Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:15 AM - power to handheld gps. (bob noffs)
2. 05:25 AM - PM Alternator & S704-1 Relay (ianwilson2)
3. 05:34 AM - Whelen Nav lights (Harley)
4. 06:43 AM - Re: power to handheld gps. (Charlie England)
5. 06:46 AM - Re: power to handheld gps. (Charlie England)
6. 08:12 AM - Re: Whelen Nav lights (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 08:13 AM - Re: power to handheld gps. (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 08:19 AM - Re: PM Alternator & S704-1 Relay (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 09:05 AM - Re: Broken Low Voltage Module (Bill Bradburry)
10. 09:24 AM - Re: Bridge diodes VS Schottky (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 11:01 AM - Re: Bridge diodes VS Schottky (Paul)
12. 11:03 AM - Re: Broken Low Voltage Module (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 11:12 AM - power to handheld gps. (bob noffs)
14. 12:16 PM - Re: Broken Low Voltage Module (Bill Bradburry)
15. 02:59 PM - Re: power to handheld gps. (Ernest Christley)
16. 04:47 PM - Re: Avionic's Ground (Henry Trzeciakowski)
17. 06:15 PM - Re: Re: Avionic's Ground (Bob White)
18. 09:00 PM - Igniton Problem on Rotax 914 - Help (darinh)
19. 10:40 PM - Nippondenso alternator question (darinh)
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: | power to handheld gps. |
hi all,
seems that my inquiry was misleading. simply i am looking for the
smallest connector i can find that will mount in my panel and deliver a
ground and 12 volt pos. to the appropiate plug in. this will avoid
frequent plugging and unplugging at the gps
sorry for any confusion.
bob noffs
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: | PM Alternator & S704-1 Relay |
Hi,
I'm just wiring up my S704-1 alternator disconnect relay for my Jab, but the 2
documents I have contradict the + & - cable connections. On the B&C site S704-1_tips.jpg
shows them with the negative next to the COM connection, whereas their
power distribution diagram for some other alternators shows them reversed,
with the +tive next to the COM connection. Can someone please confirm for me
which way it should be for my Z-20 scheme.
Also, in the S704-1_tips.jpg image there is an IN5400 diode between the + & - terminals.
This diode didn't come with the kit of bits I bought from B&C, so do
I need to install this as well or not?
You can probably tell from my recent posts that I'm currently doing the firewall
forward wiring of my plane, so your input is much appreciated at this, somewhat
testing, time for a non-electrical guy!
As always, thanks in advance for your time.
Ian
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=191427#191427
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: | Whelen Nav lights |
Thanks you all again for your suggestions and ideas (including building
my own...which 20 years ago I would probably attempt! <G>) regarding the
new LED navigation lights and position strobes.
I think I'll probably go with the Skybrights (
www.airplanegear.com/skybright.htm ), mainly for price, although the
AveoFlash are still a distant second because of their all LED
configuration. I need to justify the higher cost, however. I have
communicated with the Aveo USA people and they have answered all my
questions to my satisfaction. I will also wait for the results from a
couple of people who are going to visit them at Oshkosh. If I had to
purchase today, it would be the Skybrights.
So...With that said, I have put my original Whelen lights on eBay.
These were never installed. They are the A600 wingtip series with power
supply and installation kit as included with the original "kit" of parts
for my Long EZ that I bought from Wicks Aircraft. Rated for homebuilt or
certified aircraft. The current price for them at Aircraft Spruce is
$835. The bidding on my listing (after less than 12 hours) is up to
$10! Someone is getting a deal! The listing has all the information
and photos and a short video their demonstrate them working during the
one and only time I powered them up on my kitchen table.
http://tinyurl.com/6pajw6
Harley Dixon
Long EZ N28EZ
Canandaigua, NY
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: power to handheld gps. |
bob noffs wrote:
> hi all,
> seems that my inquiry was misleading. simply i am looking for the
> smallest connector i can find that will mount in my panel and deliver
> a ground and 12 volt pos. to the appropiate plug in. this will avoid
> frequent plugging and unplugging at the gps
> sorry for any confusion.
> bob noffs
Hi Bob,
I'd just wander into the nearest Radio Shack & pick up a mating
miniature phone plug & jack. They look like the connector on headphones
for iPods & other mp3 players, but you can get them with just tip &
barrel (2 conductors), instead of tip, ring & barrel. Use the tip as
positive & the barrel as ground. Jack goes in the panel (obviously) &
plug goes on the end of your power cable to the gps. They come in
several different diameters; I'd pick one that does *not* match your
iPod's audio connector. Go smaller with the gps connector, if you can
find one. That will avoid the danger of plugging an iPod's audio output
into 12VDC power. Or, hide the power jack under/behind the panel so that
passengers will be unlikely to find it.
The snap-action of the detent in the tip of the plug will keep it
plugged in unless you pull it out. In my not-so-humble opinion, a
locking connector in this type application just leads to damaged
connectors & wiring, while the spring loaded connector will just unplug
if you snag the wire, & you can plug it back in instead of repairing it
(at the end of the flight).
There are dozens of other small connectors available, but most either
lock in place or have no practical holding system, like the typical
coaxial barrel connectors for power found on cordless phones, etc. If
you can live with the lack of any latching feature, the coaxial barrel
connectors are the best bet to help insure that nothing else will fit
the jack.
If the iPod/power connector issue worries you, you could actually use an
RJ-11 telephone plug & jack but they require somewhat more specialized
tools than a soldering iron & solder. And since they lock, there's the
danger of damage if you snag the wire with something.
Charlie
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: power to handheld gps. |
Charlie England wrote:
> bob noffs wrote:
>> hi all,
>> seems that my inquiry was misleading. simply i am looking for the
>> smallest connector i can find that will mount in my panel and deliver
>> a ground and 12 volt pos. to the appropiate plug in. this will avoid
>> frequent plugging and unplugging at the gps
>> sorry for any confusion.
>> bob noffs
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> I'd just wander into the nearest Radio Shack & pick up a mating
> miniature phone plug & jack. They look like the connector on
> headphones for iPods & other mp3 players, but you can get them with
> just tip & barrel (2 conductors), instead of tip, ring & barrel. Use
> the tip as positive & the barrel as ground. Jack goes in the panel
> (obviously) & plug goes on the end of your power cable to the gps.
> They come in several different diameters; I'd pick one that does *not*
> match your iPod's audio connector. Go smaller with the gps connector,
> if you can find one. That will avoid the danger of plugging an iPod's
> audio output into 12VDC power. Or, hide the power jack under/behind
> the panel so that passengers will be unlikely to find it.
>
> The snap-action of the detent in the tip of the plug will keep it
> plugged in unless you pull it out. In my not-so-humble opinion, a
> locking connector in this type application just leads to damaged
> connectors & wiring, while the spring loaded connector will just
> unplug if you snag the wire, & you can plug it back in instead of
> repairing it (at the end of the flight).
>
> There are dozens of other small connectors available, but most either
> lock in place or have no practical holding system, like the typical
> coaxial barrel connectors for power found on cordless phones, etc. If
> you can live with the lack of any latching feature, the coaxial barrel
> connectors are the best bet to help insure that nothing else will fit
> the jack.
>
> If the iPod/power connector issue worries you, you could actually use
> an RJ-11 telephone plug & jack but they require somewhat more
> specialized tools than a soldering iron & solder. And since they lock,
> there's the danger of damage if you snag the wire with something.
>
> Charlie
>
I forgot the most obvious answer, the one I used for my gps: just buy
the mating cable for the gps & hard-wire it into the a/c's electrical
system, with a short pigtail through the panel at the gps mounting
location. Drill your hole, add a bushing, & poke the connectorless end
of the cable through the hole prior to routing to power & ground.
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: Whelen Nav lights |
At 08:25 AM 7/6/2008 -0400, you wrote:
>Thanks you all again for your suggestions and ideas (including building my
>own...which 20 years ago I would probably attempt! <G>) regarding the new
>LED navigation lights and position strobes.
>
>I think I'll probably go with the Skybrights (
><http://www.airplanegear.com/skybright.htm>www.airplanegear.com/skybright.htm
>), mainly for price, although the AveoFlash are still a distant second
>because of their all LED configuration. I need to justify the higher
>cost, however. I have communicated with the Aveo USA people and they have
>answered all my questions to my satisfaction. I will also wait for the
>results from a couple of people who are going to visit them at Oshkosh. If
>I had to purchase today, it would be the Skybrights.
>
>So...With that said, I have put my original Whelen lights on eBay. These
>were never installed. They are the A600 wingtip series with power supply
>and installation kit as included with the original "kit" of parts for my
>Long EZ that I bought from Wicks Aircraft. Rated for homebuilt or
>certified aircraft. The current price for them at Aircraft Spruce is
>$835. The bidding on my listing (after less than 12 hours) is up to
>$10! Someone is getting a deal! The listing has all the information and
>photos and a short video their demonstrate them working during the one and
>only time I powered them up on my kitchen table.
><http://tinyurl.com/6pajw6>http://tinyurl.com/6pajw6
Harley, the experience you and others have shared in this
thread goes directly to the point I was trying to make with
Paul on the Schottky vs. silicon rectifier discussion.
We of the OBAM aircraft community have an opportunity to
explore the recipes for success that craft equal to
or better performance in aircraft for the lowest total
cost of ownership. The best part is that we accomplish
this in a venue that is second only to medicine in
regulation by folks who know next to nothing about the
technology over which they exert power.
But like painting fine art, cooking, cabinet building,
or running a successful business, the best can only
be achieved after the practitioner acquires a solid
understanding of how the ingredients behave in crafting
the most successful recipe. A willingness to share
first hand-experiences with certain 'ingredients' goes
directly to the task of advancing the art of our
OBAM aviation community. You've decided on a plan
of action based on sifting all the factors weighed
against design goals . . . and obviously brushed aside
the marketing hype intended to convince you that one
product was better suited to your needs based on
Small Picture issues.
Thank you all!
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
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: power to handheld gps. |
At 08:41 AM 7/6/2008 -0500, you wrote:
><ceengland@bellsouth.net>
>
>Charlie England wrote:
>>bob noffs wrote:
>>>hi all,
>>> seems that my inquiry was misleading. simply i am looking for the
>>> smallest connector i can find that will mount in my panel and deliver a
>>> ground and 12 volt pos. to the appropiate plug in. this will avoid
>>> frequent plugging and unplugging at the gps
>>> sorry for any confusion.
>>> bob noffs
>>
>>Hi Bob,
>>
>>I'd just wander into the nearest Radio Shack & pick up a mating miniature
>>phone plug & jack. They look like the connector on headphones for iPods &
>>other mp3 players, but you can get them with just tip & barrel (2
>>conductors), instead of tip, ring & barrel. Use the tip as positive & the
>>barrel as ground. Jack goes in the panel (obviously) & plug goes on the
>>end of your power cable to the gps. They come in several different
>>diameters; I'd pick one that does *not* match your iPod's audio
>>connector. Go smaller with the gps connector, if you can find one. That
>>will avoid the danger of plugging an iPod's audio output into 12VDC
>>power. Or, hide the power jack under/behind the panel so that passengers
>>will be unlikely to find it.
>>
>>The snap-action of the detent in the tip of the plug will keep it plugged
>>in unless you pull it out. In my not-so-humble opinion, a locking
>>connector in this type application just leads to damaged connectors &
>>wiring, while the spring loaded connector will just unplug if you snag
>>the wire, & you can plug it back in instead of repairing it (at the end
>>of the flight).
>>
>>There are dozens of other small connectors available, but most either
>>lock in place or have no practical holding system, like the typical
>>coaxial barrel connectors for power found on cordless phones, etc. If you
>>can live with the lack of any latching feature, the coaxial barrel
>>connectors are the best bet to help insure that nothing else will fit the jack.
>>
>>If the iPod/power connector issue worries you, you could actually use an
>>RJ-11 telephone plug & jack but they require somewhat more specialized
>>tools than a soldering iron & solder. And since they lock, there's the
>>danger of damage if you snag the wire with something.
>>
>>Charlie
>I forgot the most obvious answer, the one I used for my gps: just buy the
>mating cable for the gps & hard-wire it into the a/c's electrical system,
>with a short pigtail through the panel at the gps mounting location. Drill
>your hole, add a bushing, & poke the connectorless end of the cable
>through the hole prior to routing to power & ground.
There are some additional options to consider for hand-held
power connections in the cockpit. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/Power/Hand_Held_Power.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/Power/RS274-010.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/Power/RS274-013.jpg
Bob . . .
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: PM Alternator & S704-1 Relay |
At 05:21 AM 7/6/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Hi,
>
>I'm just wiring up my S704-1 alternator disconnect relay for my Jab, but
>the 2 documents I have contradict the + & - cable connections. On the B&C
>site S704-1_tips.jpg shows them with the negative next to the COM
>connection, whereas their power distribution diagram for some other
>alternators shows them reversed, with the +tive next to the COM
>connection. Can someone please confirm for me which way it should be for
>my Z-20 scheme.
Relays with no built in coil suppression technology are NOT
polarity sensitive. The reason you've detected this variability
in how wires are connected to the various terminals of the
spdt, S704-1 relay is a good example of this fact. You can
wire per any of the diagrams you've cited and the relay
will perform as advertised.
>Also, in the S704-1_tips.jpg image there is an IN5400 diode between the +
>& - terminals. This diode didn't come with the kit of bits I bought from
>B&C, so do I need to install this as well or not?
The 1N5400 is pretty "hoggy" in this case. Suggest the
smaller 1N4000 to 1N4007 device installed as shown in
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Relays/s704inst.jpg
Now, once that diode is installed, the INSTALLATION
becomes polarity sensitive . . . The banded end of
the diode connects to one of the coil terminals that
must now be the (+) supply to the coil.
>You can probably tell from my recent posts that I'm currently doing the
>firewall forward wiring of my plane, so your input is much appreciated at
>this, somewhat testing, time for a non-electrical guy!
>
>As always, thanks in advance for your time.
No problem . . . that's what we're here for.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
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: | Broken Low Voltage Module |
Hi Bob.
Have you had a chance to take a look at my low voltage module yet?
Bill B
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Bradburry
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 1:29 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Broken Low Voltage Module
--> <bbradburry@bellsouth.net>
Great!
Thanks Bob!
Bill B
-----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, June 17, 2008 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Broken Low Voltage Module
--> <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
At 10:54 PM 6/16/2008 -0400, you wrote:
><bbradburry@bellsouth.net>
>
>Bob,
>I sent the board in a couple of weeks ago. It should have been waiting
>for you when you returned from your vacation to California. I never
>heard if you found it ok.
>
>Have you had a chance to take a look at it, and if so, what did you
>discover?
>
>Bill B
It's laying on the desk right in front of me. I was thinking
this morning that I could probably get to it this evening.
I've been on travel quite a bit but there's a breathing spell
coming up.
Bob . . .
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Bridge diodes VS Schottky |
At 08:03 PM 7/5/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>
>WOW Bob, Its my turn to point out you have misunderstood my points in a few
>cases
>
>For example
>sniped to shorten the post
>
>> . . . you've mis-interpreted the discussions. Nobody from
>> this side of the list-server has ever shouted at anyone . . .
>
>Not you, but others have suggested there is no point to Eric's
>recommendation, Shout is my opinion perhaps not yours. Shouting down is in
>my opinion a series of comments indicating that Eric's suggestion was not
>needed along with suggested Bridge diode Vf well below worst case values
>which may not be repeatable by other builders. Its important to go much
>farther in parts selection, even suggestions years old. Bridge diodes were
>useful back in the days of single battery and e bus loads of 2-3 amps. Its
>important to update and or put real limits on the use of Bridge diodes. Most
>thought the Bridge diode was a 25 amp diode until Eric pointed out it was
>really a 12.5 amp diode. Further showing two in parallel is understood to
>non electrical engineers as splitting the current which is better? right :-)
'Better' needs to be quantified under the design goals. My
studies to be published soon show that the lowly bridge is
just fine as an e-bus feeder up to and including Z-13/8 with
an 8A continuous e-bus load and is not at risk of failure
for transient loads of 2x that amount.
>> Exactly! The superior performance of the Schottky diode is
>> not and never has been in question. What WAS in question was
>> the offering of an alternative to the lowly silicon rectifier
>> with equal dearth of data to support the promotion of a part
>> that was more expensive, had to be acquired from a source perhaps
>> less convenient than Radio Shack and was no easier to install.
>
>> Further, this had nothing to do with me, B&C or even Radio Shack
>> making a buck on the occasional sale of a bridge rectifier. When
>> the "new and improved" product came to the market, the lack of
>> data left many folks who already had bridge rectifiers installed
>> wondering if they'd done a bad thing . . . "Gee, should I rip it
>> out and put in the really good part?"
>
>The Schottky diode has decades of industry wide documentation in support of
>its superior performance and the diode bridge is simply not used in any
>recent design application for DC circuit controlling as we use it in your
>excellent application suggestions. Further I never suggested or implied
>anyone was making a buck on any part ever! Where did that comment come
>from???
Forgive me. There seemed to be a question about the 'narrowness
of suggested parts' when only AEC/B&C catalog numbers were cited
in the documentation and writings on the website.
> As for should I rip it out? Without more information such as heat
>loss, battery charging etc the answer is maybe it depends. PS the new and
>improved product existed in the 1980's Also my local RS store does not carry
>these parts.
>
>Today's circuits include battery charging as several posters have mentioned,
>another had stated his bus load was 8 amps and the bridge recommended
>attached to a simple bracket is not a good solution at higher currents. As
>many have clearly interpreted the recommended bridge it will not meet these
>design goals.
The data will tell . . .
<snip>
>> One COULD quibble over what the design goals for achieving "full charge".
>> Clearly, if you have say 24 hours to wait, 13.8 volts will top off a room
>> temperature lead-acid battery of any pedigree . . . but as a practical
>> matter, we'd like to get our ship's battery topped off in the first few
>> minutes of flight and under variety of temperatures. So we force the
>> battery to suffer acceptable indignities by boosting the bus voltage
>> under a perfectly rational idea that the goal is to store energy to
>> meet design goals . . . not squeeze a few extra flights of service
>> life out of a battery that is difficult to qualify. But yes, if one
>> chooses to go the diode isolator route for batteries, the Schottky
>> device offers a demonstrable advantage over silicon junction
>> rectifiers. I'll point out further that your design goals for
>> incorporation of a diode were decidedly different than for normal
>> feed path steering of the e-bus power.
>
>True but as above many current list builders use the diode to charge the
>battery. Setting the alternator to 14.3V will not, in a reasonable time,
>charge a backup battery as the bridge Vf can reach nearly 1 volt leaving the
>battery terminal voltage around 13.3 V which is below a reasonable voltage
>for charging. Further if the battery is really discharged the charging
>current is likely to exceed the allowable bridge maximum current.
>I recall the delta V to charge a battery is 0.2V per cell at room temp. This
>amounts to 1.2V for a 12V battery. Thus 13.3V charging V will eventually
>charge the battery to 12.1V hardly adequate!
No argument. This is why I've never recommended diodes for
battery isolation in favor of the lowly relay or switch
that eliminates this design issue.
<snip>
>> As a designer with decades of experience of working with
>> those breakers (knowing about their demonstrated capabilities
>> outside the guaranteed performance), I was able to
>> exploit their capabilities in ways that got some folks
>> really excited . . . for no good reason based on the physics.
>
>I understand the widespread of use of parts outside their design because one
>can usually get away with it. This is a poor excuse for proper design and
>again simply not allowed in aerospace where it must work with any part from
>any approved mfgr. In the above example there is no need to extrapolate as
>the addition of a simple series resistor will limit the current to
>specification values and not detract with the designs purpose or function.
No, I was "getting away" with nothing. I pointed out that
the parts in question were specified and tested to military
qualification standards that included test point that
lay far outside the bounds of the envelopes published in
the catalog data. Adding the resistor was only not
necessary, it degraded performance of the design in allowing
the ov condition to achieve higher magnitude for longer
periods of time. This WAS cleared by the manufacturers
of said devices and qualified under the watchful eyes of
my DERs and has been flying successfully on thousands of
TC and OBAM aircraft for over 20 years
<snip>
>> Exactly. And that works out to a heatsink with about 8.5C/Watt
>> thermal resistance which is NOT a very big heatsink.
>
>Not sure I agree and clearly at least a couple of bridge mfgrs disagree as
>they specify (to me) a large heatsink as noted elsewhere. However each case
>of mounting location etc is different and one needs to make a worst case
>heat sink or do the design specific analysis. Thermal resistance is
>different mounted behind the engine vs. mounted behind the panel vs. mounted
>behind the baggage. Also today some aircr4qaft fly well above 20,000 where
>convection transfer is much lower.
Don't know of many OBAM aircraft that fly at these heights . . . and
those folks are not interested in Z-13/8. As my Shop Notes will
show, there is plenty of headroom for cooling for 1/4 of the
common bridge rectifier by simply mounting it to an existing
surface of the airplane's structure. Certainly not a "small
bracket".
>> Hmmmm . . . don't know about "small bracket" . . . . I've
>> suggested any flat surface of aircraft sheet metal which is
>> generally a firewall, shelf or perhaps skin.
>
>Most firewalls are or should be SS and that is a very poor heatsink The skin
>is better but no mention of the need for heat sink grease used on the
>bracket to bridge and bracket to skin etc. Many skins are also very thin
>relative to normal heat sinks leading to high thermal resistance.
True. We'll down to the simple ideas and how they fit
together shortly.
<snip>
>> Absolutely. I've seen several battery powered systems
>> fall short of design goals because the folks forgot that
>> a battery intended to supply perhaps 5-10 amps in use
>> can DRAW several times that current while being recharged.
>
>Yes but posts stating the use of the bridge as a trickle charger were not
>challenged as not safe with the bridge diode.
Don't know about "trickle charging" . . . that's a exceedingly
vaporous term. Battery isolation for the purpose of preventing
reverse flow of battery energy into the charging source is
not a "trickle charge" and as you've noted, requires further
attention to details.
>>>Why worst case analysis? Because its not possible to know the actual
>>>parameters of the parts used by the various builders. Manufacturers do
>>>produce worst case parts and are often sold to resellers like RS with
>>>the higher quality parts are distributed to the industry market.
>>
>> Do you have some reference to support this? In years gone
>> by there have been countless suppliers of parts to the
>> hobby electronics market that indeed offered "floor sweepings"
>> in bags. I discovered the photo-sensitivity of junction
>> transistors when devices I'd purchased as "2N3904" transistors
>> had a terrible amount of hum that disappeared when the florescent
>> light over the bench was shut off. The plastic was not quite
>> as opaque as one might wish for a "real" 2N3904.
>
>I am not talking about out of spec parts. Worst case but meeting
>specification. Today parts are generally automatically tested and binned
>based on performance and selected and sold at a higher price to
>manufacturers.
???? Okay. So when I purchased a device from Radio Shack with
Fairchild's brand and part number on it, what concerns needed
to be assuaged?
>> However, the real cost of good parts has become so small
>> compared to all the other costs of distributing and marketing
>> that there is little value in spending labor to create a
>> separate product stream for sub-standard parts. Further, the
>> idea that sub-standard parts is even exist is suspect. Modern
>> semiconductor houses have so many process checks in place along
>> the assembly line that sub-standard parts are going to be
>> pitched long before they're put into final packages and marked
>> with the manufacturer's brand and part-number.
>
>I never stated sub standard parts I did say parts that were worst case which
>in this discussion had the max Vf for example. See comment just above your
>reply There is no special labor today, its 99% automated today. A given
>production run generally has a very tight distribution. Thus one run may
>produce 99% parts that are within 1% of max and another run may produce most
>parts that are 25% better than max. The better parts are often selected for
>higher performance requirements.
But once branded, date coded and identified as to part number,
of what value is any discussion on production line yields?
>There is a HUGE problem with remarked and parts made with different Die
>current plaguing the industry. Its bit even major manufacturers. This is a
>wide spread discussion in industry pubs this year and its apparently getting
>to be a larger issue as more and more parts are sub standard or not even the
>correct die inside.
But you can buy a bogus part from anybody, why pick on Radio Shack?
<snip>
>>>Availability? Its strange to me that the availability of the bridge at
>>>RS is promoted but many of the recommended switches are only available
>>>thru B&C.
>>
>> I "promote" selection of parts adequate to the task
>> with some notion of $time$ expended to acquire those
>> parts. A $1.50 switch from the store is no bargain
>> if you hop in the car and drive 7 miles to buy it . . .
>> while saving your $5.00 switch in the drawer for a
>> "more demanding" task.
>
>My point is there are special contact/switching configurations not normally
>available anywhere to the normal builder other than you then, and now B&C. I
>would suggest you consider electrical redesign and restrict the switches to
>the commonly available contact configurations. Not all builders want to use
>large bat handle toggles but other style switches are not available in the
>special contact configurations..
Whoa! I am not in the business of specifying any parts
to anybody. This is the OBAM aircraft community we're
writing for here. Our mission as teachers and mentors
is to GUIDE the neophyte builder in crafting a failure
tolerant system with the lowest cost of ownership. If
we do our jobs well, it matters not if the switches
are Honeywell or O'Rilley autoparts.
<snip>
>My point was specific towards some of you specified switches that simply are
>not stocked or made in other mechanical configurations. I know as I have
>looked for myself and others who wanted to use that specification switching
>function but not the large bat handle actuator.
Cite examples. I believe all the parts called out on my drawings
and in my writings are offered by B&C in Carling toggles at attractive
prices. It is beyond the scope of my mission to throw a wide net
into the switch marketplace with some idea that I'll cover the
design goals of all builders.
<snip>
>> This discussion has never been about cost of parts.
>> It has always been about selection of parts adequate
>> to the design goals with the minimum total expenditure
>> of $time$ to select, acquire, install, and maintain
>> those parts.
>
>I only pointed out there is no significant cost difference in the big
>picture and there is significant performance improvements to many builders.
>Today the cost of part acquation using the internet is lower cost that a
>auto trip to RS. Mouser is a good source for example and they will special
>order if the mfgr makes it. Shipping now is lower cost than auto gas and in
>many cases the internet delivers a no sales tax order.
No argument. And if you have specific recommendations to
make to any builder with respect to the selection and
procurement of any part, this List-Server is the place
to make that knowledge known. But please be specific
and support it with your deductions based on the simple-
ideas (physics, style, cost-of-ownership, preferences,
etc.) But to get out a broad brush and painting this
Shottkey vs. Silcon discussion with yet another color
is not productive.
>> In situations where the design goals were changed
>> (like battery isolation, and boss-hog e-bus loads)
>> then some re-evaluation of suggested parts is in
>> order. I've take data in the chamber on a variety
>> of diodes, done the stress tests to ascertain thermal
>> resistance of the parts and done all the photographs.
>> Measured the practical thermal resistance of small
>> sheets of aluminum.
>
>The problem with testing parts is the testing does not prove equivalent
>parts will perform the same way. Testing in the aerospace industry is only
>done as a proof of concept and only after a detailed design. Then the design
>analysis NOT the test results are used for production. Repeatable testing is
>only a valid statement using the exact same parts over and over.
>
>The design requirements have changed and its been several years since I
>noticed battery charging and higher e bus currents on your group or in the
>"book". It would have been helpful had there been some original limits
>defined in the "Book" regarding the use of bridge diodes as one example
You're making this MUCH more complicated than it needs
to be. This "worst case" canard has been tossed into
the List discussions many times over the years. I object
to and will vigorously resist the notion that we should
take cues from Boeing or NASA in the studies surrounding
the selection and application of parts.
We are not building revenue generating machines or spacecraft.
FAILURE TOLERANCE is the design goal. Our demands on
part reliability is in a totally different world from
the "big guys". We can and should ASSUME that every
part we install is going to fail at some point in time.
For folks who are following this thread, I'll refer them
to a series of 7 articles on the website that pop up under
a search for "failure tolerance". We can write volumes
of esoteric discussion on worst case, fault trees,
and 10 to the minus bizillion failure rates. This is
the mind-set that has driven the cost of a C-172 totally
out of reach for most folks who would like to own
an airplane . . . In the OBAM aircraft community
we can toss all that bilge in favor of building
systems that are not unsafe in spite of failures.
Failures that are easy to upgrade as needed so
that they don't repeat.
<snip>
>> Just need some time to put it all together into a
>> set of Shop Notes that speaks to the BIG PICTURE
>> when it comes to making any heat generating part
>> perform to design goals. Just understand that the
>> simple-ideas that support these discussions have
>> almost nothing to do with the additional cost
>> of a Schottky versus silicon-junction rectifiers.
>
>I agree and that is why I never have considered bridge diodes since years
>ago far better Schottky diodes were available. In my example I illustrated
>the best currently available schottky, much lower cost schottky diodes are
>also available if one only wants double the performance. Today and 15 years
>power Schottky diodes were available that were insulated bolt down.
. . . that was your well considered choice. I believe we've
done the best we know how to do in framing the discussion
so that it benefits our readers more than it confuses them.
>You are doing an incredible job helping the masses, but you seem to over
>react to comments that intend to improve and or update the design. There are
>many of us with knowledge of more modern parts that in our opinion a large
>improvement to your evolving designs
Thank you.
I don't think I over react . . . I'm always for value-added
"updates" and "improvements" but sometimes the best way
to drive a nail is with a hammer. Now, if you need to make
a living by the using thousands of nails per day,
a nail-gun or even an automatic machine is called for
as a means by which $time$ is better utilized. All
of our OBAM aircraft brothers have hammers.
My shop walls are covered in drawers and bins and
drawers . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Shop.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Shop_1.jpg
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Shop_2.jpg
in those drawers you'll find parts I've had for 40
years . . . and micro-processors and non-contact
magnetic rotary position sensors that are the latest that
the industry has to offer.
Any of those parts may find their way into a recipe for
success if found adequate to the task. Things are
not updated for the sake of being the "most improved"
especially if failure tolerant design makes the
investment of $time$ to improve problematic and
arbitrarily shuts out some economical sources of
supply.
Thank you for your $time$ and insight participating
in this discussion. It has been useful for me and
no doubt for some of our readers.
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: Bridge diodes VS Schottky |
Thanks for your time. I think we must disagree and let it go at that.
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Bridge diodes VS Schottky
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: | Broken Low Voltage Module |
At 12:00 PM 7/6/2008 -0400, you wrote:
><bbradburry@bellsouth.net>
>
>Hi Bob.
>
>Have you had a chance to take a look at my low voltage module yet?
>
>Bill B
Yes. Aside from more corrosion than I would like to see,
both the instrument and ECB are functional as advertised.
I've cleaned the board and plan to conformal coat before
I return them. Leaving for ML in a few hours but will be
back in shop Wednesday. I can probably get it out then.
What ever difficulties you're experiencing must be
in ship's wiring.
Bob . . .
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
>Bradburry
>Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 1:29 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Broken Low Voltage Module
>
>--> <bbradburry@bellsouth.net>
>
>Great!
>Thanks Bob!
>
>Bill B
>
>-----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, June 17, 2008 11:55 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Broken Low Voltage Module
>
>--> <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
>
>At 10:54 PM 6/16/2008 -0400, you wrote:
> ><bbradburry@bellsouth.net>
> >
> >Bob,
> >I sent the board in a couple of weeks ago. It should have been waiting
> >for you when you returned from your vacation to California. I never
> >heard if you found it ok.
> >
> >Have you had a chance to take a look at it, and if so, what did you
> >discover?
> >
> >Bill B
>
> It's laying on the desk right in front of me. I was thinking
> this morning that I could probably get to it this evening.
> I've been on travel quite a bit but there's a breathing spell
> coming up.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>5:26 AM
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
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 to handheld gps. |
thanks bob.
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Broken Low Voltage Module |
OK, thanks Bob.
I will install it when it returns to see if I still have the problem and go
from there.
Bill B
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 2:00 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Broken Low Voltage Module
--> <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
At 12:00 PM 7/6/2008 -0400, you wrote:
><bbradburry@bellsouth.net>
>
>Hi Bob.
>
>Have you had a chance to take a look at my low voltage module yet?
>
>Bill B
Yes. Aside from more corrosion than I would like to see,
both the instrument and ECB are functional as advertised.
I've cleaned the board and plan to conformal coat before
I return them. Leaving for ML in a few hours but will be
back in shop Wednesday. I can probably get it out then.
What ever difficulties you're experiencing must be
in ship's wiring.
Bob . . .
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
>Bradburry
>Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 1:29 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Broken Low Voltage Module
>
>--> <bbradburry@bellsouth.net>
>
>Great!
>Thanks Bob!
>
>Bill B
>
>-----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, June 17, 2008 11:55 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Broken Low Voltage Module
>
>--> <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
>
>At 10:54 PM 6/16/2008 -0400, you wrote:
> ><bbradburry@bellsouth.net>
> >
> >Bob,
> >I sent the board in a couple of weeks ago. It should have been
> >waiting for you when you returned from your vacation to California.
> >I never heard if you found it ok.
> >
> >Have you had a chance to take a look at it, and if so, what did you
> >discover?
> >
> >Bill B
>
> It's laying on the desk right in front of me. I was thinking
> this morning that I could probably get to it this evening.
> I've been on travel quite a bit but there's a breathing spell
> coming up.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>5:26 AM
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
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: power to handheld gps. |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> There are some additional options to consider for hand-held
> power connections in the cockpit. See:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/Power/Hand_Held_Power.jpg
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/Power/RS274-010.jpg
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/Power/RS274-013.jpg
>
The RS274-010/RS274-013 combination look like they would make for a
decent firewall pass-through. I'm sure the case is cheap pot metal, but
it still has to be a far cry above the typical plastic units. Protect
it from direct flames with a stainless steel panel, and I bet this would
perform just fine.
--
http://www.ronpaultimeline.com
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Avionic's Ground |
Bob:
I remember during your seminar in Columbus you spoke about using a 20 or 25
D-Sub and converting it to a Ground system; soldering 2-4 wires on the male
side and using the female side for connecting various radio stack ground
pins.
I can't seem to find this article on your CD-Rom. Can you please search
your archives and direct me to the site.
Thanks
Henry
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Avionic's Ground |
On Sun, 6 Jul 2008 19:49:40 -0700
"Henry Trzeciakowski" <hammer408@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Bob:
>
> I remember during your seminar in Columbus you spoke about using a 20 or 25
> D-Sub and converting it to a Ground system; soldering 2-4 wires on the male
> side and using the female side for connecting various radio stack ground
> pins.
> I can't seem to find this article on your CD-Rom. Can you please search
> your archives and direct me to the site.
>
> Thanks
>
> Henry
>
>
Hi Henry,
I'm not THE Bob, but I think you will find what your are looking for at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/18Audio_R11.pdf on page 11
or so. I think I've seen it at other places on the aeroelectric web
site, but this one came up in a search of the site.
Bob W.
--
N93BD - Rotary Powered BD-4 - http://www.bob-white.com
3.8 Hours Total Time and holding
Cables for your rotary installation - http://roblinstores.com/cables/
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: | Igniton Problem on Rotax 914 - Help |
Her is my problem...I have an ACS 510 Keyed switch and Rotax 914 and have run the
18 gauge shielded wires from the ignition modules to the switch as per Rotax.
These are connected to terminal "L" and "R" and other connections are as per
ACS. When I start the engine and do a mag/ign. check, the engine quits when
switched to the "R" position. It runs fine on "L" and "Both". The shielding
is connected to the center ground terminal and then grounded at my ground buss.
Can someone tell me what is wrong or give me some ideas? Could I have a bad ignition
module (they are brand new).
Also, I know ACS had an AD on their starter solenoids and require a diode to be
added. I have lost the diode that came with my soleniod so can anyone tell me
which diode will provide the spike protection (1N5400?) and which terminals
it connects to.
I hope there is an easy answer to this problem as this is the last thing that is
keeping my out of the sky.
--------
Darin Hawkes
Series 7 (Final Assembly)
914 Turbo
Kaysville, Utah
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=191535#191535
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 |
|
| Subject: | Nippondenso alternator question |
This is my last question...at least for tonight. I have a Rotax 914 and the onboard
generator is not enough so I added a optional 40 amp nippondenso alternator.
It has the alt. output and a plug labeled "L" and "IG". I assume the "IG"
is the field circuit and the "L" is obviously the lamp circuit.
The question is this: I have been told that the alt. must have the indicator lamp
installed for it to charge the battery. I don't really want to add another
"idiot" light to my panel as I already had two for the turbo control unit and
one for my GRT EIS. Can I run it through the EIS light or will this screw it
up? If I have to have a light, I may just mount it behind the panel. Lastly,
I was told this light cannot be an LED...is this also correct?
--------
Darin Hawkes
Series 7 (Final Assembly)
914 Turbo
Kaysville, Utah
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=191541#191541
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! --
|