Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:00 AM - Re: Shower of Sparks (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 06:03 AM - Shower of Sparks ()
3. 07:08 AM - Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation ()
4. 07:29 AM - E-Mag P-Mag (Michael T. Ice)
5. 08:24 AM - Re: Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation (Ernest Christley)
6. 10:35 AM - Re: Shower of Sparks (Richard Tasker)
7. 10:51 AM - Re: Re: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation (Richard Girard)
8. 11:35 AM - Homemade 1/4 wave Comm Antennas (rtitsworth)
9. 01:00 PM - Re: Homemade 1/4 wave Comm Antennas (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 05:57 PM - Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article (Michel Creek)
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: Shower of Sparks |
At 01:40 PM 8/22/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>Bob:
>
>
>In discussing Shower of Sparks ignition, you have mentioned Unison Slick
>Start. On the Aircraft Spruce webpage, then imply that Slick Start is
>only for use with Slick magnetos, not Bendix units. Do you think there s
>a technical reason, or that s just certification/lawyer talk?
>
>
>Thanks,
Shower of Sparks or "SOS" enhancement to magneto performance
still stands out in my mind as one of those extra-ordinary
examples of clever design from the CSP era (copper, steel
phenolic). Contemporary designers can select from millions
of commercial off the shelf parts and in particular, little
chunks of multi-legged plastic offering functionality from
"simple" amplifiers (20 transistors!) to gigaflop-fast
super-processors (tens of thousands of transistors).
In the time when Shower of Sparks was crafted, the catalog
of materials available to our creative ancestors was limited
to a relatively few, rudimentary components. Yet, by understanding
the simple-ideas for the materials at hand and the task to
be accomplished, devices like . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Regulators/ALTREG2.jpg
were produced with out-the-door performance on a par with
the later . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Regulators/Ford_SS_Reg_open.jpg
or most modern incarnations like . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Regulators/Alternator_Regulators.jpg
Shower of sparks was conceived as a melding of magneto
and Kettering ignition systems for battery enhancement
of spark energy during low speed operations (cranking).
The enhancement had two important features . . . a
battery excited, electromechanical "buzzer" that would
supply the magneto primary with a rapidly repeating
pulse of energy from the battery and a second set of
delayed-timing, cranking-points temporarily switched
in parallel with the advanced-timing, running-points.
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Shower-of-Sparks/ShowerOfSparks.pdf
I've not been made privy to the simple-ideas that support
functionality of the Slick Start. My present
understanding of the product suggests that it does not
require a second set of points. From this I infer
the device is fitted with some intelligence that
delays delivery of battery enhanced pulses by some
amount which emulates the delayed-timing points common
to the earlier system.
Assuming my understanding is correct, then I can
deduce no reason why the product (or one exceedingly
similar to it) wouldn't function with any brand
of magneto. But without the support of the designers
or a cognizant technician, we'll not have enough
information to craft a definitive answer to your
question. Perhaps someone on the List has a lead
on the details of this systems design and operation.
Bob . . .
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Shower of Sparks |
8/23/2007
Hello Tim, Will you permit a non Bob to answer?
Unison originaly built the SlickSTART P/N SS1001 for only Slick magnetos. In
1998 they added SlickSTART P/N SS1002 for use with TCM/Bendix magnetos.
So which version of the SlickSTART Magneto Start Booster (solid state
ignition starting vibrator) you use will depend upon which brand of magnetos
you use.
The Unison Service Letter L-1492 (Revision D is current) contains a caution
that says using P/N SS1001 with Bendix/TCM magnetos may result in magneto
damage and engine stoppage.
There are some fairly recent postings in the aeroelectric archives that may
be of value or interest to someone considering SlickSTART. I suggest that
you search for SoS Vibrator Recommendations, or Slick Start. You can also
pick out the pertinent items if you search for bakerocb.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
PS: It would be more precise if we used the generic term "starting vibrator"
when writing in general about this subject and reserve "Shower of Sparks"
for referring specifically to the TCM/Bendix mechanical vibrator and
"SlickSTART" for referring specifically to the Unison solid state starting
vibrator.
---------------- RESPONDING TO ----------------------------------------
Time: 10:41:48 AM PST US
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Shower of Sparks
From: <tdawson-townsend@aurora.aero>
Bob:
In discussing Shower of Sparks ignition, you have mentioned Unison Slick
Start. On the Aircraft Spruce webpage, then imply that Slick Start is
only for use with Slick magnetos, not Bendix units. Do you think
there's a technical reason, or that's just certification/lawyer talk?
Thanks,
Tim Dawson-Townsend
tdt@aurora.aero
617-500-4812 (office)
617-905-4800 (mobile)
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: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation |
I went through, I'm unhappy with Sport Aviation magazine, a
few years ago. This is not new or just in the last year. Actually I
thought I saw some improvement last year and earlier this
year. When I wrote a while back, the EAA replied, incl Tom P.
I was upset about the "fluffy" articles that where like ads and
short on facts; I was also unhappy they dropped the Cafe
Foundation Org group and their articles. I was told they
where too technical. They also asked me to write articles.
Clearly month to month they are desperate to get content.
They do need contributors, you and me, to write articles. To
be fair, putting out a magazine to a bunch of eccentric hard-
core crazies like us, who actually build planes we fly, can't
satisfy everyone. (Note: this tongue in-cheek sarcasm.)
Seriously EAA has a lot of folks with wide interest.
The guy who claimed/implied he was behind the shake-up, if
that is what happen, I assume is an alternative engine rotary
guy? Clearly Sport Aviation and their one alt engine article
every 12-18 month would not make that crowd happy. The
wide interest of members aside, your membership in EAA
should be more than just the magazine.
As far as membership, the magazine is the main benefit
people see. I can see some dropping because they don't
read the magazine. However ALL print media is having
problems, INTERNET and FREE VAST CONTENT.
-Internet has long out paced the detailed content of any
monthly general EAA magazine could ever hope to match by
a huge factor.
-Gas prices are high and people getting out flying
The EAA does a lot of stuff behind the scenes on behalf of
the experimental aircraft community. You really don't think
AOPA will push for kit planes, when they lobby
and represent certified manufactures, corporate and non-
scheduled commercial operators. Sure there's common
ground, but AOPA is not really orientated to our niche of GA.
EAA is all we have. They do a lot and they don't blow their
horn like AOPA. Not an AOPA put down, AOPA has its place
and we need more power on Capital hill for sure. Bad
magazine or not I'll stay a EAA member.
I have 20 years of EAA articles ripped from issues over the
years, lots of good stuff. They should print monthly
electrical, structure and general build/maintenance articles,
not one or five every year, total. Again they need continent, but
the Tony B. days are long gone. I suspect they don't want to
pay for content. From their Tax return the Mag cost them a lot.
As far as the editor firing, an expert pilot or plane builder
might know planes but not make a great editor either. Sure
the editor should have a clue. It's like many businesses
where a good technical guy gets promoted to
management, a line Captain becomes Chief
pilot, once competent technical guys, now are mediocre
managers and bureaucrats. Much a do about nothing.
George RV-7
---------------------------------
Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows.
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 |
|
Hello Bob,
I hope you enjoyed your trip to Alaska as much as we enjoyed having you here.
Have you had any time to review the recent postings concerning the E-Mag P-Mag
wiring issues?
The folks at Emagair have indicated their willingness to talk with you.
Blue Skies,
Mike Ice
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: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation |
gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com wrote:
> The guy who claimed/implied he was behind the shake-up, if
> that is what happen, I assume is an alternative engine rotary
> guy? Clearly Sport Aviation and their one alt engine article
> every 12-18 month would not make that crowd happy. The
> wide interest of members aside, your membership in EAA
> should be more than just the magazine.
>
I neither claimed or implied that I was behind the shake-up. I did
claim and imply that dropping membership was behind the shake-up. My
facts may be very much in error. Time will tell.
I am a rotary guy. The one article they publish concerning alternative
engines once every 12-18 months is generally full of error, bias and
broad-based silliness. They search out one commercial entity that has
done the most advertising without searching out any of the other players
that may actually have a larger impact. That's what makes that crowd
unhappy. Just like wire pushers are unhappy about articles on
electronics that ignore basic, simple ideas, and spouts ridiculous noise
about having to get replacement components from the original batch used
to manufacture a device. We are unhappy that the magazine that is
supposed to be representing an educational organization is full of nonsense.
You state, "the magazine is the main benefit people see." Everyone I've
ever talked to agrees on this. Wouldn't it follow that the directors of
the organization would realize this, and make sure that the main benefit
was actually a benefit? If they need articles, why do they not request
them, right there in the magazine? How about a few lines of text to
refer would-be authors to set of directions on the Internet for how to
submit an article? If they're doing something behind the scenes, then
use the magazine to tell the members what's happening, instead of
printing another press release about an unaffordable jet engine that is
to big for any of the planes we're building. (Do any of us really care
that Diamond Jet is meeting certification criteria?) I can't believe
the EAA leadership is to dense to see something so obvious, which leaves
me with only one explanation. They don't care. In the same way that
TV broadcasters don't really care if I enjoy the show, as long as I sit
for the commercials, the EAA leadership doesn't care.
Well, that's fine. They don't have to care about my sensibilities. If
they have some nefarious "behind the scenes" activity going on, then
they need to tell me about it. Until they do, I refuse to be the beaten
wife that repeatedly returns to an abusive home. The EAA is not a
monopoly and never will be "all we have". It's just what we've settled for.
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: Shower of Sparks |
Nothing to do with shower of sparks, but you should be aware that the
"gigaflop-fast super-processors" now include over one "billion"
transistors, and fast approaching tens of billions!
Dick
Do not archive
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> chunks of multi-legged plastic offering functionality from
> "simple" amplifiers (20 transistors!) to gigaflop-fast
> super-processors (tens of thousands of transistors).
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: Shakeup at EAA Sport Aviation |
Ernest, These things happen and I am sympathetic. I, too, have little use
for "Martha Stewart Flying". I always complain each time I re-up that
although the form as many reasons for "Why are you joining/renewing?", not
one of them is "I am building an airplane".
On the other hand, My EAA membership has paid for itself many times over
whether I am renting a car from Hertz or the $1000 of discounts I've gotten
from the various schools I've attended over the last year.
Every once and a while, they do print an informative article. They are few
and far between, but it does happen.
As far as their coverage of alternative engines, I'll paraphrase William
Randolph Hearst, "Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one" as
"the accuracy of any article in any publication belongs to the man who wrote
it."
Write that article and I, for one, will be happy to read it.
Rick
On 8/23/07, Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> echristley@nc.rr.com>
>
> gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com wrote:
> > The guy who claimed/implied he was behind the shake-up, if
> > that is what happen, I assume is an alternative engine rotary
> > guy? Clearly Sport Aviation and their one alt engine article
> > every 12-18 month would not make that crowd happy. The
> > wide interest of members aside, your membership in EAA
> > should be more than just the magazine.
> >
> I neither claimed or implied that I was behind the shake-up. I did
> claim and imply that dropping membership was behind the shake-up. My
> facts may be very much in error. Time will tell.
>
> I am a rotary guy. The one article they publish concerning alternative
> engines once every 12-18 months is generally full of error, bias and
> broad-based silliness. They search out one commercial entity that has
> done the most advertising without searching out any of the other players
> that may actually have a larger impact. That's what makes that crowd
> unhappy. Just like wire pushers are unhappy about articles on
> electronics that ignore basic, simple ideas, and spouts ridiculous noise
> about having to get replacement components from the original batch used
> to manufacture a device. We are unhappy that the magazine that is
> supposed to be representing an educational organization is full of
> nonsense.
>
> You state, "the magazine is the main benefit people see." Everyone I've
> ever talked to agrees on this. Wouldn't it follow that the directors of
> the organization would realize this, and make sure that the main benefit
> was actually a benefit? If they need articles, why do they not request
> them, right there in the magazine? How about a few lines of text to
> refer would-be authors to set of directions on the Internet for how to
> submit an article? If they're doing something behind the scenes, then
> use the magazine to tell the members what's happening, instead of
> printing another press release about an unaffordable jet engine that is
> to big for any of the planes we're building. (Do any of us really care
> that Diamond Jet is meeting certification criteria?) I can't believe
> the EAA leadership is to dense to see something so obvious, which leaves
> me with only one explanation. They don't care. In the same way that
> TV broadcasters don't really care if I enjoy the show, as long as I sit
> for the commercials, the EAA leadership doesn't care.
>
> Well, that's fine. They don't have to care about my sensibilities. If
> they have some nefarious "behind the scenes" activity going on, then
> they need to tell me about it. Until they do, I refuse to be the beaten
> wife that repeatedly returns to an abusive home. The EAA is not a
> monopoly and never will be "all we have". It's just what we've settled
> for.
>
>
--
Rick Girard
"Ya'll drop on in"
takes on a whole new meaning
when you live at the airport.
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: | Homemade 1/4 wave Comm Antennas |
Bob,
In Ch13 of the Connection you describe how to make a =BC wave Comm
antenna
with 4-10 1=94 copper strips as the ground plane. You also briefly
describe a
center =93commoning disk=94.
Question:
How big can/should the center communing disk be?
What happens if the center disk is ~11=94 radius (~1/2 the size of the
strips)?
Does this tend to mess-up the resonant length/properties of the strips?
If said antenna is being placed on the belly of a composite aircraft
with
various metal items in direct proximity overhead (flap motor, aux fuel
pump,
flap mechanism, avionics bay, etc), is there anything that should be
done to
help =93shield=94 the antenna (and/or ground plane strips) from the
effects of
the metal items overhead?
Rick
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: Homemade 1/4 wave Comm Antennas |
At 02:32 PM 8/23/2007 -0400, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>
>In Ch13 of the Connection you describe how to make a wave Comm antenna
>with 4-10 1 copper strips as the ground plane. You also briefly describe
>a center commoning disk .
>
>
>Question:
>
>How big can/should the center communing disk be?
What ever is convenient. A commoning disk with a
radius equal to height of antenna, then you have
a contiguous, "ideal" ground plane. If you make
it too small, it serves no purpose as a doubler.
Someplace between ideal and too small, it provides
a convenient point to tie off the radials -AND-
possibly a reinforcing effect of skin around
the antenna.
>What happens if the center disk is ~11 radius (~1/2 the size of the strips)?
No problem.
>Does this tend to mess-up the resonant length/properties of the strips?
The tips of ground plane radial strips are
measured from base of antenna to tip of radial.
The larger the commoning disk, the shorter
the radial. Think of it as starting with an
ideal disk and then cutting away as much
material as practical to provide an effective
ground plane, effective doubler and minimum
weight. Something on the order of 6" in diameter
and 4-10 radials is a reasonable compromise.
>If said antenna is being placed on the belly of a composite aircraft with
>various metal items in direct proximity overhead (flap motor, aux fuel
>pump, flap mechanism, avionics bay, etc), is there anything that should be
>done to help shield the antenna (and/or ground plane strips) from the
>effects of the metal items overhead?
No. The proximate effect of a ground plane is
to attenuate (shield) the antenna from conductor/
noise effects on the opposite side.
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: | Strobes - Light Plane Maintenance Article |
The Sept 2007 edition of LPM has an article on strobe lights. I'm curious
as to how accurate the following excerpt is:
"A strobe power supply that has been left "off" for long periods - weeks or
months - is subject to eventual failure because the electrolytic capacitors
used in the device will loose polarity formation. As a rule, a strobe that
has been inactive for one year can be considered eligible for sudden
failure"
I have two Areoflash power supplies that were purchased new six months ago
and have since been waiting for final installation. Do I need to "exercise"
this strobe system to keep it from going bad?
Thanks,
Mike Creek
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! --
|