Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:08 AM - Re: Re: How hard is it to wire a panel (Bill Settle)
2. 05:30 AM - Re: How hard is it to wire a panel (Harley)
3. 06:49 AM - starter/battery contactor wiring and choices (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 06:49 AM - Re: Re: How hard is it to wire a panel (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 07:48 AM - Re: Runaway trim (Doug Windhorn)
6. 08:04 AM - Re: Some AeroElectric Connection Questions (Dan Reeves)
7. 08:55 AM - How to keep electric trim live ()
8. 09:20 AM - Re: Some AeroElectric Connection Questions (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 09:38 AM - Re: How to keep electric trim live (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 11:16 AM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 22 Msgs - 06/11/07 (Michael Pereira)
11. 12:37 PM - Re: SL-30 discontinued.....NOT (Mike)
12. 12:37 PM - Re: Rear-Battery version of Z-19 (n707sm)
13. 03:01 PM - Re: Re: Rear-Battery version of Z-19 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 05:57 PM - Ammeter Shunt ()
15. 05:59 PM - Re: REFLECTOR: Ignition Noise (Ron Brown)
16. 07:36 PM - Re: Ammeter Shunt (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
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: How hard is it to wire a panel |
Oh Great..! I just downloaded it.
Bill Settle
>
> From: "Doug Baleshta" <DBaleshta@tru.ca>
> Date: 2007/06/11 Mon PM 12:43:22 EST
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: How hard is it to wire a panel
>
> Hi, one of my anti-virus programs is showing this program infected with
> Malware - Adware.Win32.DM.I Does anyone one else have experience with
> this? (It was downloaded from the West Coast Server).
>
> Doug
>
> >>> Jerry2DT@aol.com 11/06/2007 9:56 am >>>
>
> Let me jump in here with a huge "DITTO"... When I started wiring, GRT,
> TruTrak, 2x ICOM's, Dynon, XPDR, I knew nothing about it except how to
> change a wall outlet. Good friend Bob Haan suggested Bob's book and I
> never looked back. Using Z-11 as a basis and excellent/free schematic
> software from
> http://www.expresspcb.com/ExpressPCBHtm/Download.htm I wired my
> now-flying RV-6a. I've had a couple glitches and the schematics prove
> invaluable. No guessing which wire does what as they are all marked on
> the schematic as well as the wire itself.
>
> HTH,
> Jerry Cochran
> From: David Abrahamson <dave@abrahamson.net>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: How hard is it to wire a panel?
>
>
> oh and... without Bob's book, I would have had no choice but to
> throw myself on the mercy of a panel builder -- and would have had an
> infinitely harder time setting up a working electrical system. I
> used Z12 and have been very happy with it.
> D
>
>
>
>
>
> See what's free at 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: How hard is it to wire a panel |
Bill, Doug, et al....
No problem...I just downloaded it as well, and after seeing your posts,
I checked it...and nothing was found. We've run into other false
positives either here or on the Cadd forum I'm also a member of ...it
can happen quite regularly with some detection programs.
Returning false positives is fairly common with many virus/adware/spy
detection programs. Which is why I use AVG (and Ad-aware and Spybot).
AVG (unlike McAffee , AOL, Norton and Symantec) has a history of being
able to accurately distinguish false readings from real ones, not to
mention it's continuous 100% detection record of the nasties!
The link apparently had nothing in it or attached to it.
Harley Dixon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Settle wrote:
>
> Oh Great..! I just downloaded it.
>
> Bill Settle
>
>
>> From: "Doug Baleshta" <DBaleshta@tru.ca>
>> Date: 2007/06/11 Mon PM 12:43:22 EST
>> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: How hard is it to wire a panel
>>
>> Hi, one of my anti-virus programs is showing this program infected with
>> Malware - Adware.Win32.DM.I Does anyone one else have experience with
>> this? (It was downloaded from the West Coast Server).
>>
>> Doug
>>
>
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: | starter/battery contactor wiring and choices |
>Comments/Questions: Bob,
>I would appreciate your making a statement summarizing the reasons for
>running starter current through a "Battery Contactor". I have tried to
>glean an answer to this question from your posts on this subject, but it
>seems to be related to other considerations that I found confusing.
>I am planning to run starter current from battery through a Tyco LEV200
>contactor that has a 500A continuous rating and a peak rating of 2500A.
>The starter is a Jabiru 1500W motor. Jabiru has very little information on
>its characteristics, so I am not ready to accept their statement that they
>manufacture it. The battery is an Odyssey PC680.
If you believe that you NEED that battery contactor
based on an assessment of its stellar RATINGS, know
that the battery contactor of choice in light aircraft
for nearly 70 years has been a $20 device with a 70A
rating. Contactors and switches are rated for their
ability to make and break certain kinds of loads at
various voltages. A battery contactor seldom needs to
make and break a significant load and then only once
per flight cycle. Hence, what appears to be an
"under-rated", el-cheeso contactor is a choice that
scores well on the cost-of-ownership study.
Now, if your focus is on running current, the Tyco
product has some appeal for its built in electronics
designed to reduce holding current to a fraction of
that needed to pull the contactor in. This too may
be a driving consideration in you selection of parts
but know that builders have reported that various
systems on their airplanes have be influenced by the
noise generated by the pull-in/hold controller. This
part has not been looked at in the lab to evaluate
suitability for use aboard aircraft.
The real ratings for Jabiru's starter are relatively
immaterial. Like all small starter motors, they'll
generate inrush currents that will scare your socks
off and draw running currents that are pretty spectacular
when compared with the demands of other accessories
aboard the airplane. These numbers can be largely
ignored when you understand that ALL starters do
this, all batteries have to DELIVER to this demand,
battery contactors have to CARRY the loads, and
starter contactors have to SWITCH the loads. This
is discussed in the chapters of AeroElectric Connection
on Batteries and Contactors.
The reason for putting the battery contactor in
series with the cranking circuit is simple. The
battery contactor (or battery switch) has a first
duty of being able to make 99.7% of the ship's
wiring go 'cold' when the master is off. This is why
the battery contactor is mounted right at the battery.
The second task is to back up the starter contactor
should the starter contactor "stick". The battery
contactor allows you to bring order to a starter
run-on situation that is pretty exciting to control
by any other means.
Unless you're really hard over on the current draw
thing, it's my best recommendation that you not depart
from those products suggested in the Z-figures
and other writings on aeroelectric.com website. It's
been my observation that reasons given by most
builders for breaking new ground are not well
researched or confirmed by repeatable experiment.
If it's your goal to become a good researcher, then
by all means, try anything you like. However, if
it's your goal to achieve first daylight under the
wheels with a minimum of time and risk to future
cost of ownership, then you're on solid ground by
sticking with parts and architectures proven in
the field on thousands of aircraft.
I'll recommend you join us on the AeroElectric-List
for still more comprehensive support of your questions.
Best yet, the answers can be shared with hundreds of
other builders.
Bob . . .
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: How hard is it to wire a panel |
At 06:07 AM 6/12/2007 -0500, you wrote:
><billsettle@bellsouth.net>
>
>Oh Great..! I just downloaded it.
This software is from a very reputable source. I've been
using the current version and its ancestors for about
7 years. I'm exceedingly skeptical that the virus 'hit'
is a valid positive discovery.
Bob . . .
>Bill Settle
>
> >
> > From: "Doug Baleshta" <DBaleshta@tru.ca>
> > Date: 2007/06/11 Mon PM 12:43:22 EST
> > To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: How hard is it to wire a panel
> >
> > Hi, one of my anti-virus programs is showing this program infected with
> > Malware - Adware.Win32.DM.I Does anyone one else have experience with
> > this? (It was downloaded from the West Coast Server).
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: Runaway trim |
Kevin,
I think you understand the design arrangement just fine. I understood your
concern to be if the power switch failed to make contact, not get stuck in
contact as you describe below. I would agree that a simple test of the trim
switch alone should result in no action and could easily be accomplished by
quickly testing each switch individually - both should result in no trim
response.
Doug
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Horton" <khorton01@rogers.com>
Sent: Sunday, 10 June, 2007 9:03
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Runaway trim
> <khorton01@rogers.com>
>
> I'm not sure if I've misunderstood your intended design, or if you have
> misunderstood my point.
>
> I understood the intended design to require two switches to be activated
> to make the trim move. One switch controls power to the whole system,
> and the other controls the signal to the servo. The idea is that both
> switches need to fail to trigger a runaway trim (and, a wiring fault
> can't trigger a runaway trim, as there is no power in the wires unless
> switch #1 is selected).
>
> My concern is that if you just use the system normally, you can't detect
> the failure case where switch #1 has failed in the hot position. In this
> failure case, the trim will still work normally - it will move in the
> selected direction, and it will only move when switch #2 is selected.
> But, this failure has negated the protections provided by this design.
> If you are concerned enough about runaway trim to install this design
> architecture, then you should devise some sort of periodic test to
> confirm that switch #1 has not failed in the hot position. E.g., leave
> switch #1 in the neutral position, and push switch #2 - the trim should
> not move. If the trim moves, this tells you that switch #1 has failed in
> the hot position.
>
> Kevin
>
> On 10 Jun 2007, at 09:55, Doug Windhorn wrote:
>
>> <N1DeltaWhiskey@comcast.net>
>>
>> Kevin,
>>
>> Good point. Normally, I would tweak the trim into takeoff position
>> which would verify proper operation. I have a checklist item for that
>> purpose, but it is easy to see how actual operation of the trim setting
>> could be overlooked (e.g., already set at takeoff trim position)..
>>
>> However, even overlooking this step would not be the equivalent of the
>> trim going to extreme and should be totally controllable for slow a
>> go-around and landing to address the problem.
>>
>> Regards, Doug
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Horton" <khorton01@rogers.com>
>> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, 07 June, 2007 14:34
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Runaway trim
>>
>>
>>> <khorton01@rogers.com>
>>>
>>> On 7 Jun 2007, at 15:47, Doug Windhorn wrote:
>>>
>>>> Use two (on)-off-(on) rocker switches, installed side by side. The
>>>> 1st switch is the power control switch. The 2nd switch is the servo
>>>> control switch. Both must be activated simultaneously to move the
>>>> servo. Wire the outputs [(on)] of the first switch to together and
>>>> input to the 2nd switch [off] and any relays or other components in
>>>> the trim system needing power. Unless the power switch is moved to
>>>> either (on) position, there is no power to the trim system and it
>>>> should not go anywhere; no need to get into a reactive situation, or
>>>> have a pullable breaker.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If you go down this road, you should add a first flight of the day
>>> ground test to confirm that the power switch has not failed in the hot
>>> position. This would be a dormant failure, which would defeat the
>>> protection provided by this design, and would only be detected by a
>>> specific test.
>>>
>>> Kevin Horton
>>> RV-8 (Finishing Kit)
>>> Ottawa, Canada
>>> http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
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: Some AeroElectric Connection Questions |
Thanks Bob!
I gotcha now,,,,I understand the need for the fusible link to protect the wire
that in essence extends the buss (fuse block) to the breaker...versus the other
setup where the breaker is right on the buss itself,,,I love it when the light
bulb in my head finally goes on. Thanks for throwing the switch so to speak.
But,,,that just leads to another question,,,how are the wires from the battery
to the battery buss to the diode to the E-buss protected? Seems like a good
place for a fusible link as well. I'm sticking to the drawings but would like
to understand how or if these wires get protected.
Thanks!
Dan
"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> wrote:
At 10:53 AM 5/30/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>Thanks for all of the great training you provide both on the list and in
>your AeroElectric Connection!
>
>I am planning on using Z-11 to wire my RV-7A but using B&C's LR3C
>regulator in place of the Ford regulator, the AEC9005-101 low voltage
>monitor module, and the crowbar o.v. protection module since all 3
>functions are built into the LR3C.
>
>I'm using Z-12 as a reference for the LR3C portion of the wiring and my
>question is why does the LR3C just require a 5A breaker between the bus
>and the master switch, whereas in the Z-11 setup a fusible link is
>required between the bus and the master switch and the breaker is then
>shown between the switch and regulator?
Breakers and fuses protect wires. When you're wired with breakers
at the bus bars, then EVERY WIRE extending from the bus bar
is protected by the breaker. When you use fuse blocks and then
EXTEND the bus by means of a wire from the fuse block to a breaker,
then that piece of wire needs protection . . . i.e. fusible link.
The fusible link is weak enough to protect the wire but robust enough
to open the breaker before befor the link opens.
>
>Also, on Z-11, the picture that shows the terminal locations for the
>S700-2-XX series of switches is numbered opposite to what is shown on page
>11-16 of the AeroElectric Connection and both mention keyway up. Which is
>correct?
See note 15 in Appendix Z and
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Carling_Micro/Carling_Micro.pdf
>
>Thanks again for all of your help!
You're welcome sir!
Bob . . .
---------------------------------
Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel.
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: | How to keep electric trim live |
I was reading that it is a desirable feature to have electric trim on a
Europa in event of an emergency you turn things off.
What would be a good way to acomplish this, and somehow reduce risk of
killing battery if it was left connected.
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
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: Some AeroElectric Connection Questions |
At 08:02 AM 6/12/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>Thanks Bob!
>
>I gotcha now,,,,I understand the need for the fusible link to protect the
>wire that in essence extends the buss (fuse block) to the breaker...versus
>the other setup where the breaker is right on the buss itself,,,I love it
>when the light bulb in my head finally goes on. Thanks for throwing the
>switch so to speak.
>
>But,,,that just leads to another question,,,how are the wires from the
>battery to the battery buss to the diode to the E-buss protected? Seems
>like a good place for a fusible link as well. I'm sticking to the
>drawings but would like to understand how or if these wires get protected.
The "rule of thumb" for whether or not wires get/need
protected considers two things:
(1) size of wire and likelihood of added value for protection
- this study shows that the FAT wires between various major
components (battery, battery contactor, bus, starter contactor,
starter) do not benefit from added protection in light aircraft.
(2) length of wire - small wires (14AWG or so and smaller) of
less than 6" in length and not tied into bundles of other
wires do not pose a hazard if left "unprotected". Wires
in the z-figures marked with a (*) are intended to be
short feeders . . . I may have missed getting all such
wires so marked.
See FAR23.1365 and 23.1357
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
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: How to keep electric trim live |
At 03:54 PM 6/12/2007 +0000, you wrote:
>
>I was reading that it is a desirable feature to have electric trim on a
>Europa in event of an emergency you turn things off.
>
>What would be a good way to acomplish this, and somehow reduce risk of
>killing battery if it was left connected.
Run it from the battery bus through a switching scheme exceedingly
unlikely to "stick".
The full sized, DPDT (on)-off-(on) toggle switch is a control
device that falls in this category. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Flight/Trim/Battery_Bus_Trim.pdf
Bob . . .
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: AeroElectric-List Digest: 22 Msgs - 06/11/07 |
Time: 09:28:35 AM PST US
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: George is still at it . . . (yep and
why not?)
[ snip ]....
> This isn't about achieving consensus on the science . . .
> science stands on its own and requires nobody's consensus.
It's sad that in our society's current state the above is
almost a radical statement. ie. Any one that doesn't believe
global warming is man made, abnormal and will kill us all soon
is instantly an idiot, heretic, and a tool of the oil industry.
Never mind about the merit (or not) of any details in the
argument.
I apologize in advance for mentioning a politically divisive issue
in this forum, but I couldn't help myself, this list is recreation
for me specifically it's the polar opposite of the above example.
The vast majority of the back and forth here is based on facts not
name calling as opposed to the garbage I have to deal with all over
the TV, in newspapers, and on the web. No one tells anyone they are
too stupid to wire a homebuilt here, even if they do have differences
with Bob (or anyone else).
The occasional degeneration to the societal norm that occurs from
time to time on this list really stands out and annoys me
probably out of proportion to what it deserves.
Bob's says everyone can wire a homebuilt airplane as long as they
stick to the basic science and think critically about how and why you want to
do something. The rest of the damn world is telling me I'm too stupid to
understand a particular concept if I don't agree with the argument some
elitist is putting forth. So, I'm really trying to understand,
exactly how Bob is a bad guy even if you think his ideas are
totally insane. Is "Please explain this in simple terms/science"
a trick question ?
> If you perceive an error in my offering of the science, I'd
> be pleased to hear about it. But if you're simply defending
> some perceived right of individuals to make lots of noise,
> graffiti the walls and leave their beer cans behind, you're
> not going to get any sympathy or support from me.
>. . . and I will continue to defend both my person and the
>decorum in this classroom.
Right on, man.
c'ya,
Mike
-----
mjpnj@yahoo.com
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
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: | SL-30 discontinued.....NOT |
Greg,
First, most of us that fly real IFR more then once a year have IFR GPS
systems. Second, if you plan the trip with VOR and have a VFR GPS you
can actually fly real IFR with that GPS receiver as long as you verify
your position. You can verify you position using a verity of methods:
VOR, NDB, INS, IRS, TACAN, IFR LORAN, RADAR (ATC) or plain old reference
to the ground if you are in VMC. The key issue is planning not actual.
So Greg I would say that you need to brush up on your knowledge of IFR
flying vs. IFR planning.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Buckaroo Banzai
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 10:10 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: SL-30 discontinued.....NOT
Lest the FAA get the wrong impression from your question, many of us
still use VORs for enroute navigation. At least, in the IFR system
where a VFR GPS can't legally be used for navigation.
Greg
Mike <mlas@cox.net> wrote:
Dean,
The SL-70 has been long discontinued. A final note to you is that the
last medical that you pass will have dust on it before the final ILS
system is decommissioned. So I think the Nav portion of you Nav/Com
will get use well into the future. Besides, other then approaches who
still continues to use VOR for enroute navigation today other then
backup?
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From:
_____
Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's HYPERLINK
"http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=47093/*http:/tv.yahoo.com/collections/222"Co
medy with an Edge to see what's on, when.
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List"http://www.matroni
cs.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
"http://forums.matronics.com"http://forums.matronics.com
--
3:15 PM
--
3:15 PM
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: | Re: Rear-Battery version of Z-19 |
Hi Bob,
Thank you for all you do to support the Experimental community and especially for
your time and effort spent to create Architecture drawings such as the new
Z-19/RB!
I am implementing this architecture in my Eggenfellner powered RV-7A and I have
a few questions:
1) For each battery (minus) it's shown to connect locally to the airframe. Providing
that good, secure connections with 4AWG (or welding cable) are done locally,
does this negate the need to run heavy (2AWG or 4AWG) ground cabling forward?
2) Relates to question 1. If it's necessary to run ground cabling forward, is
it acceptable/reasonable to instead: a) Connect the battery minus posts with a
single, short welding cable, and b) Connect another single short welding cable
for local ground, and c) continue with a single large (2AWG or 4AWG) cable forward
to connect to the Brass Firewall Thru Bolt for the Firewall, Panel and
downstream Avionics ground busses? (This seems overdone, redundant and heavy
to me, but I just want to be sure I haven't missed something here)
3) I have located all of the components for this architecture drawing with the
exception of the E-BUS ALT FEED RELAY. Would you mind please providing a suggested
supplier/part for this component?
Thank you again!
Very best regards,
Michael O'Brien
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=118074#118074
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: Rear-Battery version of Z-19 |
At 12:37 PM 6/12/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Hi Bob,
>
>Thank you for all you do to support the Experimental community and
>especially for your time and effort spent to create Architecture drawings
>such as the new Z-19/RB!
>
>I am implementing this architecture in my Eggenfellner powered RV-7A and I
>have a few questions:
>
>1) For each battery (minus) it's shown to connect locally to the
>airframe. Providing that good, secure connections with 4AWG (or welding
>cable) are done locally, does this negate the need to run heavy (2AWG or
>4AWG) ground cabling forward?
Yes.
>2) Relates to question 1. If it's necessary to run ground cabling
>forward, is it acceptable/reasonable to instead: a) Connect the battery
>minus posts with a single, short welding cable, and b) Connect another
>single short welding cable for local ground, and c) continue with a single
>large (2AWG or 4AWG) cable forward to connect to the Brass Firewall Thru
>Bolt for the Firewall, Panel and downstream Avionics ground busses? (This
>seems overdone, redundant and heavy to me, but I just want to be sure I
>haven't missed something here)
There's a boatload of ol' mechanic's tales out there about
the hazards of local grounds in aircraft. Aside from the obvious
and predictable issues involving ground loops (when particularly
vulnerable systems share grounds spread out over the airframe),
there are no great concerns for using the airframe as a primary
ground structure. There's some value in considering the used of
a separate ground wire for tubular structures where we've see
some instances of structure getting magnetized due to high current
flow . . . but that doesn't apply to you.
>3) I have located all of the components for this architecture drawing with
>the exception of the E-BUS ALT FEED RELAY. Would you mind please
>providing a suggested supplier/part for this component?
Any sealed plastic power relay in the 20+ amp class is fine.
B&C sells their S704-1. This product from Radio Shack
http://tinyurl.com/2sno9m
is fine too.
>Thank you again!
My pleasure sir.
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 |
|
Bob,
I'm confused. I note in the "Connection" you support, if only one
electrical instrument is to be installed it should be an ammeter to
measure battery charge/discharge. (I think I got it close to what you
wrote). However, I don't see a shunt, except in the alternator circuit
for some diagrams. Please 'un-confuse' me.
I've used the Z16 for my Rotax powered Kitfox and am considering adding
the shunt on the neg side of the battery.
Thanks
Frank
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: REFLECTOR: Ignition Noise |
Sorry, Brian, No Beer tonight!!!
I have worked all day chasing the noise problem on my Garmin 430:
Disconnected the shield for the power to the EI at the instrument panel (it
was indeed grounded on both ends), found a loose ground wire on the single
point grounding terminal block on the panel; ran the Jeff Rose EI off an
independent battery, using a separate twisted wire, grounded only at the
Electronic Ignition end; installed a big capacitor at the EI end of the
power wire, installed the Radio Shack inductive noise filter kit swapped
out the direct fire coils (NAPA IC39SB); replaced one plug wire at a time,
removed the EI timing head so that I could spin it and make sparks while the
engine was not running looking for spark jumping anywhere, none found.
I'm tired - I think I'll drink the beer that I was going to send you - and
go to bed and sleep on it!!! (and copy the Aeroelectric list and see if
anyone else has any suggestions short of replacing the EI with a Slick -
ain't going there!!!!)
ARRGGHHHHH!!!
Ronnie Brown
Velocity 173 Elite RG - IO360 Lycoming
----- Original Message -----
From: "michalk" <michalk@awpi.com>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: REFLECTOR: Ignition Noise
"power for the EI is in a shielded wire"
"the EI is grounded on the firewall"
Do you mean that your power path to the EI is battery->panel switch->EI?
And that this wire is a single conductor shielded wire?
How does your firewall ground return to the battery? If you patch in a
battery to your EI and do not send this power down the duct, does that
solve the problem?
You have two problems. First, your 430 is a receiver of this noise, and
second, your EI is generating this noise.
Fixing the noise generator usually makes other things work better, so
start there. The EI may have a large dV/dT, meaning a large voltage
spike in a short time causes magnetic flux lines and electrical fields
to be coupled into other things.
If your shield is connected in two places, remove the one closest to
your instrument panel. If the noise goes away, good, but you still have
a problem. The EI sent current down that shield because its a least
path of resistance back to your battery. Impedance goes up as frequency
goes up ... not just resistance. Your EI will be much happier giving
you a stronger spark if you fix the root cause of your problem. Look at
your ground path. No need really for shielded wires. The real need is
to have your power and ground wires twisted. Shielding is for
capacitive noise. If your power is balanced (no common mode noise) then
there is no energy to capacitively couple. Most likely you are
magnetically coupling the noise.
Don't fix the symptom, fix the problem. Use twisted wire, and if you
still want shielded, shield it at the EI(the radiator), not at the
instrument panel. Try to not ground your EI power to the firewall.
Even if the ground is attached to the firewall, the electricity will
like that path better, resulting in lower noise.
I'll bet you a beer that will fix it.
Ronnie Brown wrote:
> The headsets are grounded at the PS4000 intercom and no where else (but I
> will verify) The head set wiring is through the keel, EI is powered and
> grounded through the right side duct. Power for the EI is in a shielded
> wire and the shielded wire is grounded at the mag - by way of the panel.
> Now that I think of it, the EI shield is grounded twice! Might need to
> lift
> one end. Hmmm - thanks for the suggestions, Brian!
>
> The EI is grounded on the SS firewall as well as to the engine (but not
> using a braided wire - wonder if that would help?)
>
> Ron
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "michalk" <michalk@awpi.com>
> To: "Velocity Aircraft Owners and Builders list" <reflector@tvbf.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 2:12 PM
> Subject: Re: REFLECTOR: Ignition Noise
>
>
> It's not a high frequency coupling.
>
> I would guess that your antenna shield is a ground path for your EI.
> Are your headset jacks insulated from the instrument panel? Or, do your
> headset wires share a common ground with your EI?
>
> Ron Brown wrote:
>> Actually, I have been chasing a spark noise in my Garmin 430 for a
>> several weeks. It is only coming in the 430, it goes away when I turn
>> off the Jeff Rose Electroair electronic ignition, it changes frequency
>> with engine RPM, it does not come in to the #2 com which is a lowly
>> Microair 760, it does not make noise if the antenna is disconnected from
>> the 430. Arrrggghhh!
>>
>> I have changed antennas from right to left, used a portable antenna,
>> bought new plugs and plug wires, connected the 430 to a separate
>> battery, swapped 430's with a friend, removed ground wires, cleaned and
>> retightened them, installed noise filters on the 430 and Electroair,
>> removed and inspected new plugs and new wires. Next I am going to
>> remove the timing unit from the distributor hole, spin the unit and see
>> if I can hear sparks, then try replace one high energy coil at a time.
>>
>> We are planning to fly to Colorado next week and I sure would like to
>> NOT hear sparking noises when I am receiving a far away aircraft or ATC.
>>
>> Any other suggestions from the collective???
>> Ronnie
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: Ammeter Shunt |
At 08:53 PM 6/12/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob,
>
>I m confused. I note in the Connection you support, if only one
>electrical instrument is to be installed it should be an ammeter to
>measure battery charge/discharge. (I think I got it close to what you
>wrote). However, I don t see a shunt, except in the alternator circuit
>for some diagrams. Please un-confuse me.
>
>I ve used the Z16 for my Rotax powered Kitfox and am considering adding
>the shunt on the neg side of the battery.
>
>Thanks
My apologies sir. I wrote that section a long time ago
and it's going to be updated at revision 12. If you have
only one electrical system monitor, it should be a low voltage
warning light. If you add anything on top of that, I'd recommend
an expanded scale voltmeter on the e-bus and/or an alternator
loadmeter . . . but both of those are only small peeks at a variety
of test points you'll need to look at for diagnosis. Ammeters
and voltmeters are poor monitoring tools. And as diagnostic
tools, they are only a part of what's necessary for troubleshooting.
Bob . . .
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! --
|