Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:19 AM - Re: Panel Wiring Reference? (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
2. 04:23 AM - Re: transponder antenna ground plane ()
3. 06:18 AM - Re: Panel Wiring Reference? (Christopher Barber)
4. 07:35 AM - Re: Panel Wiring Reference? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 07:35 AM - Re: 5 Volt Dimmer (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 09:40 AM - We can't build our own avionics (Ernest Christley)
7. 10:07 AM - Re: We can't build our own avionics (john@ballofshame.com)
8. 01:38 PM - Re: We can't build our own avionics (Ed Anderson)
9. 02:17 PM - Re: We can't build our own avionics (Richard Girard)
10. 02:25 PM - Re: We can't build our own avionics (Dj Merrill)
11. 02:48 PM - Re: We can't build our own avionics (Ed Anderson)
12. 03:45 PM - Re: We can't build our own avionics (Rob Housman)
13. 04:07 PM - Re: 5 Volt Dimmer (Don Vs)
14. 05:58 PM - Re: We can't build our own avionics (MLWynn@aol.com)
15. 06:29 PM - Re: We can't build our own avionics (Dennis Wieck)
16. 06:45 PM - Re: We can't build our own avionics (Dj Merrill)
17. 08:11 PM - Re: Panel Wiring Reference? (Christopher Barber)
18. 08:44 PM - off topic--2 batteries, one alternator (davidbf@centurytel.net)
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: | Re: Panel Wiring Reference? |
Here's your first stop, if not already visited:
_https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/pub/pub.html#aec9_
(https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/pub/pub.html#aec9)
Best 33 bucks you can spend. Visit the home page at:
_http://aeroelectric.com/_ (http://aeroelectric.com/) for connection to the connection. But you've
made the most important connection by being here on the Matronics list.
Stay tuned and enjoy the ride!
>From The PossumWorks in TN,
Confirmed Nuckollhead Mark Phillips, RV-6A "Mojo", Z-11
_http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/_
(http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/)
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
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: transponder antenna ground plane |
You will be fine. Antennas are part physics and part black magic. Really it fine
and the plate size is a ball park. Really the ground plane should or could be
infinite. George
---------------------------------
Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.
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: Panel Wiring Reference? |
Also, there is a college text book which is listed somewhere on the
site. It seems to be a first year electrical engineering reference.
Starts VERY basic.....which is what I needed. Just reading the first
few chapters (and ignoring the math....which too was even basic enough
for me to grasp in a passing manner) provided insight.
I regret I can't think of the name right now. I hope someone else can
chime in with it. MIne is at the hangar. I will try to grab it later.
I got the 1991 edition from Amazon for about $4 or $5 plus shipping
about a month ago. It proved useful.
All the best,
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: Fiveonepw@aol.com
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 2:17 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Panel Wiring Reference?
Here's your first stop, if not already visited:
https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/pub/pub.html#aec9
Best 33 bucks you can spend. Visit the home page at:
http://aeroelectric.com/ for connection to the connection. But you've
made the most important connection by being here on the Matronics list.
Stay tuned and enjoy the ride!
From The PossumWorks in TN,
Confirmed Nuckollhead Mark Phillips, RV-6A "Mojo", Z-11
http://websites.expercraft.com/n51pw/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
See what's free at AOL.com.
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: Panel Wiring Reference? |
At 08:13 AM 5/21/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>Also, there is a college text book which is listed somewhere on the
>site. It seems to be a first year electrical engineering
>reference. Starts VERY basic.....which is what I needed. Just reading
>the first few chapters (and ignoring the math....which too was even basic
>enough for me to grasp in a passing manner) provided insight.
>
>I regret I can't think of the name right now. I hope someone else can
>chime in with it. MIne is at the hangar. I will try to grab it later. I
>got the 1991 edition from Amazon for about $4 or $5 plus shipping about a
>month ago. It proved useful.
You may be referring to "Electronics Fundamentals - Circuits,
Devices and Applications" by Floyd. New and in the latest editions
this book is over $100. ANY of older editions are just fine and
can be found in many used book offers on the 'net for under $20. A
really good text at a bargain price.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
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 |
|
At 04:38 PM 5/19/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>I could put up with the strip and mash connectors as I use ferrules that
>give insulation support for this type of connector and, not the nest, but
>adequate electrical connection. Can you provide a wire diagram for the
>needed support parts if I use one Pot ? Thanks in advance.
Not sure what you're asking. I have now knowledge of the products
offered by others but I can sketch a diagram for a switchmode supply
based on one of the off-the-shelf chips. Is this what you're wanting?
Bob . . .
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | We can't build our own avionics |
The latest Sport Aviation has an article that attempts to explain why we
can't work on our own avionics. There's some mental gymnastic type
'logic' (the author basically states that "none of this applies" early
in the article) and some outright fallacies (a normal person can't
solder surface mount devices) amongst lots of exaggeration (repairing a
board would require a resistor or diode from the same lot used in the
original construction), a preachy style, and lots of bogeymen in the
form of the FAA and the FCC. There's even a veiled attack of Jim Weir's
audio panel. What is it with these people and their can't do attitudes?
Can we rise up in unison and tell the EAA that if this is all the help
we're going to get to please go back to actively ignoring us?
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: We can't build our own avionics |
My dad once told me: There are 3 kinds of people in this world. Those
who make things happen, those who watch things happen, and those who
wonder "What happened?"
Apparently there's a 4th kind that writes columns.
-John
www.ballofshame.com
> <echristley@nc.rr.com>
>
> The latest Sport Aviation has an article that attempts to explain why we
> can't work on our own avionics. There's some mental gymnastic type
> 'logic' (the author basically states that "none of this applies" early
> in the article) and some outright fallacies (a normal person can't
> solder surface mount devices) amongst lots of exaggeration (repairing a
> board would require a resistor or diode from the same lot used in the
> original construction), a preachy style, and lots of bogeymen in the
> form of the FAA and the FCC. There's even a veiled attack of Jim Weir's
> audio panel. What is it with these people and their can't do attitudes?
>
> Can we rise up in unison and tell the EAA that if this is all the help
> we're going to get to please go back to actively ignoring us?
>
>
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: We can't build our own avionics |
Hear! Hear!
I agree Earnest. The EAA is now all about suppressing (gently of course)
any true experimentation because:
1. They now cater to the Commercial establishment not the small
experimenter (you know where the real $$ comes from)
2. All the experimenter contributes to the EAA coffers are his subscription
dues - pennies compared to what they get from the commercial establishment.
3. Experimenters are an endangered minority in the EAA community - so they
and their viewpoints count for little
4. You just might embarrass EAA by showing you can build something better
and cheaper or worst showing them to be wrong.
5. While I do believe the EAA supports general aviation, they have surely
lost sight of their roots.
The above remarks are made are tongue in cheek (sort of)
I am blind in one eye and pushing 68 years of age. I Just learned to use
surface mount components on my PC boards. Like many I thought you had to
have tons of expensive equipment and specialized knowledge. I found out all
one has to do is search the internet and you would find at least a half
dozen different ways to do surface mounts at home - very cheaply in fact.
No need for a $13000 reflow oven when a $38 GE from Target does the job just
perfectly. Same for rework stations, in case you need to repair a surface
mount board, a little ingenuity and you can have one that will do the job
for less than $100.
No need for $200+ metal stencils for flowing solder paste when a $35 made
out of Mylar does the job just fine.
Now all of that pertains to a "hobbyist" or small production type operation.
Yes, when you have orders for a 100,000 units then there is a time for the
expensive equipment.
But, look at it this way, Earnest, those who unquestionable heed and follow
such "logic" as you cited will simply stay out of our way {:>).
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ernest Christley" <echristley@nc.rr.com>
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 12:38 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: We can't build our own avionics
> <echristley@nc.rr.com>
>
> The latest Sport Aviation has an article that attempts to explain why we
> can't work on our own avionics. There's some mental gymnastic type
> 'logic' (the author basically states that "none of this applies" early in
> the article) and some outright fallacies (a normal person can't solder
> surface mount devices) amongst lots of exaggeration (repairing a board
> would require a resistor or diode from the same lot used in the original
> construction), a preachy style, and lots of bogeymen in the form of the
> FAA and the FCC. There's even a veiled attack of Jim Weir's audio panel.
> What is it with these people and their can't do attitudes?
>
> Can we rise up in unison and tell the EAA that if this is all the help
> we're going to get to please go back to actively ignoring us?
>
>
>
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: We can't build our own avionics |
Ed, et al, For several years now I have railed against the fact that when
renewing my Expensive Aircraft Association dues, the question "Why are you
joining/renewing?" does not have "building an experimental aircraft" as a
reason. Pretty much says it all, doesn't it?
Rick
PS On the other hand, the latest issue of Sport Pilot has a great article on
using the McCulloch engine for LSA's. I guess one slips through now and then
despite their best efforts to the contrary.
On 5/21/07, Ed Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com> wrote:
>
> eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
>
> Hear! Hear!
>
> I agree Earnest. The EAA is now all about suppressing (gently of course)
> any true experimentation because:
>
> 1. They now cater to the Commercial establishment not the small
> experimenter (you know where the real $$ comes from)
> 2. All the experimenter contributes to the EAA coffers are his
> subscription
> dues - pennies compared to what they get from the commercial
> establishment.
> 3. Experimenters are an endangered minority in the EAA community - so
> they
> and their viewpoints count for little
> 4. You just might embarrass EAA by showing you can build something better
> and cheaper or worst showing them to be wrong.
> 5. While I do believe the EAA supports general aviation, they have surely
> lost sight of their roots.
> The above remarks are made are tongue in cheek (sort of)
>
> I am blind in one eye and pushing 68 years of age. I Just learned to use
> surface mount components on my PC boards. Like many I thought you had to
> have tons of expensive equipment and specialized knowledge. I found out
> all
> one has to do is search the internet and you would find at least a half
> dozen different ways to do surface mounts at home - very cheaply in fact.
> No need for a $13000 reflow oven when a $38 GE from Target does the job
> just
> perfectly. Same for rework stations, in case you need to repair a surface
> mount board, a little ingenuity and you can have one that will do the job
> for less than $100.
> No need for $200+ metal stencils for flowing solder paste when a $35 made
> out of Mylar does the job just fine.
>
> Now all of that pertains to a "hobbyist" or small production type
> operation.
> Yes, when you have orders for a 100,000 units then there is a time for the
> expensive equipment.
>
> But, look at it this way, Earnest, those who unquestionable heed and
> follow
> such "logic" as you cited will simply stay out of our way {:>).
>
> Ed
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ernest Christley" <echristley@nc.rr.com>
> To: "AeroElectric-List Digest Server" <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 12:38 PM
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: We can't build our own avionics
>
>
> > <echristley@nc.rr.com>
> >
> > The latest Sport Aviation has an article that attempts to explain why we
> > can't work on our own avionics. There's some mental gymnastic type
> > 'logic' (the author basically states that "none of this applies" early
> in
> > the article) and some outright fallacies (a normal person can't solder
> > surface mount devices) amongst lots of exaggeration (repairing a board
> > would require a resistor or diode from the same lot used in the original
> > construction), a preachy style, and lots of bogeymen in the form of the
> > FAA and the FCC. There's even a veiled attack of Jim Weir's audio
> panel.
> > What is it with these people and their can't do attitudes?
> >
> > Can we rise up in unison and tell the EAA that if this is all the help
> > we're going to get to please go back to actively ignoring us?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: We can't build our own avionics |
Ernest Christley wrote:
> <echristley@nc.rr.com>
>
> The latest Sport Aviation has an article that attempts to explain why
> we can't work on our own avionics. There's some mental gymnastic type
> 'logic' (the author basically states that "none of this applies" early
> in the article) and some outright fallacies (a normal person can't
> solder surface mount devices) amongst lots of exaggeration (repairing
> a board would require a resistor or diode from the same lot used in
> the original construction), a preachy style, and lots of bogeymen in
> the form of the FAA and the FCC. There's even a veiled attack of Jim
> Weir's audio panel. What is it with these people and their can't do
> attitudes?
I read the article last night, and was somewhat amused as well.
Basically, as the author states early on, apparently none of it applies
to experimental aircraft, which leads one to wonder why it was published
in the EAA magazine...
From my own research, which I freely admit may be flawed, I've
determined that none of the stuff that goes into my panel is required to
be TSO'ed (my random thoughts can be found on my website at
<http://econ.duke.edu/~deej/sportsman/tso.html> if anyone is
interested). (Presuming) If it does not need to be TSO'ed, then what
requirement would there be for the owner/builder to not be able to work
on it? Does anyone know of a FAR or other rule specifically saying that
we could not do this work? Or would this restriction just apply to
working on equipment that *is* TSO'ed? I'm curious. I figure that with
no TSO requirement, one is free to design, build, and fly with anything
you'd want in your panel, and presumably be able to repair and/or modify
as desired.
In the case of transmitters, there are likely FCC rules that need to
be followed, which may include who may perform work on the device. If
anyone has any information about this I'd greatly appreciate it
Thanks,
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ
http://econ.duke.edu/~deej/sportsman/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
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: We can't build our own avionics |
So true, Rick.
I renew for much of the same reason(s). I do believe the EAA plays a
strong role in defending our rights against those who would take them
away. Just wish they would throw us a few more bones more frequently
{:>)
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Girard
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 5:16 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: We can't build our own avionics
Ed, et al, For several years now I have railed against the fact that
when renewing my Expensive Aircraft Association dues, the question "Why
are you joining/renewing?" does not have "building an experimental
aircraft" as a reason. Pretty much says it all, doesn't it?
Rick
PS On the other hand, the latest issue of Sport Pilot has a great
article on using the McCulloch engine for LSA's. I guess one slips
through now and then despite their best efforts to the contrary.
On 5/21/07, Ed Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com> wrote:
<eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
Hear! Hear!
I agree Earnest. The EAA is now all about suppressing (gently of
course)
any true experimentation because:
1. They now cater to the Commercial establishment not the small
experimenter (you know where the real $$ comes from)
2. All the experimenter contributes to the EAA coffers are his
subscription
dues - pennies compared to what they get from the commercial
establishment.
3. Experimenters are an endangered minority in the EAA community -
so they
and their viewpoints count for little
4. You just might embarrass EAA by showing you can build something
better
and cheaper or worst showing them to be wrong.
5. While I do believe the EAA supports general aviation, they have
surely
lost sight of their roots.
The above remarks are made are tongue in cheek (sort of)
I am blind in one eye and pushing 68 years of age. I Just learned
to use
surface mount components on my PC boards. Like many I thought you
had to
have tons of expensive equipment and specialized knowledge. I found
out all
one has to do is search the internet and you would find at least a
half
dozen different ways to do surface mounts at home - very cheaply in
fact.
No need for a $13000 reflow oven when a $38 GE from Target does the
job just
perfectly. Same for rework stations, in case you need to repair a
surface
mount board, a little ingenuity and you can have one that will do
the job
for less than $100.
No need for $200+ metal stencils for flowing solder paste when a $35
made
out of Mylar does the job just fine.
Now all of that pertains to a "hobbyist" or small production type
operation.
Yes, when you have orders for a 100,000 units then there is a time
for the
expensive equipment.
But, look at it this way, Earnest, those who unquestionable heed and
follow
such "logic" as you cited will simply stay out of our way {:>).
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ernest Christley" < echristley@nc.rr.com>
To: "AeroElectric-List Digest Server"
<aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 12:38 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: We can't build our own avionics
> <echristley@nc.rr.com>
>
> The latest Sport Aviation has an article that attempts to explain
why we
> can't work on our own avionics. There's some mental gymnastic
type
> 'logic' (the author basically states that "none of this applies"
early in
> the article) and some outright fallacies (a normal person can't
solder
> surface mount devices) amongst lots of exaggeration (repairing a
board
> would require a resistor or diode from the same lot used in the
original
> construction), a preachy style, and lots of bogeymen in the form
of the
> FAA and the FCC. There's even a veiled attack of Jim Weir's audio
panel.
> What is it with these people and their can't do attitudes?
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
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: | We can't build our own avionics |
No problem with the FCC on "homebuilt" radios. Until the demise of it's
electronics kit business sometime in the mid-1980s Heathkit produced many
ham radio transmitter and receiver kits which were very popular with ham
radio operators. Other than the required license for operating a
transmitter, the FCC imposed no restrictions on the amateur radio builders.
The original Heathkit from the then-named Heath Aeroplane Company was not an
electronics kit but an airplane, the Heath Parasol.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Irvine, California
Europa XS Tri-Gear
S/N A070
Airframe complete
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj
Merrill
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: We can't build our own avionics
Ernest Christley wrote:
> <echristley@nc.rr.com>
>
> The latest Sport Aviation has an article that attempts to explain why
> we can't work on our own avionics. There's some mental gymnastic type
> 'logic' (the author basically states that "none of this applies" early
> in the article) and some outright fallacies (a normal person can't
> solder surface mount devices) amongst lots of exaggeration (repairing
> a board would require a resistor or diode from the same lot used in
> the original construction), a preachy style, and lots of bogeymen in
> the form of the FAA and the FCC. There's even a veiled attack of Jim
> Weir's audio panel. What is it with these people and their can't do
> attitudes?
I read the article last night, and was somewhat amused as well.
Basically, as the author states early on, apparently none of it applies
to experimental aircraft, which leads one to wonder why it was published
in the EAA magazine...
From my own research, which I freely admit may be flawed, I've
determined that none of the stuff that goes into my panel is required to
be TSO'ed (my random thoughts can be found on my website at
<http://econ.duke.edu/~deej/sportsman/tso.html> if anyone is
interested). (Presuming) If it does not need to be TSO'ed, then what
requirement would there be for the owner/builder to not be able to work
on it? Does anyone know of a FAR or other rule specifically saying that
we could not do this work? Or would this restriction just apply to
working on equipment that *is* TSO'ed? I'm curious. I figure that with
no TSO requirement, one is free to design, build, and fly with anything
you'd want in your panel, and presumably be able to repair and/or modify
as desired.
In the case of transmitters, there are likely FCC rules that need to
be followed, which may include who may perform work on the device. If
anyone has any information about this I'd greatly appreciate it
Thanks,
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ
http://econ.duke.edu/~deej/sportsman/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
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 |
|
Bob,
I was asking for a diagram of what you were talking in the excerp from your
May 19 E-Mail.
The pertinent part is included below
This product appears to offer a full range of
control for the purpose of controlling 14 volt
lamps. When installing this style of controller
for a 5v lighting system, the controlling
potentiometer and associated resistors would
want to be tailored such that max clockwise
for the potentiometer produces a maximum duty
cycle of 5/14 or 36%.
The product cited appears to use strip-m-and-
mash-em screw terminals once used by Vision
Microsystems, recently recommended by BMA
(See page 41 of
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 8:36 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 5 Volt Dimmer
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 04:38 PM 5/19/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>I could put up with the strip and mash connectors as I use ferrules that
>give insulation support for this type of connector and, not the nest, but
>adequate electrical connection. Can you provide a wire diagram for the
>needed support parts if I use one Pot ? Thanks in advance.
Not sure what you're asking. I have now knowledge of the products
offered by others but I can sketch a diagram for a switchmode supply
based on one of the off-the-shelf chips. Is this what you're wanting?
Bob . . .
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: | Re: We can't build our own avionics |
I had no idea that Heath started as an airplane builder. I used to do
factory repair of Heathkits when i was in college. Amazing how few people can
1)
solder properly and 2) follow directions. Most of the errors where cold
solder joints and misplaced componets.
Michael Wynn
RV 8 Fuselage
San Ramon, CA
************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
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: We can't build our own avionics |
Rob Housman wrote:
>
> No problem with the FCC on "homebuilt" radios.
Depends on how you are using them. It is still OK to build ham radios (
and kits are still available just not from Heathkit any more)
Until the demise of it's
> electronics kit business sometime in the mid-1980s Heathkit produced many
> ham radio transmitter and receiver kits which were very popular with ham
> radio operators. Other than the required license for operating a
> transmitter, the FCC imposed no restrictions on the amateur radio builders.
The FCC will not let you build an aircraft transmitter or work on one.
You have to have a GROL ( General Radiotelephone Operator License) or at
least be signed off by someone with one.
Here is a summary of when you need a commercial license (GROL):
"You need a commercial radio operator license to repair and maintain the
following:
* All ship radio and radar stations.
* All coast stations.
* All hand carried units used to communicate with ships and coast
stations on marine frequencies.
* All aircraft stations and aeronautical ground stations
* including hand-carried portable units) used to communicate with
aircraft.
* International fixed public radiotelephone and radiotelegraph
stations."
this is not just a FCC requirement but an international requirement.
Dennis
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: | Re: We can't build our own avionics |
Rob Housman wrote:
>
> No problem with the FCC on "homebuilt" radios. Until the demise of it's
> electronics kit business sometime in the mid-1980s Heathkit produced many
> ham radio transmitter and receiver kits which were very popular with ham
> radio operators. Other than the required license for operating a
> transmitter, the FCC imposed no restrictions on the amateur radio builders.
> The original Heathkit from the then-named Heath Aeroplane Company was not an
> electronics kit but an airplane, the Heath Parasol.
Hi Rob,
I agree there is no problem for radios operating in the Ham bands (I've
had my ham license for about 17 years or so) since one of the reasons
for establishing the ham bands was for experimenting, but generally it
is a different beast when talking about other frequencies. Anyone know
if you can legally build and use a transmitter in the aircraft bands in
an experimental aircraft? How about fixing and returning to service a
TSO'ed commercially produced aircraft band transmitter that is used in
an experimental aircraft? Any differences between these two scenarios?
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118
http://econ.duke.edu/~deej/sportsman/
"TSA: Totally Screwing Aviation"
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: Panel Wiring Reference? |
Yep, that was it. I grabed my copy from the hangar earlier today. I can't
imagine too many changes in the newer editions when it comes to the BASICS.
Even if there are, the '91 edition will surely surfice my rudementary needs.
You are correct, in the used market, it is a bargain.
All the best,
Chris Barber
Houston, Texas
President, EAA Houston
Chapter 12
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Panel Wiring Reference?
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 08:13 AM 5/21/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >Also, there is a college text book which is listed somewhere on the
> >site. It seems to be a first year electrical engineering
> >reference. Starts VERY basic.....which is what I needed. Just reading
> >the first few chapters (and ignoring the math....which too was even basic
> >enough for me to grasp in a passing manner) provided insight.
> >
> >I regret I can't think of the name right now. I hope someone else can
> >chime in with it. MIne is at the hangar. I will try to grab it later.
I
> >got the 1991 edition from Amazon for about $4 or $5 plus shipping about
a
> >month ago. It proved useful.
>
> You may be referring to "Electronics Fundamentals - Circuits,
> Devices and Applications" by Floyd. New and in the latest editions
> this book is over $100. ANY of older editions are just fine and
> can be found in many used book offers on the 'net for under $20. A
> really good text at a bargain price.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ----------------------------------------
> ( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
> ( give some practical results, but )
> ( that's not why we do it." )
> ( )
> ( Richard P. Feynman )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
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: | off topic--2 batteries, one alternator |
I have a boat I am wanting to hook up a second battery for running on-board
equipment and charge from the same 25 amp alternator of the motor. Thinking
about paralleling the batteries with a diode separating the starting battery
through positive lead, isolating it from the load of the on board equipment.
Should there be a concern of overcharging or more likely undercharging the
second battery? See anything wrong with this simple system?
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! --
|