Today's Message Index:
----------------------
0. 12:13 AM - List of Contributors (Matt Dralle)
1. 04:07 AM - unswitched input - PM1000II (rd2@evenlink.com)
2. 06:39 AM - Re: Re: Matt's Profiteering (not) (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 06:53 AM - Re: Z-12 Questions (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 07:34 AM - ROT - Network costs (Bob Leffler)
5. 08:40 AM - Re: ROT - Network costs (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 08:44 AM - Re: Re: Matt's Profiteering (not) (Ernest Christley)
7. 09:02 AM - Re: Re: Matt's Profiteering (not) (Dj Merrill)
8. 09:15 AM - Re: Power schematic for review (Eric M. Jones)
9. 09:41 AM - My SL-70 findings (Charles Brame)
10. 10:07 AM - Re: My SL-70 findings (Ralph E. Capen)
11. 11:23 AM - Re: Re: Matt's Profiteering (not) (Ernest Christley)
12. 11:51 AM - Re: Re: Matt's Profiteering (not) (Dj Merrill)
13. 12:33 PM - Power Diagram for peer review - Comments please (darinh)
14. 01:33 PM - Re: Re: Matt's Profiteering (not) (Tim Olson)
15. 01:33 PM - Re: Re: Matt's Profiteering (not) (Chuck Jensen)
16. 02:11 PM - Custom Instrument Panel Ground Block (sam ray)
17. 02:24 PM - Re: Custom Instrument Panel Ground Block (Neal George)
18. 02:25 PM - Re: Re: Matt's Profiteering (not) (Ben Westfall)
19. 02:46 PM - Re: Z-20 System (mosquito56)
20. 03:39 PM - Re: Custom Instrument Panel Ground Block (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis))
21. 04:52 PM - Re: Re: Matt's Profiteering (not) (Dennis Golden)
22. 05:47 PM - Master Relay Switching High Current (Dennis Johnson)
23. 06:23 PM - Re: Master Relay Switching High Current (Matt Prather)
24. 07:08 PM - Re: Re: Tyco and all its problems (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
25. 10:42 PM - Re: Re: Matt's Profiteering (not) (Werner Schneider)
Message 0
| 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: | List of Contributors |
Each year at the end of the List Fund Raiser, I post a message acknowledging everyone
that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists. Its sort of
my way of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their appreciation
for the Lists.
Won't you take a moment and assure that your name is on that List of Contributors
(LOC)? As a number of members have pointed out over the years, the List seems
at least - if not a whole lot more - valuable as a building/flying/recreating/entertainment
tool as your typical magazine subscription!
Please take minute and assure that your name is on this year's LOC! Show others
that you appreciate the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists is
fast and easy using your Credit card or Paypal on the Secure Web Site:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
or by popping a personal check in the mail to:
Matt Dralle / Matronics
PO Box 347
Livermore CA 94551-0347
I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus
far in this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that keeps
these Lists going and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment about
how the Lists have helped you!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
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: | unswitched input - PM1000II |
You have probably used a soft-muted input, like pins 20 and 7 or 16 and 3
(if you have both these options; at least one would be available) on the
Sub-D DB 25. I was looking for a unswitched input - that is not soft-muted,
to use for audio warnings. Normally this is done using the audio panel's
unswitched input, regardless of the intercom, but in this case access to
the intercom is easier :)
Rumen
do not archive
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from n801bh@netzero.com; Date: 11:35 PM
11/12/2007 GMT)
________________________________________________________________
On my KMD150 King MFD there is a tone that sounds. I wired it into my
PM100II and it worked perfectly. It has been a few years since I did my
panel and I don't remember what pin I connected it to but the tone will
muffle when I speak into the mic so it is not the primary incoming
circuit. I will look through my notes to see if I can narrow it down if you
wish.
do not archive
Ben Haas
N801BH
www.haaspowerair.com
-- rd2@evenlink.com wrote:
Has anyone tried to use the input for aircraft radio of PS Enginerring
PM1000II intercom (pins 17 and 4) as an unswitched/unmuted input for
warnings etc.?
If yes, what is the recommended resistor in line of the signal to the
intercom?
(PS Engineering is reluctant to give advice on the subject.)
Rumen
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: Matt's Profiteering (not) |
>I've sent a check, but I hate to see things going overboard. Massive
>server? I don't know how many list Matt's running, but the Aeroelectric
>list and a dozen like it would run fine on a 5yr-old low end computer
>contected to a residential broadband connection. I ran several list a
>while back, and like you say, it gets old. It can be rather tedious at
>times, and it is one more responsibility that isn't building airplanes.
>Matt does more than I ever cared to, with the virus/spam scanning and all,
>but it is still a fairly intermittent duty. Maintaining the forums may be
>different. I would never run one, because I don't even like to use them.
>Yahoo irritates the snot out of me every time I try (generally
>unsuccessfully) log on. All the useless graphics, and adds for consumer
>CRAP flooding my connection just grates on my last nerve. You're paying
>every time you log onto Yahoo, because they are selling YOU. You are the
>product they sell to advertisers, and everything about their site screams
>that at you. I appreciate a clean, uncluttered text interface and I'm
>willing to pay a few dollars to keep it.
>
>Matt deserves his due. I just object to the hyperbole.
Nothing hyperbolic about it . . . take a peek at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/MatronicsRack.jpg
This is the Phase III upgrade to the equipment
that in part supports 64 lists. This is not your
grandpa's resurrected 486. I believe this system
has access to a T1 interface to the 'net. Last time
I checked on one of these in Wichita, they were about
$2500 a month!
Obviously, there's a lot more snort here than what's
necessary to support the lists and I'm certain that
Matt has other sources of cash flow to justify putting
this system together in the first place. My own
website resides on this system for which I pay $35
a month . . . a bargain! At the same time, I'm
reminded of a privilege I enjoyed when
KTVH television donated space and power on the
1200 foot platform of their tower in Hutchinson
KS for the Air Capitol Amateur Repeater
Association's 146.22/82 repeater. We had altitude
that normally rented for .25/foot/month or $300.
I helped install that system 37 years ago, those
are the toes of my boots seen in . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/KTVH.jpg
The amateur radio fraternity for 100+ miles around
Hutchinson have enjoyed the value of access to that
tower without having to pay the $150,000 rent that
other folks have paid to share the same space over
the years.
Yes, KTVH has other revenue sources that justify
putting the tower up irrespective of the club's
ability or willingness to "donate" to their
coffers. In retrospect, I regret that as president
of the club for many years, I didn't have the presence
of mind to acknowledge an exceedingly unique privilege
we enjoyed.
We should at least have sent some nice cheese,
nut and fruit baskets every Christmas to the
technical and management staff that supported and
tolerated us for all those years . . . and still
do to this day.
It's too easy to loose sight of the true value
received from the graciousness of our hosts as
we go through life. I'd like to take this opportunity
to raise the awareness of the List members as
to the unique position we occupy on Matt's system
and in particular, alternatives we'd be
stuck with if Matt had not taken it upon himself
to share the best he knows how to do with the
rest of us.
We have no right to demand anything of Matt and
every obligation to share the load. In addition
to renting website space on his system, the
'Connection donates about $500 of in-kind
products to support the fund raiser. A few
years ago, Matt was assaulted with a
frivolous lawsuit by JPI over allegations
of trademark infringement. The 'Connction
mounted a drive to contribute to Matt's
defense. As I recall, the AeroElectric-
List raised about $3500.
Whip out your credit cards guys. Don't know about
you but it would be a sad day in my life should
we find it necessary to conduct this List on AOL
or Yahoo just because Matt's personal $burdens$
assumed on our behalf were not adequately shared
by us all.
Bob . . .
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: Z-12 Questions |
At 02:00 PM 11/12/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>
>I have now read my new Aero Electric Connection cover to cover. Even
>for someone with a university education in electronics, it was still
>fabulously enlightening. Thanks Bob !
>One of the things I have already learned is that Bob has designed
>everything as it is for a particular and often unapparent reason.
>So I have questions before I change anything :-)
Good thinking . . .
>I am building a night VFR aircraft which will have a Dynon as the main
>instruments and engine monitoring. I will probably have a real ASI
>and altimeter, since I find them much easier to read and I can happily
>fly without the Dynon then. We take long distance trips, so I am more
>concerned with failures that make it difficult to fly 10 hours home
>than flight safety to get back on the ground, since I am usually
>flying in nice weather.
>
>In my 400 hours of flying, I have already had an alternator failure in
>a rental aircraft. Although it was uneventful really, I would not
>want to fly a long trip home without any electrics.
>
>So Z-12 looks like a good fit for me, with an SD-8 as the backup
>alternator (brilliant idea this product).
Why not 13/8? Z-12 is a standby alternator retrofit
philosophy for airplanes already flying. Not really
intended for new design.
>Figure 17-4 shows an SD-8 charging the battery directly, whereas Z-12
>is like 17-8 with the two alternators are in parallel, and thus the
>SD-8 cannot charge the battery with the contactor open. I don't think
>the B&C SB1B-14 regulator is intended for the SD-8. So wire the SD-8
>like figure 17-4 ?
Let's not mix/match features across architectures.
Concentrate on lowest parts count (which translates
to minimized weight, $time$ to install and cost of
ownership) that meets mission goals.
>It is easy to put a long list of items on the endurance bus. However,
>maybe that doesn't matter. The likely failure modes need to be
>analyzed. In the event of an alternator failure, switches can be used
>to turn off unnecessary devices, so it doesn't matter which bus they
>are really on (just contactor hold current). In the event of an
>electrical fire, the battery contactor will be switched off, so only
>the necessary items for an immediate emergency landing need to be on
>the endurance bus.
It does matter . . . you need to set you own
design goals for performance in the endurance mode
of en route flight. With one alternator, battery
capacity is used to support en route loads so we
strive to keep them very low . . . say 2-3 amps
so that there are some reserves in the battery for
approach to landing.
As soon as you add the SD-8, NOW endurance loads
can be up to 8A and hold the battery completely
in reserve for approach to landing.
>Maybe an electrical fire is far less likely since I will be using
>fuses almost entirely. Unlike a circuit breaker that cannot be
>trusted to pop, the fuse will likely blow. No fire, smoke or smell,
>so usually no need to turn off the battery contactor ??
I've never seen a breaker refuse to open on a
hard fault. But they DO allow more energy to be
driven into the fault condition than their faster
cousins. But yes, circuit protection of either
variety can be expected to avoid bad smells in the
cockpit.
>The diode tying the main bus to the endurance bus seems unnecessary.
>The main bus could easily be wired to pin 3 of the e-bus alternate
>feed switch. This implies the diode is more reliable than the switch
>(which is only switched once to test at each run-up). If it is a
>reliability concern, why not wire the switch and keep the diode ? Or
>is there another reason I haven't even guessed at ?
The diode IS more reliable than a switch. Further,
the modification you suggest runs BOTH power paths
for the e-bus through the single component . . . i.e.
single point of failure for power to the e-bus.
>I will appreciate everyone's input.
If I were building an airplane today, Z-13/8 is my
architecture of choice for kind of aircraft I would be
building and the manner in which I plan to use it. I
suspect that Z-13/8 would be most adequate for 98%
of the OBAM aircraft being licensed every year.
Do your load analysis. Decide which devices will
reside on which busses. Then starting with Z-13/8,
deduce what failure mode or design goal is not
being accommodated.
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: | ROT - Network costs |
I am fully supportive of Matt's activity.
I only wanted to comment on the network pricing. If they are paying $2,500
for a local T1 in Wichita, you need to find another provider. I'm getting
a 10mb pipe into my office for $1,500 here in Columbus.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Matt's Profiteering (not)
<nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/MatronicsRack.jpg
This is the Phase III upgrade to the equipment
that in part supports 64 lists. This is not your
grandpa's resurrected 486. I believe this system
has access to a T1 interface to the 'net. Last time
I checked on one of these in Wichita, they were about
$2500 a month!
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: ROT - Network costs |
At 10:29 AM 11/13/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>
>I am fully supportive of Matt's activity.
>
>I only wanted to comment on the network pricing. If they are paying $2,500
>for a local T1 in Wichita, you need to find another provider. I'm getting
>a 10mb pipe into my office for $1,500 here in Columbus.
That was a price quoted to me about 10 years ago.
Like all things in the communications market
driven by a rapidly evolving technology and
intense competition, the prices are no doubt
better by now . . . but it's still a whole lot
more than my favorite high-speed Internet
connection!
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: | Re: Matt's Profiteering (not) |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
>
>
>> I've sent a check, but I hate to see things going overboard. Massive
>> server? I don't know how many list Matt's running, but the
>> Aeroelectric list and a dozen like it would run fine on a 5yr-old low
>> end computer contected to a residential broadband connection. I ran
>> several list a while back, and like you say, it gets old. It can be
>> rather tedious at times, and it is one more responsibility that isn't
>> building airplanes.
>> Matt does more than I ever cared to, with the virus/spam scanning and
>> all, but it is still a fairly intermittent duty. Maintaining the
>> forums may be different. I would never run one, because I don't even
>> like to use them.
>> Yahoo irritates the snot out of me every time I try (generally
>> unsuccessfully) log on. All the useless graphics, and adds for
>> consumer CRAP flooding my connection just grates on my last nerve.
>> You're paying every time you log onto Yahoo, because they are selling
>> YOU. You are the product they sell to advertisers, and everything
>> about their site screams that at you. I appreciate a clean,
>> uncluttered text interface and I'm willing to pay a few dollars to
>> keep it.
>>
>> Matt deserves his due. I just object to the hyperbole.
>
> Nothing hyperbolic about it . . . take a peek at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/MatronicsRack.jpg
>
> This is the Phase III upgrade to the equipment
> that in part supports 64 lists. This is not your
> grandpa's resurrected 486. I believe this system
> has access to a T1 interface to the 'net. Last time
> I checked on one of these in Wichita, they were about
> $2500 a month!
Let's put some numbers on it, and then decide if it is hyperbolic or not.
Your message that I'm responding to was 5.5kB, not including the
headers. Let's use 5kB as an average message size (because it's a nice
round number). 5kB translates to 40kb (bytes to bits), which will tend
to use 50kb of bandwidth over ethernet. Most telecom works out to 80%
efficient once all the overhead is accounted for.
On an extremely busy day, a list might get 100 messages (again, just an
easy number), and we're looking at 64 lists...6400 messages at 50,000
bits each...that's 320,000,000 bits per day, or 37,037bps. All the
email list running full tilt would stress a good analog modem, but just
barely. Mail is a store-and-forward protocol, so daily averaging would
actually work. No, that rack isn't a resurrected 486, but a resurrected
486 will do the job we're discussing without breaking a sweat, even if
you added some decent virus scanning. A 486 with a modem is not what I
would consider a "massive server". The original comment was about the
hardware required to run the list, not what Matt had.
The hardware requirements to run a mailing list are very modest at
most. The typical time requirements are modest. The tedium of dealing
with a spam attack when you'd rather be doing <anything_else> is high.
I get far more out of each mailing list that I'm subscribed to than I do
from all the magazines I subscribe to. The benefits far outweigh the
costs, so, yes, break out the credit-cards. Acknowledge that Matt's
contribution is far greater than what we're individually paying for it.
I'm very grateful that Matt allows us, as guest, to use a portion of his
servers to openly exchange ideas and information. I'm much more
grateful that he expends the occasional weekend to keep the
communication lines open. I'm willing to spend a little to show my
appreciation. I don't think a thousand baskets of fruit and nuts will
be beneficial to Matt, and the Paypal option was easier anyway, but we
do have to keep it real.
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: Matt's Profiteering (not) |
Ernest Christley wrote:
>
>
> On an extremely busy day, a list might get 100 messages (again, just
> an easy number), and we're looking at 64 lists...6400 messages at
> 50,000 bits each...that's 320,000,000 bits per day, or 37,037bps. All
> the email list running full tilt would stress a good analog modem, but
> just barely. Mail is a store-and-forward protocol, so daily averaging
> would actually work. No, that rack isn't a resurrected 486, but a
> resurrected 486 will do the job we're discussing without breaking a
> sweat, even if you added some decent virus scanning. A 486 with a
> modem is not what I would consider a "massive server". The original
> comment was about the hardware required to run the list, not what Matt
> had.
Hi Ernest,
I've been doing Unix Systems adminstration for the past 18 years or
so, and I can assure you that you are missing a huge part of the
picture. As a part of my daily job I run a small mail server with about
a dozen mailing lists on it, with a small number of people subscribed.
The system is a dual-core 2.8 Ghz machine with a couple of gig of RAM.
You would think this would be overkill to run these lists, however, that
vile and foul entity known as SPAM makes this poor machine struggle at
times, at rare times causing hours of backlog. We literally get
hundreds of thousands of SPAM messages per day, which take a huge amount
of processing and computing resources to filter. I can safely assure
you that a 486 would choke and die on my small mailing lists, and would
in no way be able to handle the loads of Matt's mailing lists.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ
http://deej.net/sportsman/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
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: Power schematic for review |
>
> This is the message That I got from ULPower when I asked them about
> overvoltage protection.
> "The Regulator has an internal over-voltage shunt built in."
An over-voltage protector comes in two basic flavors.
1) A load dump over-voltage is 60V for 500 mS (or so). This is not hard to protect
against.
2) A hard failure of the regulator or alternator, in the worst case puts out 60V
(or more!) forever. OUCH.
Both problems need amelioration.
"I tried being reasonable, I didn't like it."
---Clint Eastwood
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones@charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=145739#145739
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: | My SL-70 findings |
My SL-70 does the same thing. However, I find that if I turn the
transponder off, wait a few seconds and then turn it back on, it goes
through its "TEST" phase and works normally. I think the FAIL mode is
triggered by a low voltage situation which occurs during engine
start. I put it on my checklist to turn the transponder "OFF" before
start. Once the alternator is on line, I turn the transponder "ON"
and rarely have problems.
Charlie Brame
RV-6A N11CB
San Antonio
------------------------------------------------------
> Time: 05:52:24 AM PST US
> From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: My SL-70 findings
>
>
> Reposted from other lists - hopefully to elicit Bob N's comments!
>
> Here's what I've done/found:
>
> Upon start-up the SL-70 says TEST and FAIL in the two display windows.
> If I turn the little knob on the right - it goes to the specific
> tests individually
> - all PASS except for SYN, RECV, and TRAN
> Took antenna direct to the back of the unit (down to the first
> piece of coax) with
> a 5.5" aluminum disk as a ground plane.
> No change
> Measured continuity of the first piece of coax
> Open from center to shield
> Initial resistance of center conductor goes to zero shortly
> Initial resistance of shield does not go to zero but remains
> very low
> The Transponder did not come alive - although it still continues to
> pass encoder
> info to the GPS
>
> Here's what I think:
>
> The radio portion of the unit is hosed and the box needs to go in
> for repair -
> off to call GarminAT repair.
> The first antenna coupling (in the back of the unit's tray) and the
> first chunk
> of cable attached thereto is where I'll start troubleshooting the
> resistance
> problem.
>
> Here's where I need comments:
> RG400 shield resistance - I think it should go to zero just like
> the center conductor.
> The first pair of connectors appear to be silver plated - and the
> plating appears
> to be oxidized - I would think that inserting and reseating the
> connector should
> (but shouldn't need to) renew the connection.
> This is the same tray connector (I think) that has been recently
> mentioned on this
> list.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Ralph Capen
>
>
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: My SL-70 findings |
Charlie,
Thanks for the response....I'm still doing ground testing - haven't got the big
fan up front running yet. I have a regulated power supply feeding my PC680 battery
set up for 13.5VDC. I've also called GarminAT repair - they said to chase
down the resistance in the antenna coax first.
When yours fails, does it still process altitude data to your GPS? Have you tried
turning the inner knob to see which subtest invoked the failure mode?
Just curious to see how it acts overall.
Thanks,
Ralph
-----Original Message-----
>From: Charles Brame <chasb@satx.rr.com>
>Sent: Nov 13, 2007 12:37 PM
>To: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net>, AeroElectric List <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: My SL-70 findings
>
>
>My SL-70 does the same thing. However, I find that if I turn the
>transponder off, wait a few seconds and then turn it back on, it goes
>through its "TEST" phase and works normally. I think the FAIL mode is
>triggered by a low voltage situation which occurs during engine
>start. I put it on my checklist to turn the transponder "OFF" before
>start. Once the alternator is on line, I turn the transponder "ON"
>and rarely have problems.
>
>Charlie Brame
>RV-6A N11CB
>San Antonio
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>
>> Time: 05:52:24 AM PST US
>> From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net>
>> Subject: AeroElectric-List: My SL-70 findings
>>
>>
>> Reposted from other lists - hopefully to elicit Bob N's comments!
>>
>> Here's what I've done/found:
>>
>> Upon start-up the SL-70 says TEST and FAIL in the two display windows.
>> If I turn the little knob on the right - it goes to the specific
>> tests individually
>> - all PASS except for SYN, RECV, and TRAN
>> Took antenna direct to the back of the unit (down to the first
>> piece of coax) with
>> a 5.5" aluminum disk as a ground plane.
>> No change
>> Measured continuity of the first piece of coax
>> Open from center to shield
>> Initial resistance of center conductor goes to zero shortly
>> Initial resistance of shield does not go to zero but remains
>> very low
>> The Transponder did not come alive - although it still continues to
>> pass encoder
>> info to the GPS
>>
>> Here's what I think:
>>
>> The radio portion of the unit is hosed and the box needs to go in
>> for repair -
>> off to call GarminAT repair.
>> The first antenna coupling (in the back of the unit's tray) and the
>> first chunk
>> of cable attached thereto is where I'll start troubleshooting the
>> resistance
>> problem.
>>
>> Here's where I need comments:
>> RG400 shield resistance - I think it should go to zero just like
>> the center conductor.
>> The first pair of connectors appear to be silver plated - and the
>> plating appears
>> to be oxidized - I would think that inserting and reseating the
>> connector should
>> (but shouldn't need to) renew the connection.
>> This is the same tray connector (I think) that has been recently
>> mentioned on this
>> list.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Ralph Capen
>>
>>
>
>
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: Matt's Profiteering (not) |
Dj Merrill wrote:
> You would think this would be overkill to run these lists, however, that
> vile and foul entity known as SPAM makes this poor machine struggle at
> times, at rare times causing hours of backlog. We literally get
> hundreds of thousands of SPAM messages per day, which take a huge amount
> of processing and computing resources to filter. I can safely assure
> you that a 486 would choke and die on my small mailing lists, and would
> in no way be able to handle the loads of Matt's mailing lists.
>
> -Dj
>
>
There I was set up with a perfectly cogent argument, and you come along
with all your facts..and figures..and experience. How am I supposed to
compete with THAT?!! It's about as bad as arguing with my wife.
Sheesh! I can't ever get a break.
I stand corrected. I never had a big problem with SPAM; though, the
list I ran wasn't as popular as Aeroelectric and it was a few years ago.
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: Matt's Profiteering (not) |
Ernest Christley wrote:
>>
> There I was set up with a perfectly cogent argument, and you come
> along with all your facts..and figures..and experience. How am I
> supposed to compete with THAT?!! It's about as bad as arguing with my
> wife. Sheesh! I can't ever get a break.
>
> I stand corrected. I never had a big problem with SPAM; though, the
> list I ran wasn't as popular as Aeroelectric and it was a few years ago.
*grin* No worries. At first glance I would totally agree with you
that a smaller machine should be able to handle the load, and several
years ago it could have back before SPAM became so overwhelming. You
would not believe the struggle we have with handling SPAM. Balancing
the load on the servers, the aggressiveness of the filters, and keeping
everything updated is a complete nightmare.
I only wish we could make sending out SPAM a capital offense... or
resort to the rules of the Old West!
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ
http://deej.net/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 |
|
| Subject: | Power Diagram for peer review - Comments please |
here is yet another diagram for peer review. I am a novice at best in the electrical
department and want this system to be accurate and reliable. I have used
Bob's drawings to make this hybrid power diagram for my specific case.
As a background, here is what I am working with:
- Rotax 914
- External 40 Amp Alternator (primary)
- Rotax internal alternator (as backup)
- Single battery
My understanding is that the two alternators can be setup on switches and in the
event that I have a failure of the primary, I can switch it off and switch on
the backup. I pulled pieces and parts from various drawings and need someone
or a couple someones to provide some review. I appreciate the help!
--------
Darin Hawkes
Series 7 (under Construction)
914 Turbo
Ogden, Utah
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=145775#145775
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/rotax_914_modified_102.pdf
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: Matt's Profiteering (not) |
Not sure if I missed something in the calculation, but even if ever
list got 100 messages a day, for 64 lists, at 6400 messages, that's
no big deal at all. But, what is a big deal is if there are another
4000 people subscribed, so once 6400 messages come in, there are now
25,600,000 messages that need to be delivered, and each negotiation
of SMTP takes a bit of time to accomplish and retry if it fails.
Then you add the fact that 85-95% of ALL email is SPAM, and you would
find that there might be another 50,000 or more inbound connections
that come in and churn up the spam processors (each message would
have to be crunched by the spam filters). So yup, I'm with Dj in
that a 2Ghz box can take a lot of power just to handle the email
load.
Then, take it a step further. Every message that comes in is going
to be databased, and processed for web distribution. And remember
that now that images are supported on some of the lists, the message
sizes go up....especially when ding-dong's forget to resize that 5Mb
photo.
But I'm sure the bulk of the added costs come from keeping up with
good hardware. When you have thousands of people relying on you
for their enjoyment, even a hiccup can cause phone calls and emails.
So you add some good RAID, and a backup system, and a few other
hardware odds and ends and now you're talking a few more bucks.
The bandwidth costs may add up too, but they're just a piece of the
puzzle. Keep in mind that although I am able to get 10Mb fiber for
a good rate, and they're about to launch Fiber to the home in my
neighborhood, there are still locales even out near silicon
valley that a T1 is all you can get, and you don't necessarily
get the same competitive rate as you would in other locales.
Anyway, not trying to be argumentative, because everyone will eventually
do what they feel is what they need to do. But, I do get a
kick out of thinking about the technologies involved.
I don't think anyone who's here argues the value of what Matt provides,
because if they didn't like it that much they'd be gone anyway.
I'm just impressed that he'd care enough to do it as a side
job and not profiteer on it so he can play all day. It then
becomes more of a personal thing.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
do not archive
Dj Merrill wrote:
>
> Ernest Christley wrote:
>>>
>> There I was set up with a perfectly cogent argument, and you come
>> along with all your facts..and figures..and experience. How am I
>> supposed to compete with THAT?!! It's about as bad as arguing with my
>> wife. Sheesh! I can't ever get a break.
>>
>> I stand corrected. I never had a big problem with SPAM; though, the
>> list I ran wasn't as popular as Aeroelectric and it was a few years ago.
>
> *grin* No worries. At first glance I would totally agree with you
> that a smaller machine should be able to handle the load, and several
> years ago it could have back before SPAM became so overwhelming. You
> would not believe the struggle we have with handling SPAM. Balancing
> the load on the servers, the aggressiveness of the filters, and keeping
> everything updated is a complete nightmare.
>
> I only wish we could make sending out SPAM a capital offense... or
> resort to the rules of the Old West!
>
> -Dj
>
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: Matt's Profiteering (not) |
Not to get political about things, but if our fine government, instead of spending
millions and thousands of man-hours going after some college kid with a nickel
bag of dope, they would put their time and resources into spanking-the-spammers,
that would be doing some good that affects nearly everyone. For sure,
Spam is not a victimless crime!!!
Chuck Jensen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dj
Merrill
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Matt's Profiteering (not)
Ernest Christley wrote:
>>
> There I was set up with a perfectly cogent argument, and you come
> along with all your facts..and figures..and experience. How am I
> supposed to compete with THAT?!! It's about as bad as arguing with my
> wife. Sheesh! I can't ever get a break.
>
> I stand corrected. I never had a big problem with SPAM; though, the
> list I ran wasn't as popular as Aeroelectric and it was a few years ago.
*grin* No worries. At first glance I would totally agree with you
that a smaller machine should be able to handle the load, and several
years ago it could have back before SPAM became so overwhelming. You
would not believe the struggle we have with handling SPAM. Balancing
the load on the servers, the aggressiveness of the filters, and keeping
everything updated is a complete nightmare.
I only wish we could make sending out SPAM a capital offense... or
resort to the rules of the Old West!
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Glastar Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ
http://deej.net/sportsman/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
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: | Custom Instrument Panel Ground Block |
Bob
I'd like to make a custom instrument panel ground
block for my rv8- checked with B&C, they only make the
two sizes, and do not sell the parts. Are the fast on
tabs commercially available?
Sam Ray
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
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: | Custom Instrument Panel Ground Block |
SteinAir has them...
http://www.steinair.com/accessories.htm
Neal
Bob
I'd like to make a custom instrument panel ground block for my rv8- checked
with B&C, they only make the two sizes, and do not sell the parts. Are the
fast on tabs commercially available?
Sam Ray
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: | Re: Matt's Profiteering (not) |
I run several mailservers and manage several racks of servers in heavily
laden production environments. One of our spam gateways gets 1M messages
per month with about 50,000 of them being valid emails that are let through.
This particular spam gateway appliance (much like Matt's Barracuda Spam
Gateway) costs us about $1000/yr in subscription fees to run. It was about
$4000 to purchase when new. Rack space, bandwidth, and electricity to host
is not included. I would say this one server cost me about $250-$300/month.
Spam is about 97% of all email. Really sucks.
-Ben Westfall
Message 19
| 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 |
|
I have just seen your post and I am also interested in the 601-Jab3300 z/20 diagram.
I haven't seen any answers to your post but would like to know more about
this diagram
Don
--------
Don Merritt- Laredo, Tx
Apologies if I seem antagonistic.
I believe in the freeflowing ideas and discussions between individuals for assistance
in this thing we call life.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=145801#145801
Message 20
| 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: | Custom Instrument Panel Ground Block |
Yes,
Go to Steinair.com he has them for like a buck per strip. Get a piece of
Brass plate and solder one up.
I made a 60 tab ground block for about $5...Brass bolt form the hardware
store.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of sam
ray
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 2:11 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Custom Instrument Panel Ground Block
Bob
I'd like to make a custom instrument panel ground block for my rv8-
checked with B&C, they only make the two sizes, and do not sell the
parts. Are the fast on tabs commercially available?
Sam Ray
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
Make Yahoo! your homepage.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Message 21
| 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: Matt's Profiteering (not) |
Chuck Jensen wrote:
> <cjensen@dts9000.com>
>
> Not to get political about things, but if our fine government,
> instead of spending millions and thousands of man-hours going after
> some college kid with a nickel bag of dope, they would put their time
> and resources into spanking-the-spammers, that would be doing some
> good that affects nearly everyone. For sure, Spam is not a
> victimless crime!!!
The problem is that (for example) over the past 2 to 3 weeks, about 80
to 85 percent of the spam on my mail server has been comming from
Poland. It's not something that our government alone is going to fix.
Just my $0.02.
Dennis
--
Dennis Golden
Golden Consulting Services, Inc.
Message 22
| 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: | Master Relay Switching High Current |
I now have a hundred hours on my Lancair Legacy wired using Z13-8. I'm
happy that I've only had a few electrical issues, none of which were
significant. But I'm wondering about my master relay, a continuous duty
one from B&C.
My airplane uses a hydraulic pump to raise and lower the landing gear.
The pump is powered by an electric motor protected by a 40 amp ANL fuse.
I haven't measured it, but factory specs indicate that current peaks at
close to 100 amps just before the pump shuts off as it produces peak
pressure.
The hydraulic pump automatically turns on and off to maintain set
pressure whenever the master switch is on. When the airplane is parked
overnight, hydraulic pressure bleeds down enough that the automatic
pressure switch closes. Of course, since the master switch is turned
off, the pump doesn't turn on.
But when I turn on the airplane's master switch, the hydraulic pump
immediately runs for a split second to restore hydraulic pressure. I
think that the master relay is therefore switching approximately 100
amps. My understanding is that a continuous duty relay, like the master
relay, can carry large current loads once it is closed, but it isn't
good at switching large loads.
Should I expect premature failure of my master relay? If so, I'll just
carry a spare. They're reasonably cheap and light weight.
Thanks,
Dennis Johnson
Lancair Legacy #257
Message 23
| 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: Master Relay Switching High Current |
There may be some concern with making the connection (turning on the
system including the pump), but I'd guess the real limitation is on
breaking the connection. It wouldn't surprise me if your master relay
lives a normal lifespan under this kind of use. I'll be interested in
what the experts come up with.. :)
Regards,
Matt-
> I now have a hundred hours on my Lancair Legacy wired using Z13-8. I'm
> happy that I've only had a few electrical issues, none of which were
> significant. But I'm wondering about my master relay, a continuous duty
> one from B&C.
>
> My airplane uses a hydraulic pump to raise and lower the landing gear.
> The pump is powered by an electric motor protected by a 40 amp ANL fuse.
> I haven't measured it, but factory specs indicate that current peaks at
> close to 100 amps just before the pump shuts off as it produces peak
> pressure.
>
> The hydraulic pump automatically turns on and off to maintain set pressure
> whenever the master switch is on. When the airplane is parked overnight,
> hydraulic pressure bleeds down enough that the automatic pressure switch
> closes. Of course, since the master switch is turned off, the pump
> doesn't turn on.
>
> But when I turn on the airplane's master switch, the hydraulic pump
> immediately runs for a split second to restore hydraulic pressure. I
> think that the master relay is therefore switching approximately 100 amps.
> My understanding is that a continuous duty relay, like the master relay,
> can carry large current loads once it is closed, but it isn't good at
> switching large loads.
>
> Should I expect premature failure of my master relay? If so, I'll just
> carry a spare. They're reasonably cheap and light weight.
>
> Thanks,
> Dennis Johnson
> Lancair Legacy #257
Message 24
| 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: Tyco and all its problems |
>
>Anyway the GX11 will be about $120, but the Type 70 ($37.00 from Newark)
>is not really useable in my opinion.
I presume we're discussing use of the Type 70 as an
alternator b-lead disconnect device. For use as battery
contactor (99.99% of all applications in 200,000 or
so airplanes for 60 years) the down-sides
are not so significant.
> You may want the accessory contacts and long leads...couldn't hurt.
>
>The Kilovac EV200aaana (aka Blue Sea 9012) is still great (similar to the
>Gigavac GX11).
>
>The type 70 is problematic even if very common and long in the tooth. It
>is deficient in four main areas:
>
>1) Poor coil suppression (this can be retrofitted to improve it)
Not "poor" but "no" coil suppression as a factory installed
feature. This is typical of the majority of contactors and relays
on the market. It's presumptuous for a manufacturer to
include coil suppression out-of-hand . . . this should
be left up to the system integrator. Tests
here have shown that the simple diode arc
suppression offers no significant effects
on relay/contactor service life.
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/704-1DelayNoDiode.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/704-1DelayWithDiode.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/704-1OpeningTimeNoDiode.gif
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/704-1OpeningTimeWithDiode.gif
>2) Inadequate operating temperature. My GUESS is that the early ones had
>fiber/bakelite interiors, now they are Nylon. Regardless 122F spec is way
>too low to use.
. . . under the cowl perhaps. Unless irradiated
by exhaust stack IR, parts under the cowl spend
very little time in a 122F environment . . . and
the most striking scenarios involve hot-soak of
airspace under the cowl after engine shutdown.
Under this scenario, the b-lead contactor is
de-energized which eliminates a large source
of temperature rise energy, internal coil
dissipation. These contactors have been used
successfully on the firewall of thousands of
aircraft.
>
>3) Inadequate G force withstand. 2G ??
Where does this come from and of what
significance? I found no manufacturer's
data limiting acceleration. Since inflight
g-loading is applied while the contactor
is energized, g-loads are not an issue
for as-installed performance. I'll have
to dig through the archives but I believe
tests showed that it takes 4+ G of linear
acceleration to close a de-energized contactor.
>4) Open against Vmax. 35V. They could sustain an arc if the alternator
>runs away.
Don't know where "35" comes from, it depends
on lots of variables not characterized by
White Rogers in the data sheets. Yes, if
the contactor is called upon to do a real
OV shutdown, there is a risk with current
designs that an arc will establish between
spreading contacts and continue to destruction
of the contactor as well. However, it poses
no little if any risks to the rest of the system.
But an investigative goal I have for this
winter when the drive stand . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Alternator_Test_Stand/DSCN0961.JPG
. . . is running will be to see if I can deliberately
precipitate meltdown in an S701 contactor.
Irrespective of this yet to be demonstrated condition,
the AEC9004 . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Adapting_IR_Alternators_to_Aircraft.pdf
will keep dv/dt stresses on the low-cost contactor
well within its design limits. I've had two readers
comment on conducted noise emissions from EV200
contactors . . . so all is not 'golden' with
the $high$ contactors.
Test plans for the repeatable experiment are in
place. We'll be able to convert WAGs and hypothesis to
demonstrable working practice in the not too distant
future.
Bob . . .
Message 25
| 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: Matt's Profiteering (not) |
And Ernest do not forget, your numbers are the mails coming in, but how
many 1000 users has the server to send out mail to? I think that might
account for most of the traffic over the needed link.
I could tell you from another list server, due to a heavy SPAM attack
I've not got ANY mail since 7 days I can only read them currently over
the web interface as the message fwd is shutdown since a week.
and do not archive
Werner
Ernest Christley wrote:
> <echristley@nc.rr.com>
>
> Dj Merrill wrote:
>> You would think this would be overkill to run these lists, however, that
>> vile and foul entity known as SPAM makes this poor machine struggle at
>> times, at rare times causing hours of backlog. We literally get
>> hundreds of thousands of SPAM messages per day, which take a huge amount
>> of processing and computing resources to filter. I can safely assure
>> you that a 486 would choke and die on my small mailing lists, and would
>> in no way be able to handle the loads of Matt's mailing lists.
>>
>> -Dj
>>
>>
> There I was set up with a perfectly cogent argument, and you come
> along with all your facts..and figures..and experience. How am I
> supposed to compete with THAT?!! It's about as bad as arguing with my
> wife. Sheesh! I can't ever get a break.
>
> I stand corrected. I never had a big problem with SPAM; though, the
> list I ran wasn't as popular as Aeroelectric and it was a few years ago.
>
>
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! --
|