Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:17 AM - Re: NOT airplane related-digital phone sevice (Chuck Jensen)
2. 08:37 AM - Re: A simple ECU (Ernest Christley)
3. 09:53 AM - Re: NOT airplane related-digital phone sevice (B Tomm)
4. 10:30 AM - Re: NOT airplane related-digital phone sevice (Ernest Christley)
5. 02:37 PM - Re: A simple ECU (Peter Harris)
6. 05:53 PM - Re: A simple ECU (Ed Anderson)
7. 06:24 PM - Re: A simple ECU (Peter Harris)
8. 06:38 PM - Re: A simple ECU (Peter Harris)
9. 07:53 PM - Re: NOT airplane related-digital phone sevice (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 09:32 PM - Re: NOT airplane related-digital phone sevice (B Tomm)
11. 10:57 PM - Re: NOT airplane related-digital phone sevice (jetboy)
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: | NOT airplane related-digital phone sevice |
As long as phone service is being discussed (hey, electrons are
involved), I'll pass along a true story. I was experiencing numerous
dropped calls and very few bars of reception. I thought I would call
the cell phone company to complain (the name will remain anonymous but
Verizon's service is about like all the rest)in an instance where I was
getting poor reception.
I called 'em up and told 'em in was in their service area and the
reception was lousy. They said that I might be too far from the tower.
I told 'em I doubted it because I was standing right next to the tower
and was looking up at it. Her reply was "oh, that's the problem, you're
too close to the tower".
There must be a sweet-spot, +/-2 feet, where a person a person is far
enough, but not too far, from the tower to get good reception and no
dropped calls. I'm still looking for the s-s.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
MauleDriver
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: NOT airplane related-digital phone
sevice
--> <MauleDriver@nc.rr.com>
I have both a regular Telco phone line and digital phone service from
the cable TV company and can make two observations after 2 years of dual
service:
1) Having 1 line of each type appears to be better than having both of
the same type (see Z-14)
2) The differences are very local and specific to the actual physical
characteristics of the wire installation. In other words, I can not
point to any service qualities that are intrinsic to the providers or
the technologies.
Some experiences:
- the Telco line has been down 3 times in 2 years. One was a "local
switch" problem and the other 2 were inadvertant cuts to the buried
line on my property. The (also buried) cable line was not effected so a
level of service was maintained.
- My data service to the cable modem has 'burped' several times but the
phone service thru the same device was maintained.
- A power surge from a thunderstorm took a computer and the cable modem
down. Though it took a day to get everything back up, the digital phone
service was in place in the time it took the modem to reboot. with no
further action required.
- I have cross-talk between the 2 lines just as I had before switching
one line to digital. The problem apparently caused by house wiring.
- I use the two lines interchangeably to make and receive a variety of
calls. I can perceive no difference in quality or anything else.
Interestingly, the clearest sounding international call I have ever
recieved was from a US cellphone roaming in Beijing... and received on
my cellphone. Go figure.
I've found the digital phone service surprisingly solid and have no
qualms about using it exclusively. Both providers seem pretty
motivated right now so service has been very responsive in both cases.
Bill "trying to wire my RV10 with a Z-14" Watson
do not archive
Dale Ensing wrote:
> Forgive me for using this forum but its the best source I could think
> of.......
>
> Interested in opinions on why digital phone service from the cable TV
> company might be better than service from the old phone company.?
> Dale Ensing
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: A simple ECU |
Peter Harris wrote:
>
> Thanks Ken I had not checked the price of Megasquirt it is cheaper than I
> expected. I guess I am interested in making something like the EC2 series
> from Real World Solutions, but will take a closer look at the Megasquirt.
>
> Peter
>
Peter, I'm working on a MegaSquirt system. The kits while cheap, seem
to be extremely solid with quality components, and the documentation is
excellent.
The system I've worked out uses two of the Ford EDIS-4 ignition modules,
and a standby manual fuel feed to provide an amazing amount of system
redundancy. I've got a little more airframe and electronics
installation work left, then I will be full-bore concentrating on the
engine installation. I'd be happy to discuss what I'm working on with you.
--
"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in
a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside,
thoroughly used up, totally worn out, with chocolate in one hand and wine in
the other, loudly proclaiming 'WOO HOO What a Ride!'"
--Unknown
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: | NOT airplane related-digital phone sevice |
I've had cell trouble inside the top floor of an office building. The
building's roof across the parking lot (about 400 feet away) had the cell
tower on it at the same height as where I was. After some testing with the
techs at the cell company it was determined that the cell tower was
over-driving my cellular data communicator. I had a friend build an
attenuator and installed it between the antenna and the cell pack and since
then all is well. Oddly enough, the way we discovered this was when I moved
the cell pack outside the building (to find better reception) it worked best
inside the elevator. This was the first clue that the signal was too
strong. I wonder about the health of those who work in that building
everyday.
Bevan
RV7A wiring
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chuck
Jensen
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 6:16 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: NOT airplane related-digital phone sevice
--> <cjensen@dts9000.com>
As long as phone service is being discussed (hey, electrons are involved),
I'll pass along a true story. I was experiencing numerous dropped calls and
very few bars of reception. I thought I would call the cell phone company
to complain (the name will remain anonymous but Verizon's service is about
like all the rest)in an instance where I was getting poor reception.
I called 'em up and told 'em in was in their service area and the reception
was lousy. They said that I might be too far from the tower.
I told 'em I doubted it because I was standing right next to the tower and
was looking up at it. Her reply was "oh, that's the problem, you're too
close to the tower".
There must be a sweet-spot, +/-2 feet, where a person a person is far
enough, but not too far, from the tower to get good reception and no dropped
calls. I'm still looking for the s-s.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
MauleDriver
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: NOT airplane related-digital phone sevice
--> <MauleDriver@nc.rr.com>
I have both a regular Telco phone line and digital phone service from the
cable TV company and can make two observations after 2 years of dual
service:
1) Having 1 line of each type appears to be better than having both of the
same type (see Z-14)
2) The differences are very local and specific to the actual physical
characteristics of the wire installation. In other words, I can not point
to any service qualities that are intrinsic to the providers or the
technologies.
Some experiences:
- the Telco line has been down 3 times in 2 years. One was a "local switch"
problem and the other 2 were inadvertant cuts to the buried line on my
property. The (also buried) cable line was not effected so a
level of service was maintained.
- My data service to the cable modem has 'burped' several times but the
phone service thru the same device was maintained.
- A power surge from a thunderstorm took a computer and the cable modem
down. Though it took a day to get everything back up, the digital phone
service was in place in the time it took the modem to reboot. with no
further action required.
- I have cross-talk between the 2 lines just as I had before switching one
line to digital. The problem apparently caused by house wiring.
- I use the two lines interchangeably to make and receive a variety of
calls. I can perceive no difference in quality or anything else.
Interestingly, the clearest sounding international call I have ever
recieved was from a US cellphone roaming in Beijing... and received on my
cellphone. Go figure.
I've found the digital phone service surprisingly solid and have no qualms
about using it exclusively. Both providers seem pretty motivated right now
so service has been very responsive in both cases.
Bill "trying to wire my RV10 with a Z-14" Watson do not archive Dale Ensing
wrote:
> Forgive me for using this forum but its the best source I could think
> of.......
>
> Interested in opinions on why digital phone service from the cable TV
> company might be better than service from the old phone company.?
> Dale Ensing
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: NOT airplane related-digital phone sevice |
B Tomm wrote:
>
> I've had cell trouble inside the top floor of an office building. The
> building's roof across the parking lot (about 400 feet away) had the cell
> tower on it at the same height as where I was. After some testing with the
> techs at the cell company it was determined that the cell tower was
> over-driving my cellular data communicator. I had a friend build an
> attenuator and installed it between the antenna and the cell pack and since
> then all is well. Oddly enough, the way we discovered this was when I moved
> the cell pack outside the building (to find better reception) it worked best
> inside the elevator. This was the first clue that the signal was too
> strong. I wonder about the health of those who work in that building
> everyday.
>
There's a fundamental lesson here that applies to all RF communication
devices.
You have to design the reciever for a particular amount of power. The
reciever works by sensing the RF energy as it goes up and down, and then
converting and amplifying the energy to give you a sound in a speaker.
All very complicated, but the gist is that the input signal has to be
moving up and down within a certain range. Don't apply enough power,
and the reciever doesn't have enough amplification power to make the
voice heard (or the signal can just get sort of lost in the input
circuits through attenuation). Apply to much power, and the reciever
is driven to the high rail and stays there. The reciever is basically
"always on".
When designing a cell tower, you want to reach people a mile away. You
need to pour quite a lot of energy out of an antennae to cover an area
with a 1 mile radius (I don't know the actual coverage of a tower. 1
mile just sounds good). So, you turn the power up so that recievers 1
mile away can get the signal up off the bottom rail, but that driver the
reciever that is only 10ft away to the top rail...and keeps it there.
Same thing will happen in aircraft radios. Put the transmitter to close
to the reciever, and you will overdrive it. Sometimes, more is less.
--
"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in
a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside,
thoroughly used up, totally worn out, with chocolate in one hand and wine in
the other, loudly proclaiming 'WOO HOO What a Ride!'"
--Unknown
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 |
|
Thanks Ernest. At this stage it looks like the EC2 has cheapest ECU as well
as other features that suit aircraft. Two Megasquirts would come close.
I have just completed istallation and tuning with a Haltech ECU but it is
ean exoensive overkill with no ECU redundancy.
We are looking at making a more affordable redundant unit.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest
Christley
Sent: Thursday, 30 August 2007 1:36 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A simple ECU
<echristley@nc.rr.com>
Peter Harris wrote:
<peterjfharris@bigpond.com>
>
> Thanks Ken I had not checked the price of Megasquirt it is cheaper than I
> expected. I guess I am interested in making something like the EC2 series
> from Real World Solutions, but will take a closer look at the Megasquirt.
>
> Peter
>
Peter, I'm working on a MegaSquirt system. The kits while cheap, seem
to be extremely solid with quality components, and the documentation is
excellent.
The system I've worked out uses two of the Ford EDIS-4 ignition modules,
and a standby manual fuel feed to provide an amazing amount of system
redundancy. I've got a little more airframe and electronics
installation work left, then I will be full-bore concentrating on the
engine installation. I'd be happy to discuss what I'm working on with you.
--
"Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in
a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside,
thoroughly used up, totally worn out, with chocolate in one hand and wine in
the other, loudly proclaiming 'WOO HOO What a Ride!'"
--Unknown
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: A simple ECU |
Hi Peter,
For what it is worth, I started out with an HALTECH F3 unit way back in the
90s. The engine ran fine with it although to tune the higher RPM, you had
to take a laptop airborne with you - not the best means of tuning in a
sprightly RV aircraft.
But, the unit eventually failed me (fortunately during a ground run up)
causing all 4 injectors to stick in the open position and dump a lot of
gasoline through the exhaust pipe before I finally realized what was
happening and shut the unit off.
I then switched to the RWS EC2 and found it much more to my liking - no lap
top, much easier to refine the fuel map, etc. but, most importantly it the
EC2 had a redundant system with the flick of a switch and the price was
very reasonable.
There are no doubt a number of good systems out there but for the $$ I think
the EC2 wins the competition.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris@bigpond.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 5:35 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: A simple ECU
> <peterjfharris@bigpond.com>
>
> Thanks Ernest. At this stage it looks like the EC2 has cheapest ECU as
> well
> as other features that suit aircraft. Two Megasquirts would come close.
> I have just completed istallation and tuning with a Haltech ECU but it is
> ean exoensive overkill with no ECU redundancy.
> We are looking at making a more affordable redundant unit.
> Peter
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest
> Christley
> Sent: Thursday, 30 August 2007 1:36 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A simple ECU
>
> <echristley@nc.rr.com>
>
> Peter Harris wrote:
> <peterjfharris@bigpond.com>
>>
>> Thanks Ken I had not checked the price of Megasquirt it is cheaper than I
>> expected. I guess I am interested in making something like the EC2 series
>> from Real World Solutions, but will take a closer look at the Megasquirt.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>
> Peter, I'm working on a MegaSquirt system. The kits while cheap, seem
> to be extremely solid with quality components, and the documentation is
> excellent.
>
> The system I've worked out uses two of the Ford EDIS-4 ignition modules,
> and a standby manual fuel feed to provide an amazing amount of system
> redundancy. I've got a little more airframe and electronics
> installation work left, then I will be full-bore concentrating on the
> engine installation. I'd be happy to discuss what I'm working on with
> you.
>
> --
> "Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely
> in
>
> a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside,
> thoroughly used up, totally worn out, with chocolate in one hand and wine
> in
>
> the other, loudly proclaiming 'WOO HOO What a Ride!'"
> --Unknown
>
>
>
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 |
|
Thanks Ed it is shaping up that way.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed
Anderson
Sent: Thursday, 30 August 2007 10:52 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A simple ECU
<eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
Hi Peter,
For what it is worth, I started out with an HALTECH F3 unit way back in the
90s. The engine ran fine with it although to tune the higher RPM, you had
to take a laptop airborne with you - not the best means of tuning in a
sprightly RV aircraft.
But, the unit eventually failed me (fortunately during a ground run up)
causing all 4 injectors to stick in the open position and dump a lot of
gasoline through the exhaust pipe before I finally realized what was
happening and shut the unit off.
I then switched to the RWS EC2 and found it much more to my liking - no lap
top, much easier to refine the fuel map, etc. but, most importantly it the
EC2 had a redundant system with the flick of a switch and the price was
very reasonable.
There are no doubt a number of good systems out there but for the $$ I think
the EC2 wins the competition.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris@bigpond.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 5:35 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: A simple ECU
> <peterjfharris@bigpond.com>
>
> Thanks Ernest. At this stage it looks like the EC2 has cheapest ECU as
> well
> as other features that suit aircraft. Two Megasquirts would come close.
> I have just completed istallation and tuning with a Haltech ECU but it is
> ean exoensive overkill with no ECU redundancy.
> We are looking at making a more affordable redundant unit.
> Peter
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest
> Christley
> Sent: Thursday, 30 August 2007 1:36 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A simple ECU
>
> <echristley@nc.rr.com>
>
> Peter Harris wrote:
> <peterjfharris@bigpond.com>
>>
>> Thanks Ken I had not checked the price of Megasquirt it is cheaper than I
>> expected. I guess I am interested in making something like the EC2 series
>> from Real World Solutions, but will take a closer look at the Megasquirt.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>
> Peter, I'm working on a MegaSquirt system. The kits while cheap, seem
> to be extremely solid with quality components, and the documentation is
> excellent.
>
> The system I've worked out uses two of the Ford EDIS-4 ignition modules,
> and a standby manual fuel feed to provide an amazing amount of system
> redundancy. I've got a little more airframe and electronics
> installation work left, then I will be full-bore concentrating on the
> engine installation. I'd be happy to discuss what I'm working on with
> you.
>
> --
> "Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely
> in
>
> a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside,
> thoroughly used up, totally worn out, with chocolate in one hand and wine
> in
>
> the other, loudly proclaiming 'WOO HOO What a Ride!'"
> --Unknown
>
>
>
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 |
|
Ed I had a similar experience whith the new F10ex Haltech when I first
cranked the engine with the throttle body outboard. It kept on squirting
after I stopped cranking until the fuel rail was empty.
Must have got a bad trigger signal.
Looks as if the EC2 is the way to go.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed
Anderson
Sent: Thursday, 30 August 2007 10:52 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A simple ECU
<eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
Hi Peter,
For what it is worth, I started out with an HALTECH F3 unit way back in the
90s. The engine ran fine with it although to tune the higher RPM, you had
to take a laptop airborne with you - not the best means of tuning in a
sprightly RV aircraft.
But, the unit eventually failed me (fortunately during a ground run up)
causing all 4 injectors to stick in the open position and dump a lot of
gasoline through the exhaust pipe before I finally realized what was
happening and shut the unit off.
I then switched to the RWS EC2 and found it much more to my liking - no lap
top, much easier to refine the fuel map, etc. but, most importantly it the
EC2 had a redundant system with the flick of a switch and the price was
very reasonable.
There are no doubt a number of good systems out there but for the $$ I think
the EC2 wins the competition.
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Harris" <peterjfharris@bigpond.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 5:35 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: A simple ECU
> <peterjfharris@bigpond.com>
>
> Thanks Ernest. At this stage it looks like the EC2 has cheapest ECU as
> well
> as other features that suit aircraft. Two Megasquirts would come close.
> I have just completed istallation and tuning with a Haltech ECU but it is
> ean exoensive overkill with no ECU redundancy.
> We are looking at making a more affordable redundant unit.
> Peter
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest
> Christley
> Sent: Thursday, 30 August 2007 1:36 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: A simple ECU
>
> <echristley@nc.rr.com>
>
> Peter Harris wrote:
> <peterjfharris@bigpond.com>
>>
>> Thanks Ken I had not checked the price of Megasquirt it is cheaper than I
>> expected. I guess I am interested in making something like the EC2 series
>> from Real World Solutions, but will take a closer look at the Megasquirt.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>
> Peter, I'm working on a MegaSquirt system. The kits while cheap, seem
> to be extremely solid with quality components, and the documentation is
> excellent.
>
> The system I've worked out uses two of the Ford EDIS-4 ignition modules,
> and a standby manual fuel feed to provide an amazing amount of system
> redundancy. I've got a little more airframe and electronics
> installation work left, then I will be full-bore concentrating on the
> engine installation. I'd be happy to discuss what I'm working on with
> you.
>
> --
> "Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely
> in
>
> a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside,
> thoroughly used up, totally worn out, with chocolate in one hand and wine
> in
>
> the other, loudly proclaiming 'WOO HOO What a Ride!'"
> --Unknown
>
>
>
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: | NOT airplane related-digital phone sevice |
At 08:09 AM 8/28/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>
>I would add that the cable based phone service needs local AC power to work.
>They usually use a UPS for standby power should the power go out. But this
>standby time will be limited by the capacity and condition of the back up.
>The old style phone service is not dependant on AC power at the premises.
>
>Bevan
>RV7A
>wiring
I was curious about that and asked when they installed our
system. For our provider at least, ALL power is provided by
the system. If one puts a voltmeter on the center conductor
of the coax coming into the back of the house, it has about 90
volts DC on it. I was told that this power is provided NORMALLY
by the electric power company . . . but here's the interesting
part. All the little green 'dog-houses' around our neighborhood
for the cable company also have gas lines going into them. Seems
there is a small NG powered standby source. The dog-house at
the corner of my housing development says it's made by Alpha
and the model number is "CE-SC3". The electric meter on one
end shows a peak draw of 1.25 KVA.
Before this box went in, if there was a sustained power
outage in the neighborhood, the cable guy would show up
and plug the box into a little portable Honda putt-putt.
Now when theres a power outage, he's noticeably absent
and the phones are still working . . . along with any other
cable driven appliances that are powered independently
of the ac mains.
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: | NOT airplane related-digital phone sevice |
Yes, Thanks Bob.
I forgot about that. A friend of mine works for the cable phone company and
had told me some time ago that it's common in larger centers (eastern I
think) that the power comes "down the line" from the cable provider. We
don't have this technology in our area yet because of the current
infrastructure has to be upgraded, so I think of cable phone as requiring
local power as that's the standard here. Nothing stays the same anymore?
Did it ever?
Bevan
RV7A
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 8:53 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: NOT airplane related-digital phone sevice
--> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:09 AM 8/28/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>--> <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
>
>I would add that the cable based phone service needs local AC power to
work.
>They usually use a UPS for standby power should the power go out. But
>this standby time will be limited by the capacity and condition of the back
up.
>The old style phone service is not dependant on AC power at the premises.
>
>Bevan
>RV7A
>wiring
I was curious about that and asked when they installed our
system. For our provider at least, ALL power is provided by
the system. If one puts a voltmeter on the center conductor
of the coax coming into the back of the house, it has about 90
volts DC on it. I was told that this power is provided NORMALLY
by the electric power company . . . but here's the interesting
part. All the little green 'dog-houses' around our neighborhood
for the cable company also have gas lines going into them. Seems
there is a small NG powered standby source. The dog-house at
the corner of my housing development says it's made by Alpha
and the model number is "CE-SC3". The electric meter on one
end shows a peak draw of 1.25 KVA.
Before this box went in, if there was a sustained power
outage in the neighborhood, the cable guy would show up
and plug the box into a little portable Honda putt-putt.
Now when theres a power outage, he's noticeably absent
and the phones are still working . . . along with any other
cable driven appliances that are powered independently
of the ac mains.
Bob . . .
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: NOT airplane related-digital phone sevice |
Bob,
would you mind finding a little more about those dog boxes, if they indeed have
propane? gas power? Some remote telecommunication sites use such thermo electric
generators and I've read that some thermocouples are available to generate
from external exhaust heat of road trucks - you know where this is leading
- I wouldnt mind attaching one to my aircraft as a backup power source.
Its a little frustrating here in New Zealand there is a manufacturer of stirling
engine power generators for boats and homes - called "whispergen" - however
they ony seem to supply to certain markets and that doesnt include locally.
Regards, Ralph
--------
Ralph - CH701 / 2200a
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=131740#131740
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! --
|