Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:05 AM - Battery Charging ()
2. 05:39 AM - Daytime Anticollision Lights ()
3. 06:27 AM - Re: Com issues - resolved (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 06:43 AM - Re: Battery Charging (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 06:50 AM - Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 07:04 AM - Re: Com issues - resolved ()
7. 07:17 AM - Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights (Dave N6030X)
8. 07:25 AM - Re: Battery Charging (CH701)
9. 07:28 AM - Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights (John Coloccia)
10. 07:30 AM - Re: Pulse width modulation on linear actuators (Tim Andres)
11. 07:31 AM - Re: Pulse width modulation on linear actuators (Tim Andres)
12. 08:25 AM - Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights (C Smith)
13. 08:50 AM - Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights (Konrad L. Werner)
14. 09:06 AM - Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights (Bill Denton)
15. 09:33 AM - Re: Will SVLA charge on a sustaining voltage? (Ken)
16. 09:45 AM - Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights (Chuck Jensen)
17. 10:04 AM - Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights (Konrad L. Werner)
18. 10:06 AM - Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights (Ken)
19. 10:43 AM - Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights (Terry Watson)
20. 12:18 PM - Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
21. 01:49 PM - Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights (Konrad L. Werner)
22. 02:02 PM - Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights (Konrad L. Werner)
23. 05:44 PM - Cad files (kesleyelectric)
24. 06:24 PM - Re: Cad files (Steve Allison)
25. 06:44 PM - schematic revision (Bill Boyd)
26. 10:42 PM - Off Topic but related to Battery Charging (Tony Babb)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Battery Charging |
2/17/2007
Hello Bob Nuckolls, You wrote:
"Time: 08:09:59 AM PST US
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 24v vs 27 volt power supplies
.....skip..... Similarly, a battery charger of any size has no way of
knowing how many batteries
are connected . . . the act of adding more individual batteries appears no
differently to the charger than if you'd simply connected a single, larger
battery......skip....."
Could you please make clear in which manner multiple batteries should be
connected to the charger -- either in series or parallel?
Also if the battery charger has some defined limited output of current, such
as 6 amps, would that not affect the rate at which multiple low state
batteries could be initially charged?
Thanks for your always helpful inputs.
OC
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Daytime Anticollision Lights |
2/17/2007
Hello To "SD-8 or NOT to SD-8 . . . that is the question"
At 11:31 AM 2/16/2007 -0700, you wrote:
"....skip....Oh, and Nav-Lights/Strobes for collision avoidance, but I don't
plan to fly at nighttime.....skip....."
Please note what FAR Sec. 91.209 (b) says about operating anticollision
lights in the daytime, as well as from sunset to sunrise, if the aircraft is
equipped with an anticollision light system.
"91.209. Aircraft lights. No person may:
(b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light system,
unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the anticollision
lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command determines that,
because of operating conditions, it would be in the interest of safety to
turn the lights off."
Operating continuously or normally in the daytime with anticollision lights
off, if the aircraft is so equipped, regardless of operating conditions
would probably not be considered "in the interest of safety" by the FAA.
OC -- The best investment we can make is to gather knowledge.
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Com issues - resolved |
At 10:47 PM 2/16/2007 -0600, you wrote:
>
>Well gang...it's fixed.
>
>I added 150ohm resistors to all input audio leads into the panel.
>Everything is living together quite nicely now. I guess something in the
>combination was not playing well with the new radio.
>
>However, there was one wild card that might also have something to do with
>it. While I was removing, moving, installing, and re-installing the pins
>in the 134's connector, one of the ground leads (mic I think) broke off a
>pin. I was forced to strip and crimp a new molex pin on there and
>re-secure. This was done in the same operation as the resistors. After
>all that, the audio was loud and clear with all radios mixed in,
>regardless of the combination. I'm not convinced this was the issue,
>since the radio did work correctly by itself.
>
>So...was it the resistors?...was it a bad ground?...was it a gremlin?
>Personally, I don't care anymore...it's fixed!
I suspect that your victim radio was being loaded down by
and exceptionally LOW output impedance of the other radio.
With its low output impedance, it was able to deliver useful
audio output energy into a system that was "loaded" not only
by the system that drove you headphones but by the other
radio. This is the phenomenon explained in the audio systems
chapter I cited earlier.
Adding the resistors artificially raised the output impedance
of all sources. This degrades the transfer of energy to the
headphones . . .but no so much that increasing radio volume
can't overcome it. At the same time, it breaks the ability
of a radio having exceptionally low output impedance from
exercising the loading effect you were experiencing.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( IF one aspires to be "world class", )
( what ever you do must be exercised )
( EVERY day . . . )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
----------------------------------------
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Battery Charging |
At 08:03 AM 2/17/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>
>2/17/2007
>
>Hello Bob Nuckolls, You wrote:
>
>"Time: 08:09:59 AM PST US
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 24v vs 27 volt power supplies
>
>.....skip..... Similarly, a battery charger of any size has no way of
>knowing how many batteries
>are connected . . . the act of adding more individual batteries appears no
>differently to the charger than if you'd simply connected a single, larger
>battery......skip....."
>
>Could you please make clear in which manner multiple batteries should be
>connected to the charger -- either in series or parallel?
Batteries are charged by impressing a specific votlage
across their terminals. E.g. you charge a 12 volt lead
acid battery by holding its terminals at 13.8 to as much
as 15 volts . . . See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/schumacher_3.jpg
You wait for a period of time -OR- until recharge current
drops below some nominally low value. I've heard Concord
folks cite "100 milliamps" as the indication that the battery
is no longer converting discharged chemistry into charged
chemistry. After this time, it's useful to drop the charger's
output voltage to a "sustaining" level that cannot charge but
only offset internal leakages (self discharge) currents that
exist in EVERY battery technology.
To insure that all batteries in an array of two or more
see the same terminal voltage during the recharge-sustain
process, they must be in PARALLEL.
>Also if the battery charger has some defined limited output of current,
>such as 6 amps, would that not affect the rate at which multiple low state
>batteries could be initially charged?
Absolutely. A 1.5A charger can deliver 1.5AH of charge
per hour. Hook dead 32, 18 and 10 AH batteries in
parallel and you've tasked the charger with delivering
enough energy to replenish all batteries in the array . .
or 60 AH. One should expect this process to take 40+
hours to complete. All batteries are being recharged on
the same time curve with each getting a share of the
1.5 AH/HR that's available from the charger.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( IF one aspires to be "world class", )
( what ever you do must be exercised )
( EVERY day . . . )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
----------------------------------------
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights |
At 08:36 AM 2/17/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>
>2/17/2007
>
>Hello To "SD-8 or NOT to SD-8 . . . that is the question"
>
>At 11:31 AM 2/16/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>
>"....skip....Oh, and Nav-Lights/Strobes for collision avoidance, but I
>don't plan to fly at nighttime.....skip....."
>
>Please note what FAR Sec. 91.209 (b) says about operating anticollision
>lights in the daytime, as well as from sunset to sunrise, if the aircraft
>is equipped with an anticollision light system.
>
>"91.209. Aircraft lights. No person may:
>
>(b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light
>system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the
>anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command
>determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the
>interest of safety to turn the lights off."
>
>Operating continuously or normally in the daytime with anticollision
>lights off, if the aircraft is so equipped, regardless of operating
>conditions would probably not be considered "in the interest of safety" by
>the FAA.
>
>OC -- The best investment we can make is to gather knowledge.
To quote one of my heros, C.F. Kettering: "Knowledge is not
understanding. You can know a lot and still understand
nothing." The investment begins with $time$ necessary to
gather knowledge but if we do not invest still more $time$
(and perhaps seek explanation) to help us understand, then
return on the original investment is at best meager and at
worst wasted.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( IF one aspires to be "world class", )
( what ever you do must be exercised )
( EVERY day . . . )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
----------------------------------------
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Com issues - resolved |
Yep, I read that chapter and found it very enlightening. When I was wiring
up the airplane, I skipped that section since I out-sourced the panel wiring
harness to a local avionics shop. I guess another lesson here is to read the
WHOLE book when you're building airplanes...'cuz if you are maintaining
airplanes too, you are going to need ALL the info sometime in the future.
;-)
Bob, thanks again for the education.
-James
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Com issues - resolved
> I suspect that your victim radio was being loaded down by
> and exceptionally LOW output impedance of the other radio.
> With its low output impedance, it was able to deliver useful
> audio output energy into a system that was "loaded" not only
> by the system that drove you headphones but by the other
> radio. This is the phenomenon explained in the audio systems
> chapter I cited earlier.
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights |
At 07:36 AM 2/17/2007, you wrote:
>"91.209. Aircraft lights. No person may:
>
>(b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light
>system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the
>anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command
>determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the
>interest of safety to turn the lights off."
>
>Operating continuously or normally in the daytime with anticollision
>lights off, if the aircraft is so equipped, regardless of operating
>conditions would probably not be considered "in the interest of
>safety" by the FAA.
How about this:
Mr. FAA judge, sir, as pilot-in-command, I determined it was not in
the best interest of safety to operate my anticollision light system because
a) it draws 5A of power during taxi, when my generator is not putting
out enough current to keep the battery from discharging, and
b) at taxi speeds it causes excessive noise in my radios while I am
trying to listen for traffic in the pattern / copy clearances / whatever
c) I calculated that the 14,400 square inches of my aircraft glinting
in the sunlight occupy more retinal space in the eyes of any
potential observers than the 4 square inches of blinking light on my tail
Dave Morris
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Battery Charging |
Speaking of battery charging, a recent issue of Sport Aviation had an
article entitled "Pulse De-sulfator for Lead-acid Batteries." It described
the process of resurrecting weak or sulfated batteries, and included some
theory and a schematic of a circuit to address the process. I'm just
wondering what this community has to offer on the subject...
Here's a link to the authors site:
http://www.geocities.com/powertugs/eaa79parts.html
Todd Henning
Scratch CH701 Builder
-----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, February 17, 2007 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery Charging
--> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:03 AM 2/17/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>
>2/17/2007
>
>Hello Bob Nuckolls, You wrote:
>
>"Time: 08:09:59 AM PST US
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 24v vs 27 volt power supplies
>
>.....skip..... Similarly, a battery charger of any size has no way of
>knowing how many batteries are connected . . . the act of adding more
>individual batteries appears no differently to the charger than if
>you'd simply connected a single, larger battery......skip....."
>
>Could you please make clear in which manner multiple batteries should
>be connected to the charger -- either in series or parallel?
Batteries are charged by impressing a specific votlage
across their terminals. E.g. you charge a 12 volt lead
acid battery by holding its terminals at 13.8 to as much
as 15 volts . . . See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/schumacher_3.jpg
You wait for a period of time -OR- until recharge current
drops below some nominally low value. I've heard Concord
folks cite "100 milliamps" as the indication that the battery
is no longer converting discharged chemistry into charged
chemistry. After this time, it's useful to drop the charger's
output voltage to a "sustaining" level that cannot charge but
only offset internal leakages (self discharge) currents that
exist in EVERY battery technology.
To insure that all batteries in an array of two or more
see the same terminal voltage during the recharge-sustain
process, they must be in PARALLEL.
>Also if the battery charger has some defined limited output of current,
>such as 6 amps, would that not affect the rate at which multiple low
>state batteries could be initially charged?
Absolutely. A 1.5A charger can deliver 1.5AH of charge
per hour. Hook dead 32, 18 and 10 AH batteries in
parallel and you've tasked the charger with delivering
enough energy to replenish all batteries in the array . .
or 60 AH. One should expect this process to take 40+
hours to complete. All batteries are being recharged on
the same time curve with each getting a share of the
1.5 AH/HR that's available from the charger.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights |
Best question of all is if you're setting up for VFR-Day only, why not
just leave all the lights off entirely? Save the weight, the power draw
and the drag. These lights are all but useless in the daytime, anyhow.
-John
www.ballofshame.com
Dave N6030X wrote:
> <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
>
> At 07:36 AM 2/17/2007, you wrote:
>> "91.209. Aircraft lights. No person may:
>>
>> (b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light
>> system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the
>> anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command
>> determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the
>> interest of safety to turn the lights off."
>>
>> Operating continuously or normally in the daytime with anticollision
>> lights off, if the aircraft is so equipped, regardless of operating
>> conditions would probably not be considered "in the interest of
>> safety" by the FAA.
>
> How about this:
>
> Mr. FAA judge, sir, as pilot-in-command, I determined it was not in
> the best interest of safety to operate my anticollision light system
> because
>
> a) it draws 5A of power during taxi, when my generator is not putting
> out enough current to keep the battery from discharging, and
> b) at taxi speeds it causes excessive noise in my radios while I am
> trying to listen for traffic in the pattern / copy clearances / whatever
> c) I calculated that the 14,400 square inches of my aircraft glinting
> in the sunlight occupy more retinal space in the eyes of any potential
> observers than the 4 square inches of blinking light on my tail
>
> Dave Morris
>
>
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Pulse width modulation on linear actuators |
Thanks Bob & sorry for the delay, the actuator takes 5 amps at rated load.
Tim
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 11:38 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Pulse width modulation on linear actuators
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:55 PM 2/15/2007 -0800, you wrote:
<tim2542@sbcglobal.net>
>
>Can any one tell if the duty cycle on a PWM will equate at least roughly
>with motor speed? ie will a 20% duty cycle slow the motor down to
>approximately %20 or does it not work that way? I have a linear actuator
for
>pitch trim that that travels 2"/sec, I need about .5"/sec.
Probably. PM motors have field fields which makes
RPM proportional to applied voltage. The RMS (power)
available from any source is also proportional
to duty cycle for a non-continuous flow. In any
case, I presume you're going to make the duty cycle
adjustable so whether it takes 25% duty cycle
or 27% duty cycle to achieve exactly the speed you
want is irrelevant.
You can also use linear techniques. An adjustable
but regulated voltage source not unlike the dimmers
described in . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles//DimmerFabrication.pdf
. . . may be considered also. How much current does
your motor draw at full speed?
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( IF one aspires to be "world class", )
( what ever you do must be exercised )
( EVERY day . . . )
( R. L. Nuckolls III )
----------------------------------------
--
--
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Pulse width modulation on linear actuators |
Thanks Ernest!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest
Christley
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 5:12 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Pulse width modulation on linear actuators
<echristley@nc.rr.com>
Tim Andres wrote:
<tim2542@sbcglobal.net>
>
>Can any one tell if the duty cycle on a PWM will equate at least roughly
>with motor speed? ie will a 20% duty cycle slow the motor down to
>approximately %20 or does it not work that way? I have a linear actuator
for
>pitch trim that that travels 2"/sec, I need about .5"/sec.
>Thanks, Tim Andres
>
>
>
MPJA sells a motor control unit that does exactly that and at just over
$12, I don't think you can beat the price.
http://mpja.com/productview.asp?product=6067+KT
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |
--
--
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Daytime Anticollision Lights |
Dave, I don't think you could make a better argument than that. Well put.
Craig Smith
Do Not Archive
>"91.209. Aircraft lights. No person may:
>
>(b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light
>system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the
>anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command
>determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the
>interest of safety to turn the lights off."
>
>Operating continuously or normally in the daytime with anticollision
>lights off, if the aircraft is so equipped, regardless of operating
>conditions would probably not be considered "in the interest of safety"
>by the FAA.
How about this:
Mr. FAA judge, sir, as pilot-in-command, I determined it was not in the best
interest of safety to operate my anticollision light system because
a) it draws 5A of power during taxi, when my generator is not putting out
enough current to keep the battery from discharging, and
b) at taxi speeds it causes excessive noise in my radios while I am trying
to listen for traffic in the pattern / copy clearances / whatever
c) I calculated that the 14,400 square inches of my aircraft glinting in the
sunlight occupy more retinal space in the eyes of any potential observers
than the 4 square inches of blinking light on my tail
Dave Morris
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights |
And to deviate BACK to the original question which started this spinoff
here: Does a SD-8 provide enough juice if used as a standalone
alternator?
Probably not, given the circumstances of the particular setup and E-load
mentioned earlier...
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: C Smith
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 9:24 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights
<pilot4profit@sbcglobal.net>
Dave, I don't think you could make a better argument than that. Well
put.
Craig Smith
Do Not Archive
>"91.209. Aircraft lights. No person may:
>
>(b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light
>system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the
>anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command
>determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the
>interest of safety to turn the lights off."
>
>Operating continuously or normally in the daytime with anticollision
>lights off, if the aircraft is so equipped, regardless of operating
>conditions would probably not be considered "in the interest of
safety"
>by the FAA.
How about this:
Mr. FAA judge, sir, as pilot-in-command, I determined it was not in
the best
interest of safety to operate my anticollision light system because
a) it draws 5A of power during taxi, when my generator is not putting
out
enough current to keep the battery from discharging, and
b) at taxi speeds it causes excessive noise in my radios while I am
trying
to listen for traffic in the pattern / copy clearances / whatever
c) I calculated that the 14,400 square inches of my aircraft glinting
in the
sunlight occupy more retinal space in the eyes of any potential
observers
than the 4 square inches of blinking light on my tail
Dave Morris
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Daytime Anticollision Lights |
The intent of "the anticollision lights need not be lighted when the
pilot-in-command determines that, because of operating conditions, it would
be in the interest of safety to turn the lights off" was to avoid blinding
other pilots with bright strobe flashes.
You will notice that the regulations refer to turning them off when
conditions warrant, not to not turning them on at all. I recognize that
there might be conditions where a pilot might consider it inadvisable to
initially turn them on. But even the most stupid junior lawyer at the FAA
could nail you to the wall if you're operating all over the field without
the lights being on.
What you are going to run up against is a mentality that says "you don't
have to have them, but if you do have them, they better work and you had
better use them properly".
I would wonder if someone might not be jeopardizing your Airworthiness
Certificate if they operated in the manner suggested...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of C
Smith
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 10:25 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights
<pilot4profit@sbcglobal.net>
Dave, I don't think you could make a better argument than that. Well put.
Craig Smith
Do Not Archive
>"91.209. Aircraft lights. No person may:
>
>(b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light
>system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the
>anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command
>determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the
>interest of safety to turn the lights off."
>
>Operating continuously or normally in the daytime with anticollision
>lights off, if the aircraft is so equipped, regardless of operating
>conditions would probably not be considered "in the interest of safety"
>by the FAA.
How about this:
Mr. FAA judge, sir, as pilot-in-command, I determined it was not in the best
interest of safety to operate my anticollision light system because
a) it draws 5A of power during taxi, when my generator is not putting out
enough current to keep the battery from discharging, and
b) at taxi speeds it causes excessive noise in my radios while I am trying
to listen for traffic in the pattern / copy clearances / whatever
c) I calculated that the 14,400 square inches of my aircraft glinting in the
sunlight occupy more retinal space in the eyes of any potential observers
than the 4 square inches of blinking light on my tail
Dave Morris
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Will SVLA charge on a sustaining voltage? |
I always deal with partially discharged batteries rather than fully
discharged ones but I have probably waited at least a couple of days to
notice the recharge current to fall to the float current and that is
typically under 10 ma depending on the battery. The actual energy under
that upward inflected curve is small but it still takes awhile to get
the equivalent at very small charging current of course. I use 13.5
volts for AGM batteries which probably helps. 13.5 is more in line with
what I've seen on things like burglar alarms and small UPS batteries.
Someone will no doubt mention that there is more to this than just
restoring a full charge though. Below is a repeat of a very good post
out of the archives which suggests that charging with that voltage
inflection is a good thing for storage batteries that don't get a bit of
overcharging in a vehicle. It might also give a possible reason why
pulse charging might have some benefit even if the desulphation theory
is bunk. The strong inflection that shuts off the built in charger on
my booster battery pack is a better scheme for frequently used batteries
and probably for VRLA batteries in general. That $30. booster battery
pack has a 15AH battery and it often runs a 120vac inverter and it also
makes a handy (less than an amp) charger by just clipping it onto
another battery and plugging it in to let them both charge in parallel.
Ken
There are four main reasons why AGMs wear out.
1) Loss of electrolyte
2) Grid corrosion
3) Sulfation
4) Paste degradation
If you overcharge an AGM excessively, it will lose electrolyte and
dry out. This is NOT why they wear out in airplanes and cars (typically.)
Typically, AGMs go bad because they are not properly charged. If you
don't over charge them a little bit on a regular basis, the negative
plate gets further and further behind the positive plate. The negative
plate then sulfates and you lose capacity and cranking power. (In the
short term, you lose capacity simply because the negative plate is not
fully charged.)
Why you don't need to add water to an AGM is that the oxygen and
hydrogen gas recombine in the separator to form water. This
recombination process is not 100% efficient, and it causes the negative
plate to take slightly less charge than the positive plate when you
re-charge the battery. Each cycle gets the negative plate a bit more behind.
Occasionally, you need to purposely overcharge the battery to let the
negative plate catch up with the positive plate. A couple times per
year, you bring the battery up to 14.8 volts and let the current taper
off to less than an amp. You then push in a constant current of about 4%
of the amp-hr rating of the battery for about an hour. This cleans off
the negative plate.
High-end voltage regulators do something like this (like on boats
and motor homes). Every time you start up the engine, it charges up the
battery to normal voltage, then it gives the battery a slight overcharge
for a few minutes. Makes the big expensive AGM batteries last much longer.
>>>> What causes the other types of failures, just in case you wanted
to know. <<<
Excessive overcharging will cause the loss of electrolyte. Severe
discharge, causing reversal of a cell or two, will also cause
electrolyte loss.
Grid corrosion occurs if you leave the battery on float for a long
time. The oxygen gas formed eats at the grids that support the paste.
Sulfation is caused by leaving the battery discharged for extended
periods of time. Not fully charging the battery and leaving that way
will also cause sulfation.
Paste degradation is caused by repeated severe and/or deep
discharges. Cranking the battery flat over and over is a good way to
cause paste degradation.
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> After a 3.0A discharge to 11.0 volts where the battery
> delivered at total of 11.2 ah of capacity, I connected
> the battery to a 13.0 volt power supply and waited 18+
> hours until the 're-charge' current was down to under
> 30 milliampers.
>
> A subsequent 3.0A discharge produced only 8.8 AH of
> useful output. The same battery is back on a Battery
> Tender Jr for another charge/discharge cycle.
>
> This experiment suggests that there's something to
> the notion of carrying the battery's recharge profile
> up to the point where rate-of-change for voltage takes
> the upward inflection which is the battery's way of
> letting the outside world know that it's getting pretty
> close to full.
>
> 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 |
|
| Subject: | Daytime Anticollision Lights |
Or, just disconnect the collision lights and put an 'inop' tag on the
switch. The disconnect point would be easily reversed if night flying
is envisioned. The point to the FAA is yes, a housing and bulb in on
the tail fin, but collision lights are not installed because they have
to have a source of power to be considered to be installed and they can
not be controlled and turned on by the pilot.
But if they are hooked up and you can flip a switch to turn them on, and
you don't, that Perry Mason Jr. intern at the FAA will probably put a
notch in his briefs at your expense. Hopefully they have better things
to do then prosecute a case like that, but don't bet your license on it.
Besides, if the FAA has their way, there'll be a whole bunch on new fees
associated with getting your license back!!
Chuck Jensen
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Denton
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 12:06 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights
--> <bdenton@bdenton.com>
The intent of "the anticollision lights need not be lighted when the
pilot-in-command determines that, because of operating conditions, it
would be in the interest of safety to turn the lights off" was to avoid
blinding other pilots with bright strobe flashes.
You will notice that the regulations refer to turning them off when
conditions warrant, not to not turning them on at all. I recognize that
there might be conditions where a pilot might consider it inadvisable to
initially turn them on. But even the most stupid junior lawyer at the
FAA could nail you to the wall if you're operating all over the field
without the lights being on.
What you are going to run up against is a mentality that says "you don't
have to have them, but if you do have them, they better work and you had
better use them properly".
I would wonder if someone might not be jeopardizing your Airworthiness
Certificate if they operated in the manner suggested...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of C
Smith
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 10:25 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights
<pilot4profit@sbcglobal.net>
Dave, I don't think you could make a better argument than that. Well
put. Craig Smith Do Not Archive
>"91.209. Aircraft lights. No person may:
>
>(b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light
>system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the
>anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command
>determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the
>interest of safety to turn the lights off."
>
>Operating continuously or normally in the daytime with anticollision
>lights off, if the aircraft is so equipped, regardless of operating
>conditions would probably not be considered "in the interest of safety"
>by the FAA.
How about this:
Mr. FAA judge, sir, as pilot-in-command, I determined it was not in the
best interest of safety to operate my anticollision light system because
a) it draws 5A of power during taxi, when my generator is not putting
out enough current to keep the battery from discharging, and
b) at taxi speeds it causes excessive noise in my radios while I am
trying to listen for traffic in the pattern / copy clearances / whatever
c) I calculated that the 14,400 square inches of my aircraft glinting in
the sunlight occupy more retinal space in the eyes of any potential
observers than the 4 square inches of blinking light on my tail
Dave Morris
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights |
I am still amazed me how this thread came into life? My original
question that started it was to see if my SD-8 would be an adequate
alternator to supply enough energy to a certain setup...
But blink once and schwup-di-wup we deviate into a whole different
direction right quick. How did we get from Electrics & Physics to FAA
Rules & Lawyers so darn quick???
Whatever will be mounted in the ship will be used in accordance to
Rules, Regs and/or Logic, ...so is my SD-8 alternator adequate or not
for the specific demands mentioned earlier?
I still don't know what the best Primer is? Any ideas anyone ???
----- Original Message -----
From: Chuck Jensen
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 10:45 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights
<cjensen@dts9000.com>
Or, just disconnect the collision lights and put an 'inop' tag on the
switch. The disconnect point would be easily reversed if night flying
is envisioned. The point to the FAA is yes, a housing and bulb in on
the tail fin, but collision lights are not installed because they have
to have a source of power to be considered to be installed and they
can
not be controlled and turned on by the pilot.
But if they are hooked up and you can flip a switch to turn them on,
and
you don't, that Perry Mason Jr. intern at the FAA will probably put a
notch in his briefs at your expense. Hopefully they have better things
to do then prosecute a case like that, but don't bet your license on
it.
Besides, if the FAA has their way, there'll be a whole bunch on new
fees
associated with getting your license back!!
Chuck Jensen
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Bill
Denton
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 12:06 PM
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights
--> <bdenton@bdenton.com>
The intent of "the anticollision lights need not be lighted when the
pilot-in-command determines that, because of operating conditions, it
would be in the interest of safety to turn the lights off" was to
avoid
blinding other pilots with bright strobe flashes.
You will notice that the regulations refer to turning them off when
conditions warrant, not to not turning them on at all. I recognize
that
there might be conditions where a pilot might consider it inadvisable
to
initially turn them on. But even the most stupid junior lawyer at the
FAA could nail you to the wall if you're operating all over the field
without the lights being on.
What you are going to run up against is a mentality that says "you
don't
have to have them, but if you do have them, they better work and you
had
better use them properly".
I would wonder if someone might not be jeopardizing your Airworthiness
Certificate if they operated in the manner suggested...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of C
Smith
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 10:25 AM
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights
<pilot4profit@sbcglobal.net>
Dave, I don't think you could make a better argument than that. Well
put. Craig Smith Do Not Archive
>"91.209. Aircraft lights. No person may:
>
>(b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light
>system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the
>anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command
>determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the
>interest of safety to turn the lights off."
>
>Operating continuously or normally in the daytime with anticollision
>lights off, if the aircraft is so equipped, regardless of operating
>conditions would probably not be considered "in the interest of
safety"
>by the FAA.
How about this:
Mr. FAA judge, sir, as pilot-in-command, I determined it was not in
the
best interest of safety to operate my anticollision light system
because
a) it draws 5A of power during taxi, when my generator is not putting
out enough current to keep the battery from discharging, and
b) at taxi speeds it causes excessive noise in my radios while I am
trying to listen for traffic in the pattern / copy clearances /
whatever
c) I calculated that the 14,400 square inches of my aircraft glinting
in
the sunlight occupy more retinal space in the eyes of any potential
observers than the 4 square inches of blinking light on my tail
Dave Morris
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights |
My 3 favorite conspicuity items are:
Wig wag lights seem useful especially near airports.
A non white painted airplane.
A little $400. traffic alerter such as the one by Zaon is perhaps even
more useful than strobes for some folks especially those that don't look
outside much. More pilots leave their transponder on even in the circuit
than I expected. Useless if the other guy doesn't have a transponder.
Ken
John Coloccia wrote:
> <john@ballofshame.com>
>
> Best question of all is if you're setting up for VFR-Day only, why not
> just leave all the lights off entirely? Save the weight, the power
> draw and the drag. These lights are all but useless in the daytime,
> anyhow.
>
> -John
> www.ballofshame.com
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 |
|
| Subject: | Daytime Anticollision Lights |
Just because you start a thread doesn't mean it is going to just answer your
question and not wander off. Just like any conversation, thoughts trigger
other thoughts. Some will find it interesting, some won't. Delete; don't
censor.
Terry
Do not archive
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Konrad L.
Werner
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights
I am still amazed me how this thread came into life? My original question
that started it was to see if my SD-8 would be an adequate alternator to
supply enough energy to a certain setup...
But blink once and schwup-di-wup we deviate into a whole different direction
right quick. How did we get from Electrics & Physics to FAA Rules & Lawyers
so darn quick???
Whatever will be mounted in the ship will be used in accordance to Rules,
Regs and/or Logic, ...so is my SD-8 alternator adequate or not for the
specific demands mentioned earlier?
I still don't know what the best Primer is? Any ideas anyone ???
----- Original Message -----
From: Chuck Jensen <mailto:cjensen@dts9000.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 10:45 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights
<cjensen@dts9000.com>
Or, just disconnect the collision lights and put an 'inop' tag on the
switch. The disconnect point would be easily reversed if night flying
is envisioned. The point to the FAA is yes, a housing and bulb in on
the tail fin, but collision lights are not installed because they have
to have a source of power to be considered to be installed and they can
not be controlled and turned on by the pilot.
But if they are hooked up and you can flip a switch to turn them on, and
you don't, that Perry Mason Jr. intern at the FAA will probably put a
notch in his briefs at your expense. Hopefully they have better things
to do then prosecute a case like that, but don't bet your license on it.
Besides, if the FAA has their way, there'll be a whole bunch on new fees
associated with getting your license back!!
Chuck Jensen
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Denton
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 12:06 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights
--> <bdenton@bdenton.com>
The intent of "the anticollision lights need not be lighted when the
pilot-in-command determines that, because of operating conditions, it
would be in the interest of safety to turn the lights off" was to avoid
blinding other pilots with bright strobe flashes.
You will notice that the regulations refer to turning them off when
conditions warrant, not to not turning them on at all. I recognize that
there might be conditions where a pilot might consider it inadvisable to
initially turn them on. But even the most stupid junior lawyer at the
FAA could nail you to the wall if you're operating all over the field
without the lights being on.
What you are going to run up against is a mentality that says "you don't
have to have them, but if you do have them, they better work and you had
better use them properly".
I would wonder if someone might not be jeopardizing your Airworthiness
Certificate if they operated in the manner suggested...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of C
Smith
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 10:25 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights
<pilot4profit@sbcglobal.net>
Dave, I don't think you could make a better argument than that. Well
put. Craig Smith Do Not Archive
>"91.209. Aircraft lights. No person may:
>
>(b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light
>system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the
>anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command
>determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the
>interest of safety to turn the lights off."
>
>Operating continuously or normally in the daytime with anticollision
>lights off, if the aircraft is so equipped, regardless of operating
>conditions would probably not be considered "in the interest of safety"
>by the FAA.
How about this:
Mr. FAA judge, sir, as pilot-in-command, I determined it was not in the
best interest of safety to operate my anticollision light system because
a) it draws 5A of power during taxi, when my generator is not putting
out enough current to keep the battery from discharging, and
b) at taxi speeds it causes excessive noise in my radios while I am
trying to listen for traffic in the pattern / copy clearances / whatever
c) I calculated that the 14,400 square inches of my aircraft glinting in
the sunlight occupy more retinal space in the eyes of any potential
observers than the 4 square inches of blinking light on my tail
Dave nbsp; Features Subscriptions
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.p;
available via href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights |
At 11:03 AM 2/17/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>I am still amazed me how this thread came into life? My original question
>that started it was to see if my SD-8 would be an adequate alternator to
>supply enough energy to a certain setup...
>
>But blink once and schwup-di-wup we deviate into a whole different
>direction right quick. How did we get from Electrics & Physics to FAA
>Rules & Lawyers so darn quick???
>
>Whatever will be mounted in the ship will be used in accordance to Rules,
>Regs and/or Logic, ...so is my SD-8 alternator adequate or not for the
>specific demands mentioned earlier?
>
>I still don't know what the best Primer is? Any ideas anyone ???
It seems that someone along the way noted that the SD-8 is good
for just over 8 amps when your engine is running at the red line.
Beyond that, there's no more data that can be offered from the
List because we don't know what your load analysis is for electro-
whizzies in addition to exterior lights . . . and whether or not
you're comfortable with charging around the pattern at 2700 RPM.
I believe the simple answer is that the SD-8 is not adequate to
the task for the way most of us load and use our systems, even
in a day-vfr only environment.
The SD-8 was the product that launched B&C Specialty Products
about 27 years ago. I met Bill Bainbridge for the first time
when he walked into Electo-Mech asking to buy the castings
we used on our Bonanza stand-by generators. They mated with
the AND20000, vacuum pump drive pad.
That alternator IS flying on a whole raft of Longez and
Variez aircraft as the sole source of engine driven energy
for running electro-whizzies and charging a small battery.
Few of these aircraft even had starters. For a time there
was a belt driven cousin to the SD-8 that ran from the
prop shaft . . . it WAS good for 12A or so.
Over the years, the SD-8 has been best assigned duties
as a second source of engine driven power for the purpose
backing up a larger machine. The primary value of the
SD-8 is to provide UNLIMITED endurance for an 8A e-bus
load while holding 100% of battery's contained energy
in reserve for approach to landing.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights |
Thank you Bob,
Now there is an answer that is of great use to me. My SD-8 when used as
a backup alternator will certainly prolong the demise of the battery for
long enough to make it down safely, should the main alternator ever fail
on me. Thank you again for your input.
Konrad
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 1:16 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 11:03 AM 2/17/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>I am still amazed me how this thread came into life? My original
question
>that started it was to see if my SD-8 would be an adequate alternator
to
>supply enough energy to a certain setup...
>
>But blink once and schwup-di-wup we deviate into a whole different
>direction right quick. How did we get from Electrics & Physics to
FAA
>Rules & Lawyers so darn quick???
>
>Whatever will be mounted in the ship will be used in accordance to
Rules,
>Regs and/or Logic, ...so is my SD-8 alternator adequate or not for
the
>specific demands mentioned earlier?
>
>I still don't know what the best Primer is? Any ideas anyone ???
It seems that someone along the way noted that the SD-8 is good
for just over 8 amps when your engine is running at the red line.
Beyond that, there's no more data that can be offered from the
List because we don't know what your load analysis is for electro-
whizzies in addition to exterior lights . . . and whether or not
you're comfortable with charging around the pattern at 2700 RPM.
I believe the simple answer is that the SD-8 is not adequate to
the task for the way most of us load and use our systems, even
in a day-vfr only environment.
The SD-8 was the product that launched B&C Specialty Products
about 27 years ago. I met Bill Bainbridge for the first time
when he walked into Electo-Mech asking to buy the castings
we used on our Bonanza stand-by generators. They mated with
the AND20000, vacuum pump drive pad.
That alternator IS flying on a whole raft of Longez and
Variez aircraft as the sole source of engine driven energy
for running electro-whizzies and charging a small battery.
Few of these aircraft even had starters. For a time there
was a belt driven cousin to the SD-8 that ran from the
prop shaft . . . it WAS good for 12A or so.
Over the years, the SD-8 has been best assigned duties
as a second source of engine driven power for the purpose
backing up a larger machine. The primary value of the
SD-8 is to provide UNLIMITED endurance for an 8A e-bus
load while holding 100% of battery's contained energy
in reserve for approach to landing.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Daytime Anticollision Lights |
Dear Terry,
Amazement does not equal Censorship. I don't think I scolded or
censored anybody for deviating from the original thread, but I was sure
amazed on how it got into FAA Regs instead...
By the way, I did get the answer to my electrical question from Bob N.,
but I also learned something new from the deviation into FAA-Law here.
So anyone please feel free to continue the discussion in any direction
desired, as I am open to learn some more...
----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Watson
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 11:41 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights
Just because you start a thread doesn't mean it is going to just
answer your question and not wander off. Just like any conversation,
thoughts trigger other thoughts. Some will find it interesting, some
won't. Delete; don't censor.
Terry
Do not archive
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Konrad L. Werner
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 10:03 AM
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights
I am still amazed about how this thread came into life? My original
question that started it was to see if my SD-8 would be an adequate
alternator to supply enough energy to a certain setup...
But blink once and schwup-di-wup we deviate into a whole different
direction right quick. How did we get from Electrics & Physics to FAA
Rules & Lawyers so darn quick???
Whatever will be mounted in the ship will be used in accordance to
Rules, Regs and/or Logic, ...so is my SD-8 alternator adequate or not
for the specific demands mentioned earlier?
I still don't know what the best Primer is? Any ideas anyone ???
----- Original Message -----
From: Chuck Jensen
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 10:45 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights
<cjensen@dts9000.com>
Or, just disconnect the collision lights and put an 'inop' tag on
the
switch. The disconnect point would be easily reversed if night
flying
is envisioned. The point to the FAA is yes, a housing and bulb in
on
the tail fin, but collision lights are not installed because they
have
to have a source of power to be considered to be installed and they
can
not be controlled and turned on by the pilot.
But if they are hooked up and you can flip a switch to turn them on,
and
you don't, that Perry Mason Jr. intern at the FAA will probably put
a
notch in his briefs at your expense. Hopefully they have better
things
to do then prosecute a case like that, but don't bet your license on
it.
Besides, if the FAA has their way, there'll be a whole bunch on new
fees
associated with getting your license back!!
Chuck Jensen
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Bill
Denton
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 12:06 PM
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights
--> <bdenton@bdenton.com>
The intent of "the anticollision lights need not be lighted when the
pilot-in-command determines that, because of operating conditions,
it
would be in the interest of safety to turn the lights off" was to
avoid
blinding other pilots with bright strobe flashes.
You will notice that the regulations refer to turning them off when
conditions warrant, not to not turning them on at all. I recognize
that
there might be conditions where a pilot might consider it
inadvisable to
initially turn them on. But even the most stupid junior lawyer at
the
FAA could nail you to the wall if you're operating all over the
field
without the lights being on.
What you are going to run up against is a mentality that says "you
don't
have to have them, but if you do have them, they better work and you
had
better use them properly".
I would wonder if someone might not be jeopardizing your
Airworthiness
Certificate if they operated in the manner suggested...
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of C
Smith
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 10:25 AM
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Daytime Anticollision Lights
<pilot4profit@sbcglobal.net>
Dave, I don't think you could make a better argument than that. Well
put. Craig Smith Do Not Archive
>"91.209. Aircraft lights. No person may:
>
>(b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision
light
>system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the
>anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command
>determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in
the
>interest of safety to turn the lights off."
>
>Operating continuously or normally in the daytime with
anticollision
>lights off, if the aircraft is so equipped, regardless of operating
>conditions would probably not be considered "in the interest of
safety"
>by the FAA.
How about this:
Mr. FAA judge, sir, as pilot-in-command, I determined it was not in
the
best interest of safety to operate my anticollision light system
because
a) it draws 5A of power during taxi, when my generator is not
putting
out enough current to keep the battery from discharging, and
b) at taxi speeds it causes excessive noise in my radios while I am
trying to listen for traffic in the pattern / copy clearances /
whatever
c) I calculated that the 14,400 square inches of my aircraft
glinting in
the sunlight occupy more retinal space in the eyes of any potential
observers than the 4 square inches of blinking light on my tail
Dave nbsp; Features Subscriptions
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.
p; available via
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
==========
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 |
|
Bob and list,
After loading TurboCAD v.10 on my computer in hopes of opening and editing
the .dwg files on the Aeroelectric website, I cannot get them to open. A
message pops up saying "no filter found matching this file". I have been
through the reference manual, but as a new user it did not shed light on the
problem. Any suggestions appreciated.
Tom Barter
Avid Magnum
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 |
|
kesleyelectric wrote:
> Bob and list,
>
> After loading TurboCAD v.10 on my computer in hopes of opening and
> editing the .dwg files on the Aeroelectric website, I cannot get them
> to open. A message pops up saying "no filter found matching this
> file". I have been through the reference manual, but as a new user it
> did not shed light on the problem. Any suggestions appreciated.
>
> Tom Barter
> Avid Magnum
Tom,
For some unknown reason my TurboCAD v10 system started doing the same
thing last week. I could not open my own drawings. I ended up
completely un-installing and re-installing TurboCAD. After that, it
worked again.
Steve
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 |
|
| Subject: | schematic revision |
Several listers had requested and received a copy of my power
distribution diagram a few weeks ago. To those many individuals, I
address this update.
Bench testing of the original design has exposed a flaw in the way the
Perihelion OV module is wired in. The module cannot tolerate over 18
volts on any of its terminals for more than a few milliseconds. Not
very robust-sounding for a module designed to trip at 16.2 volts, and
an expensive lesson to learn the hard way, but in the end, I think
this piece of hardware can be adapted successfully to this
application. The attached .xls file shows the revised connections for
the OV module, and I believe it lays out the bus architecture in a
more easily understood fashion. If you have an externally regulated
alternator on your plane, this scheme is of no concern to you and not
worth your time to study. If you have an IR alternator and no
external OV protection you are happy with, and need redundant power
for an all-electric ship, you might want to give it a look. This is
what I am going with, until Bob releases his IR alternator tamer, and
maybe even after ;-)
Open in Microsoft Excel.
Comments welcome.
-Bill Boyd
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Off Topic but related to Battery Charging |
Hi all
Maybe one of you electro gurus could point me in the right direction here.
My cordless electric drill (Makita) battery charger has stopped working. It
has a flashing light that says the battery is too hot and charging will
begin again when it cools down. I tried another battery and same thing
happens so I think the fault is more likely in the charger than two separate
batteries failing at the same time in the same way. There are three
connectors between the battery and the charger, positive, negative and a
third unmarked. I'm assuming the third is where it gets it temperature info
from. I looked inside the charger and the three connectors are all single
wire connectors, nothing appears to be broken or burned inside the charger.
Of course a new charger costs almost as much as a new drill, so if it can't
be fixed I'll just buy a new drill, then I'll have two drills and one
charger.
Thanks for any suggestions to troubleshoot further.
Tony
Velocity SEFG
62% done 78% to go
www.alejandra.net/velocity
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|