Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:02 AM - Z14 ground circuit question(s) (rtitsworth)
2. 08:05 AM - Re: Z14 ground circuit question(s) (Ken)
3. 08:19 AM - Bob, Can you put Commtap back up? (discover)
4. 08:43 AM - Re: 2 Grounds (Bill Steer)
5. 10:00 AM - Re: LED Landing Lights again... (Eric M. Jones)
6. 10:48 AM - Re: Re: LED Landing Lights again... (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
7. 11:34 AM - Hi-V/Lo-V Monitor (David Lamphere)
8. 11:43 AM - Re: Re: LED Landing Lights again... (Terry Watson)
9. 12:49 PM - Re: Re: LED Landing Lights again... (Ernest Christley)
10. 12:58 PM - battery wiring (Peter C)
11. 01:09 PM - Re: battery wiring (Gilles Thesee)
12. 04:05 PM - battery wiring (Peter C)
13. 04:10 PM - Re: battery wiring (Gilles Thesee)
14. 04:47 PM - Re: 2 Grounds ()
15. 05:10 PM - Re: BMA Power Board? (marcausman)
16. 09:20 PM - Re: 2 Grounds (John Coloccia)
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: | Z14 ground circuit question(s) |
Bob, etal,
I'm building a composite aircraft (Lancair) with a Z-14 (dual alt, dual bat,
dual bus) with batteries in the tail. I originally decided that a shared
common ground wire back to the batteries was "reasonable safe" and an
appropriate compromise on a true dual electric system as there are few
likely failure modes for a well secured #2 Tefzel wire (the big ground
wire).
It "seems" the most likely potential failure is that one of the two end
attach points would fail (disconnect) - at either the large ring terminal
(crimped and soldered to the cable) or the nuts/studs used to connect them
to the ground bus (forest of tabs). While perhaps relatively unlikely, in
either of those failure scenarios, all my other dual bus redundancies are
for naught. To date, my only countermeasure for this risk was (attempted)
good workmanship. However, since neither ends is easily visible it seems I
might always be wondering what if(????).
Questions:
#1) Would it be appropriate to use a nylon lock nut or a steel lock nut to
secure the ground cable ring terminal to the ground stud(s)?
#2) Would it be reasonable to think about a second smaller parallel "backup"
ground wire which would be sized to only carry normal in-flight electrical
loads. Any suggestions on how to design/connect this so it does not try to
accept 1/2 of ground (return) current during engine start? Perhaps a
"backup ground" switch - normally left in the off position. Or perhaps a
settable breaker with one of the little red plastic rings holding it in the
off position.
#3) Would I be better off with two #5 ground cables simply wired in parallel
- ie. creating redundant "ends" for roughly the same current capacity and
weight. If so, how would I know if/when one failed (the smell of the other
during engine start?).
#4) Should I reconsider creating truly separate busses with independent
ground returns?
#5) I also got to looking at the single engine ground strap (ordered from B
& C). If it came loose, both alternators go dead together. I'd still have
~40 amp hours of combined batter juice (when new). However, I'm considering
two engine ground straps, which might also help further reduce any
electrical resistance there during staring.
#6) I'm planning on having a backup Airspeed, Altitude, and electric
Attitude indicator. If I put a small local battery on the attitude
indicator, then perhaps none of all the rest of the electrical equipment is
"essential" anyway. Bring a flashlight with fresh/backup batteries, a
handheld radio and perhaps a handheld GPS and forget all the above.
Sorry for the long message - Comments?
Rick
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Z14 ground circuit question(s) |
Hi Rick
FWIW I ran a #4 welding cable ground wire from each battery to its own
5/16" brass bolt on a forest of tabs ground plate on the firewall. Each
of those bolts has a ground strap to the engine and I think that two
ground straps is the most important thing to address your concerns.
Ground straps do fail. And of course flexible cable for battery
connections. My batteries are near the firewall so two ground wires was
not a big issue. Even though I only need one ground wire to crank the
engine I would expect to notice one electrical system starting to
fluctuate or something if its ground wire connections started to
degrade. With a long #4 ground wire from each battery I would also
expect to notice slower cranking as one cable won't be doing much, and
in my case one battery won't be doing much either.
Now that it's cold around here, I can report that my two little 8 AH
Dekka batteries crank my subaru just fine at -15C (5 F). One cranks it
briskly in warm weather but I haven't tried that in cold temps.
Ken
rtitsworth wrote:
>
>Bob, etal,
>
>I'm building a composite aircraft (Lancair) with a Z-14 (dual alt, dual bat,
>dual bus) with batteries in the tail. I originally decided that a shared
>common ground wire back to the batteries was "reasonable safe" and an
>appropriate compromise on a true dual electric system as there are few
>likely failure modes for a well secured #2 Tefzel wire (the big ground
>wire).
>
>It "seems" the most likely potential failure is that one of the two end
>attach points would fail (disconnect) - at either the large ring terminal
>(crimped and soldered to the cable) or the nuts/studs used to connect them
>to the ground bus (forest of tabs). While perhaps relatively unlikely, in
>either of those failure scenarios, all my other dual bus redundancies are
>for naught. To date, my only countermeasure for this risk was (attempted)
>good workmanship. However, since neither ends is easily visible it seems I
>might always be wondering what if(????).
>
>Questions:
>
>#1) Would it be appropriate to use a nylon lock nut or a steel lock nut to
>secure the ground cable ring terminal to the ground stud(s)?
>
>#2) Would it be reasonable to think about a second smaller parallel "backup"
>ground wire which would be sized to only carry normal in-flight electrical
>loads. Any suggestions on how to design/connect this so it does not try to
>accept 1/2 of ground (return) current during engine start? Perhaps a
>"backup ground" switch - normally left in the off position. Or perhaps a
>settable breaker with one of the little red plastic rings holding it in the
>off position.
>
>#3) Would I be better off with two #5 ground cables simply wired in parallel
>- ie. creating redundant "ends" for roughly the same current capacity and
>weight. If so, how would I know if/when one failed (the smell of the other
>during engine start?).
>
>#4) Should I reconsider creating truly separate busses with independent
>ground returns?
>
>#5) I also got to looking at the single engine ground strap (ordered from B
>& C). If it came loose, both alternators go dead together. I'd still have
>~40 amp hours of combined batter juice (when new). However, I'm considering
>two engine ground straps, which might also help further reduce any
>electrical resistance there during staring.
>
>#6) I'm planning on having a backup Airspeed, Altitude, and electric
>Attitude indicator. If I put a small local battery on the attitude
>indicator, then perhaps none of all the rest of the electrical equipment is
>"essential" anyway. Bring a flashlight with fresh/backup batteries, a
>handheld radio and perhaps a handheld GPS and forget all the above.
>
>Sorry for the long message - Comments?
>
>Rick
>
>
>
>
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: | Bob, Can you put Commtap back up? |
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/commtap/commtap.html
The link above to the roll your own comm tap doesn't work and I was hoping you
could reload it. Several Fellow Grumman owners are wanting to tie in their handhelds
and I wanted them to consider how to DIY
Thanks Bob
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97617#97617
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 |
|
Did you ever get an answer to this, Sam? I don't know if it applies to your
situation, but I'm using an intercom in addition to my Microaire 760 radio.
Bob kindly gave me a wiring diagram for hooking up the two together. That
diagram specifically separated the signal ground from the power ground.
Hope this helps.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Marlow" <sam@fr8dog.net>
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 11:32 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: 2 Grounds
>
> Do I need a separate ground for the Avionics, including the phones. Or
> will the ganged firewall (cool side) ground block be satisfactory for all
> my grounds? I think the audio panel (GMA 340) has a ground block.
> Thanks,
> Sam Marlow
>
>
> --
> 3:16 PM
>
>
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: LED Landing Lights again... |
Lexus has backed off on their introduction of high beam AND low beam in their Spring
cars in the US (probably due to the DOT tests). Now only their low beam
is LED. Audi R8 has low beam LEDs only as well I hear.
Personally, I would avoid lamps made with dozens of smaller LEDs--but they would
do in a pinch.
You could use four of the brightest MR16 3W Cree LED lamps such as: http://www.theledlight.com/dcbulbs.html. They would be just short of 500 lumens and 25 degrees, but being 6000k white makes up for a lot. Or at least you can build in the sockets for MR16 lamps and wait for the technology to get better (and it is getting better very FAST).
If you belong to an EAA chapter I would suggest getting together and buying samples
of significant LED lamps from time to time to benchmark the technology. It
would be money well spent.
Lamps of 70-90 lumens/watt are now for sale. http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20050622/106025/
Expect the following--
Initially many will reject LED lights because they will not be as bright and they
will be more expensive (you can't SEE energy savings or efficiency...). "Filament"
cults will arise, clinging to the "Warmth" of filaments versus the LED's
coldness. Some will claim the eye can see better or is more comfortable in
"Filament-lighted" workplaces. Some rich people will have totally "Filament-Lighted"
homes. Soon there will be filament light museums. Ah, yes......
"...Beans for supper tonight, six o'clock.
Navy beans cooked in Oklahoma ham...
Got to eat 'em with a spoon, raw onions
and cornbread; nothing else...."
--Will Rogers
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones@charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97648#97648
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: LED Landing Lights again... |
Ah yes, the incandescent debate is always interesting. California and
Australia are both on the verge of banning all incandescents in favor of
CFL. Energy efficiency is a good thing but banning an entire technology
rather than specifying actual metrics to gauge performance is a bad
thing. As they are both ready to go forward with their respective
legislations, GE has developed a technology that allows incandescents to
be nearly as efficient as CFL. Too bad the wording of the law is
counter to the intent.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Limbo
Do not archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric
M. Jones
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 11:59 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: LED Landing Lights again...
<emjones@charter.net>
Lexus has backed off on their introduction of high beam AND low beam in
their Spring cars in the US (probably due to the DOT tests). Now only
their low beam is LED. Audi R8 has low beam LEDs only as well I hear.
Personally, I would avoid lamps made with dozens of smaller LEDs--but
they would do in a pinch.
You could use four of the brightest MR16 3W Cree LED lamps such as:
http://www.theledlight.com/dcbulbs.html. They would be just short of 500
lumens and 25 degrees, but being 6000k white makes up for a lot. Or at
least you can build in the sockets for MR16 lamps and wait for the
technology to get better (and it is getting better very FAST).
If you belong to an EAA chapter I would suggest getting together and
buying samples of significant LED lamps from time to time to benchmark
the technology. It would be money well spent.
Lamps of 70-90 lumens/watt are now for sale.
http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20050622/106025/
Expect the following--
Initially many will reject LED lights because they will not be as bright
and they will be more expensive (you can't SEE energy savings or
efficiency...). "Filament" cults will arise, clinging to the "Warmth" of
filaments versus the LED's coldness. Some will claim the eye can see
better or is more comfortable in "Filament-lighted" workplaces. Some
rich people will have totally "Filament-Lighted" homes. Soon there will
be filament light museums. Ah, yes......
"...Beans for supper tonight, six o'clock.
Navy beans cooked in Oklahoma ham...
Got to eat 'em with a spoon, raw onions
and cornbread; nothing else...."
--Will Rogers
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones@charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97648#97648
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: | Hi-V/Lo-V Monitor |
I've tried calling the 316-685-8617 number for AEC a couple of days now - no answer.
Does anyone know what the AEC 9005-101 Hi-V/Lo-V monitor costs? Unless I have missed
it, the website doesn't give a price. Just the bare-bones PC card for a
DIY version.
Dave
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: LED Landing Lights again... |
Note that compact fluorescent and at least some 120 volt L.E.D. lights are
NOT dimmable, which means replacing millions of dimmer switches in houses.
The compact fluorescent are also incompatible with many remote controlled
lighting circuits, which means even more replacements. The California law
strikes me as a perfect example of unintended consequences outweighing the
benefits of the intended results. Let markets decide which technology is
best, not your elected representatives and non-elected bureaucrats.
Terry
p.s. More to the point of the AeroElectric list, I read somewhere -- most
likely here -- that the white or blue L.E.D. lights are less noticeable
during the daylight hours than the less natural yellow light of incandescent
bulbs, making L.E.D. landing lights less effective as attention-getters.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah yes, the incandescent debate is always interesting. California and
Australia are both on the verge of banning all incandescents in favor of
CFL. Energy efficiency is a good thing but banning an entire technology
rather than specifying actual metrics to gauge performance is a bad
thing. As they are both ready to go forward with their respective
legislations, GE has developed a technology that allows incandescents to
be nearly as efficient as CFL. Too bad the wording of the law is
counter to the intent.
Michael Sausen
-10 #352 Limbo
Do not archive
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: LED Landing Lights again... |
Terry Watson wrote:
>p.s. More to the point of the AeroElectric list, I read somewhere -- most
>likely here -- that the white or blue L.E.D. lights are less noticeable
>during the daylight hours than the less natural yellow light of incandescent
>bulbs, making L.E.D. landing lights less effective as attention-getters.
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
besthongkong.com has 'warm white' LEDs that are closer to what a
filament light creates. Nearly 150lm for it's 5-watts of consumption,
and only about $12 each.
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |
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 |
|
In my 912 powered Rans, the battery is going just behind the firewall
with the starter solenoid and manual master actually mounted right on
the battery terminals.You have suggested a brass bolt thru the firewall
to connect the ground cable from the battery and from engine ground.
Might it be preferable if I ran the ground straight thru the firewall to
the engine then had maybe a #10 wire from the battery to the firewall
for the rest of the frame grounding?
Thanks
Peter
Message 11
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: battery wiring |
Peter C a crit :
> In my 912 powered Rans, the battery is going just behind the firewall
> with the starter solenoid and manual master actually mounted right on
> the battery terminals.You have suggested a brass bolt thru the
> firewall to connect the ground cable from the battery and from engine
> ground. Might it be preferable if I ran the ground straight thru the
> firewall to the engine then had maybe a #10 wire from the battery to
> the firewall for the rest of the frame grounding?
Peter,
What advantage do you see in building a fireproof FWL pass-through for
your big wire, vs just drilling for your ground bolt ?
What exactly do you call "frame grounding" ?
Remember that all the grounds from your aircraft system should be
connected to the same point, and the ground stud and bus provide just
what is needed.
You may wish to see figure Z16, which was designed for the Rotax.
Regards,
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
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 |
|
Gilles my thinking was to address maximum cranking capability while
still providing a firewall ground with the #10 (or larger) wire.
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: battery wiring |
Peter C a crit :
> Gilles my thinking was to address maximum cranking capability while
> still providing a firewall ground with the #10 (or larger) wire.
You won't have any cranking problem with 6 or 4 wires, ground stud and a
recombinant gas battery.
That's the way I wired our project, and we've been flying for two years now.
Figure Z16 is really worth a close study.
Regards,
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
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 |
|
No, I didn't get an answer, and my grounds are just hanging waiting to be connected.
If I just knew where?
---- Bill Steer <steerr@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Did you ever get an answer to this, Sam? I don't know if it applies to your
> situation, but I'm using an intercom in addition to my Microaire 760 radio.
> Bob kindly gave me a wiring diagram for hooking up the two together. That
> diagram specifically separated the signal ground from the power ground.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Bill
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sam Marlow" <sam@fr8dog.net>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 11:32 AM
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: 2 Grounds
>
>
> >
> > Do I need a separate ground for the Avionics, including the phones. Or
> > will the ganged firewall (cool side) ground block be satisfactory for all
> > my grounds? I think the audio panel (GMA 340) has a ground block.
> > Thanks,
> > Sam Marlow
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 3:16 PM
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
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: BMA Power Board? |
Eric, if you're looking for ways to simplify wiring your -10 and have a very capable all-electric aircraft, take a look at www.verticalpower.com. There is lots of information on the web site. Regards, Marc
--------
Marc Ausman
http://www.verticalpower.com
RV-7 IO-390 Flying
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=97737#97737
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 |
|
Bleary eyed, but still almost thinking straight, I'll take a shot at
this....
Ground is ground is ground...however, the best grounding schemes would
use wiring with 0 resistance and 0 length. Since we have to use real
wire, the second best choice is to keep the avionics ground wires as
short as possible to a single grounding point. That ground point then
gets grounded to the firewall ground. This is good because it keeps
everything very short AND it makes wiring a lot more convenient (only 1
wire going to the firewall). What you DON'T want to do is mount a piece
of copper on the instrument panel, for example, and then tie that to the
firewall ground because then you'll have caused a ground loop (you'll
have ground coming from the panel metal also in this example). Wherever
you tie them together, the only metal it should be touching (other than
the other avionic ground wires) is the firewall ground.
As far as a "signal" ground, I'm assuming we're talking about the serial
lines? Anything that communicates with each other should have their
signal grounds tied together. I'm not up to my avionics install yet but
if avionics are anything like the real word, how you do this, exactly,
is dependent on the specific thingy you're installing. In a perfect
world, you would have a signal ground pin somewhere but I believe some
avionics don't quite work this way. If you list the avionics you're
trying to make play with each other, I'm sure someone probably has a
good answer.
-John
www.ballofshame.com
sam.marlow@adelphia.net wrote:
>
> No, I didn't get an answer, and my grounds are just hanging waiting to be connected.
If I just knew where?
>
> ---- Bill Steer <steerr@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Did you ever get an answer to this, Sam? I don't know if it applies to your
>> situation, but I'm using an intercom in addition to my Microaire 760 radio.
>> Bob kindly gave me a wiring diagram for hooking up the two together. That
>> diagram specifically separated the signal ground from the power ground.
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Sam Marlow" <sam@fr8dog.net>
>> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 11:32 AM
>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: 2 Grounds
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Do I need a separate ground for the Avionics, including the phones. Or
>>> will the ganged firewall (cool side) ground block be satisfactory for all
>>> my grounds? I think the audio panel (GMA 340) has a ground block.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Sam Marlow
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 3:16 PM
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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! --
|