank ________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Sun 28/01/2007 12:57 Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Jack plug question (shielded wires) <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 11:01 AM 1/28/2007 +0000, you wrote: >Hi Bob >My harness linking the radio to microphone and headphone jacks do not have >shielding. Neither does the positive supply or the PTT switch wires. From >another thread on this forum 'shielded wires' i see others use shielded >wires in this situation. Your link below recommends shielded wires. Other >points are: There is substantial interference in the radio and I wonder >are shielded wires more important in a composite aircraft? > >My questions are >a) Is there a method of testing whether a wire should be shielded eg wrap >in aluminium foil to see the effect on the interference? >b) Do you think it is worth the hassle to return the full harness and ask >them to replace the wires to the jacks, the PTT and the positive supply >with shielded wires? I gotta tell you that shielding used on most wires in small aircraft has only a modicum if not zero benefits. The lengths of wires used to run between various black boxes and other components of a system are so short and the list of potential antagonists of the kind that are held at bay by shields is also tiny if not zero. The headphone and mic wiring of our radios will run just fine with twisted pairs or trios of wires. Having said that, I use a lot of shielded wire here in the shop and in some installations not because the shielding is necessary but because the wire is mechanically and logistically handy. I have off-the-spool, multi-conductor cables that are easy to use and have a sort of universal applicability. But here's the rub on a schematic or wiring diagram . . . there's nothing in the diagram that tells us how long any run of wire is nor what bundles that wire shares with other systems. One system installed in a C-150 would be at zero risk for electro-statically conducted noise in the C-150 where the interconnected devices are inches apart but an entirely different matter when the same electro-whizzy is installed in bizjet with the two boxes perhaps several feet apart and the wires run in bundles with other, potentially antagonistic systems that don't even exist in the C-150. So the rule of thumb is, if there's any risk at any time for any possible installation for conduction of electro- static noise into a potential victim wire - shield it. The cost-delta for using shielded versus unshielded wire in a production environment is trivial . . . it's disappointing that the folks who made your harness "skimped" on this but their perceptions of low-risk are not incorrect. I'd leave the harness alone unless you DO experience a noise problem. Because you're more likely to have a problem due to poor attention to ground systems than because any one set of wires was not shielded. Give me the name of the company that did your harness and their phone number. If you have the name of the technician you talked to, I need his/her name too. I'll give them a call and see about shaking loose some data. There's no excuse for not supplying everything you need to know about a product they supplied to you. Bob . . .


    Message 17


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 03:14:54 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: RE: Jack plug question (shielded wires)
    At 03:27 PM 1/28/2007 -0600, you wrote: > >What schematics do you need Frank? I may have something I can email to >you. > >Bill Bill, if you have a KX-155 manual and can scan the wiring diagrams, I'd be pleased to add them to my website's installation data. Bob . . .


    Message 18


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 04:15:56 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Sonoma CA seminar date is set . . .
    Dr. Dee and I will be visiting the NoCal wine country on April 21/22 to deliver a presentation in the facilities of EAA chapter 1268. Sign-up sheet is posted at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/seminars/Sonoma.html Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ----------------------------------------


    Message 19


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 04:34:27 PM PST US
    From: "Mauri Morin" <maurv8@bresnan.net>
    Subject: Re: RE: Jack plug question (shielded wires)
    Bob, I have a complete KX-155/165 installation manual I would gladly mail to you as I no longer have a need for it, if you want it Mauri Morin Polson, MT RV-8 N808M (reserved) C180 N2125Z Flying SEMPER FI ----- Original Message ----- From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 4:04 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: RE: Jack plug question (shielded wires) <nuckollsr@cox.net> At 03:27 PM 1/28/2007 -0600, you wrote: <wgill10@comcast.net> > >What schematics do you need Frank? I may have something I can email to >you. > >Bill Bill, if you have a KX-155 manual and can scan the wiring diagrams, I'd be pleased to add them to my website's installation data. Bob . . . -- 1/27/2007


    Message 20


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 04:52:32 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: RE: Jack plug question (shielded wires)
    At 05:30 PM 1/28/2007 -0700, you wrote: >Bob, >I have a complete KX-155/165 installation manual I would gladly mail to >you as I no longer have a need for it, if you want it Very kind of you sir. I'd be delighted. The website is moving to new quarters pretty soon and we should have a faster, more stable connection to the 'net along with much larger file space resources. I'm looking for ways to enhance our library of downloadable materials and the wiring diagrams for this popular radio would be a great candidate. Bob . . .


    Message 21


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 04:55:25 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: RE: Jack plug question (shielded wires)
    At 05:30 PM 1/28/2007 -0700, you wrote: >Bob, >I have a complete KX-155/165 installation manual I would gladly mail to >you as I no longer have a need for it, if you want it > >Mauri Morin >Polson, MT >RV-8 N808M (reserved) >C180 N2125Z Flying >SEMPER FI Mauri. Hold off my friend. Another List member has just sent me a .pdf copy. Wasn't aware of it until I opened the message right after yours. I think I've got what I need. I'll get it checked over and then post what looks like would be most useful for our brother across the pond. Bob . . .


    Message 22


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 05:05:00 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: RE: Jack plug question (shielded wires)
    At 11:01 AM 1/28/2007 +0000, you wrote: >Hi Bob > >I'm afraid i don't have a wiring diagram - they wouldn't give me one. >Contacted the technician who did the wiring harness several times and he >was vague about the need for a ground. Maybe he thought i had a metal >panel or maybe he didn't understand the wiring and was just doing as he >was told? Frank. Send me your direct email and I'll forward a link for downloading a .pdf copy of the manual that has come into my possession. Bob . . .


    Message 23


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 05:11:49 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Alternator mistake
    At 01:45 PM 1/28/2007 -0500, you wrote: > > > Bob: Plane Power have advised me verbally that the alternator can be >shut down by way of the "field" switch but their installation drawing is >quite primative and I cannot be sure from it whether or not what they say is >true. It will be a while before I run the engine but my intent is to check >that function when I do run it. The module on the rear is described as a >crowbar OV control. I'm actually working on the -8 again. My word. > >Gordon Comfort >N363GC Looking forward to getting your report. So all that 'stuff' you put in the -4 is making it too crowded? I envy you sir, I think the -8 is my personal favorite. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ----------------------------------------


    Message 24


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 05:49:46 PM PST US
    Subject: push to talk switch
    From: "lcottrell" <lcottrell@fmtcblue.com>
    Hi, I am normally on the Kolb list and one of the guys there suggested that I could find the answer to one of my problems here. I have a grip on my stick that has five buttons, one of which is supposed to be a push to talk button. However it only has two connections on it. The other buttons control my EIS. I had thought that a I-Com push to talk switch was merely a momentary switch. When I cut into the wire I find a red, green, white and black wire. The red and green show continuity when the button is pushed. The white and black also are a closed circuit. I really don't want to screw things up, can anybody enlighten me as to the best way to hook this up. lcottrell@fmtcblue.com Thanks Larry, Oregon Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=91173#91173 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/p1280008_103.jpg


    Message 25


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 06:51:22 PM PST US
    From: "Lee Logan" <leeloganster@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 46 Msgs - 01/27/07
    Thanks for the comprehensive replies, Bob---it was certainly helpful to understand your well thought out position. You are well aware, I am sure though, that not all Aeroelectric website "clients" are as intensively fascinated by the details of aircraft electrical system design down at the molecular level that some others are. Like others here, I'm just a pilot and flying airplanes, not designing them, is the part that interests me. I know a lot about flying but not so much about "aviation" and hardly anything at all about electrical system design except that I need one. Those who fit that description may not be interested in the details but still want to make a sound decision about a mature, reliable electrical system for their airplanes in order to best take advantage of the growing technical advances in avionics and navigation equipment available today. Many are anxiously awaiting your "fix" for IR alternators but there are others who probably think they've already found one in Plane Power. That seems to be the big unanswered question. Has Plane Power put the genie back in the bottle or not?? They say they have---has anyone seen or produced independant verification of their assertions? If so, I suspect a small stampede will have just begun--- Warm regards and again, thanks for all your hard work in this arena... Lee...


    Message 26


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 07:46:35 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Leading edge ideas and inventions
    At 09:50 PM 1/28/2007 -0500, you wrote: >Thanks for the comprehensive replies, Bob---it was certainly helpful to >understand your well thought out position. You are well aware, I am sure >though, that not all Aeroelectric website "clients" are as intensively >fascinated by the details of aircraft electrical system design down at the >molecular level that some others are. Like others here, I'm just a pilot >and flying airplanes, not designing them, is the part that interests >me. I know a lot about flying but not so much about "aviation" and hardly >anything at all about electrical system design except that I need one. I'll be the first to admit that the AeroElectric-List is not everyone's ideal information source. It was intended from the first to be leading edge for new ideas and inventions . . . and to stand up and denounce bad science along with an explanation as to why. There are plenty of unfiltered venues that dispense traditional data not the least of which are most of the books offered by EAA bookstores and elsewhere. Nothing wrong with those efforts. They've helped the vast majority of builders get their project airborne. > >Those who fit that description may not be interested in the details but >still want to make a sound decision about a mature, reliable electrical >system for their airplanes in order to best take advantage of the growing >technical advances in avionics and navigation equipment available >today. Many are anxiously awaiting your "fix" for IR alternators but >there are others who probably think they've already found one in Plane Power. Nobody would be happier than I to see someone offering modern alternators that work within the design goals I've established for myself. There is nothing better for the community at large than to have honorable, capable competition. >That seems to be the big unanswered question. Has Plane Power put the >genie back in the bottle or not?? They say they have---has anyone seen or >produced independant verification of their assertions? If so, I suspect a >small stampede will have just begun--- I'll contact Plane Power and see if they'll share any of the details necessary for a critical design review. Most companies are reluctant because they fear some risks to loss of proprietary information. A silly notion when you get right down to it. I have reverse engineered dozens of products but not for the purpose of cloning their work . . . the goal was to do BETTER. I've never dissected a product that I and my compatriots could not improve upon. Further, for all I know, folks who are my most vociferous detractors may have already poisoned the waters at Plane Power. I think that happened at Niagara Airparts . . . never could get those folks to discuss their products. This is also silly. I have a substantial following and it only makes sense that we should be cooperating in a win-win effort. So, my personal approach is to see how products perform in the field. If it makes sense, I'll craft an offering with a goal my competition feel compelled to emulate me instead of the other way around. Therefore, I'd be pleased if anyone can post first-hand experiences of Plane Power's products and customer service right here on the List. >Warm regards and again, thanks for all your hard work in this arena... Couldn't do it if it wasn't MOSTLY fun! Thank you for the kind words. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ----------------------------------------


    Message 27


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:04:47 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: The simple ideas . . .
    At 08:29 AM 1/28/2007 -0500, you wrote: > >Bob: great reply that deserves its own place in the 'Connection >Appendices for future reference by all new purchasers of the book. > >You leave me wondering two things pertaining to the system I've >cobbled together and will use until your control unit becomes >available: > >1. how quickly will a 17AH Odyssey swell and fail under the full >output of a runaway IR 55 amp machine; am I okay if I can disconnect >within 10 seconds or less? Within 5? I didn't elaborate on this very well in my first response. The battery that puffed up like a toad took perhaps 15 to 30 minutes to achieve this condition depending on how much current was driven into it. But your question as to "failure" is a bit harder. Hit the battery with say 100A for 20 seconds and you may force its terminal voltage up to 18 volts or more. While certainly abusive, I don't know that I would class that as a failure inducing event - i.e. the battery wouldn't loose much if any of its electrolyte and would probably still crank the engine and hold a charge afterward even if total service life were reduced by weeks or months. I don't have a hard notion for "failure" which is why I think it's so important to track capacity in a way that assures endurance bus operations . . . and replacing the battery long before it "fails" by contemporary standards and won't crank the engine. So, it's not the least bit unreasonable to adopt a design goal and operating philosophy that says: "I'm going to maintain an 80% plus capacity battery. I'm going to install OV warning. I'm going to have an orderly means by which I can shut the the alternator down without risk to other equipment or the alternator itself." It's reasonable to expect that one can react to annunciation and effect a shutdown in 3-4 seconds and that's plenty fast if you have a good battery to do the buffering. The only thing I have championed beyond this manually operated philosophy is to automate the shutdown. As I mentioned earlier, all the magic for controlling is done in software and once that goal is achieved, a couple more lines of code provides the automatic shutdown due to overvoltage. Therefore, I'll not be offering a manually operated version for sale. >2. will the venreable battery contactor reliably part its contacts >under those same runaway conditions when its solenoid is de-energized? >(I think it will, but I'm depending on it to do so). If you're talking about Z-24, yes. A real ov event will be prevented from propagating into the rest of the system. However, it's not real clear that the contactor will not be damaged enough to require replacement. But we know that the alternator will definitely require replacement too because its field winding will be toast. Z-24a will overcome all the nasty stresses in both normal and ov-event shutdown so that the only maintenance item will be to replace the regulator. Bob . . .


    Message 28


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:40:48 PM PST US
    Subject: Alternator mistake
    From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" <frank.hinde@hp.com>
    Hello Bob, I installed the smaller 60Amp unit than the one shown in the link you provided, Not sure what form factor it is but it is considerably smaller than the 70A unit shown (which incidently looks identical to the ND Toyota Camry unit I replaced). The reason I fitted this one was that was all that Van's had in stock and should be big enough even with the dual electric fuel pump/IFR installation in my airplane. I do note the voltage regulator is set a little low at around 13.7V. The crowbar unit on the back appears to just have small single wire that presumably just collapses the field current. To be honest I was little reluctant to rely on this device so I wired it in series with my existing OV protection the basis of which is one of Eric's big contactors. Can you turn the unit off?...Hmm, well the instructions do not specifically mention this. They do say you can turn the unit ON by energising the filed but I did not see that you could turn it off...Personally I would not try to do this unless it was an emergency. I'll have a look in the hangar for the instructions, I do know they were pretty sparse electriclly speaking. Incidently different topic, the backup SD-8 alternator cranks out quite a bit more than 8amps...I can reliably run almost evrything in the airplane...i.e one FI electric fuel pump, GNS430 and an audio panel...The battery volts will dip below 12v on a transmit but apart from that it is enough to drive home if don't use any lights. I would say the unit makes nearer 12A. Frank Incidentally Frank, which model of PP alternator did you install? Would you be willing to copy/scan the installation data that comes with it and send it to me? I note that some models on their website speaks of ov votlage protection and they've even used the (ugh!) word "crowabar" in the context of speaking about ov protection. The photo at http://www.plane-power.com/images/AL12_EI70%20Wiring.pdf shows what appears to be an add-on to the back of their product for the purpose of providing OV protection. I'm curious as to whether or not you can turn the alternator OFF by way of the "field switch" after it has once been turned ON. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ----------------------------------------


    Message 29


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 11:19:54 PM PST US
    Subject: 8awg line to forrest of tabs
    From: "Dennis Jones" <djones@northboone.net>
    Bob My aircraft has a tandem seating configuration. I want to have the forrest of tabs toward the back of the aircraft, the location of all the electric stuff. I would rather run the #2 from the battery to the firewall pass through bolt with out breaking the line to attach to the forrest of tab bolt. Can I run a #8 from the negative post of the battery directly to the forrest of tabs and run the #2 to the firewall without a break in the line? Also what options are there to attach the #8 to the same lug as the #2? Thanks Jonsey Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=91234#91234




    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
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse AeroElectric-List 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.

    -- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --