---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Wed 07/16/08: 42 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 03:05 AM - Re: Re: S700 switches (Andrew Butler) 2. 04:37 AM - Re: Over filling during flight? (Sam Hoskins) 3. 05:03 AM - Re: S700 Switches (ianwilson2) 4. 05:08 AM - Re: Z-20 Mag Switches (ianwilson2) 5. 05:15 AM - Re: Cabbages and kings . . . (Eric M. Jones) 6. 05:35 AM - Re: Over filling during flight? (ROGER & JEAN CURTIS) 7. 05:56 AM - Re: Cabbages and kings . . . (Eric M. Jones) 8. 06:09 AM - Re: Over filling during flight? (Ernest Christley) 9. 06:39 AM - Re: Over filling during flight? (Sam Hoskins) 10. 06:52 AM - Re: Re: S700 Switches (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 11. 06:57 AM - G-Series Progressive Transfer Conventions (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 12. 07:08 AM - Re: Re: Z-20 Mag Switches (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 13. 07:11 AM - connecting two wires (Dennis Jones) 14. 07:19 AM - Z13/8 wiring correction ? (Jeff Page) 15. 07:35 AM - Re: Re: S700 switches (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 16. 07:59 AM - Re: connecting two wires (ROGER & JEAN CURTIS) 17. 09:08 AM - Re: Over filling during flight? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 18. 09:15 AM - Re: connecting two wires (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 19. 09:49 AM - Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 20. 10:14 AM - Re: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. (jaybannist@cs.com) 21. 10:14 AM - Re: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. (Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)) 22. 10:42 AM - Re: Nippondenso alternator question (Rob Housman) 23. 11:12 AM - Re: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. (simon@synchronousdesign.com) 24. 11:35 AM - Re: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. (Dj Merrill) 25. 11:59 AM - Re: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. (jon@finleyweb.net) 26. 12:03 PM - Solid-state electrical system forum at OSH (marcausman) 27. 12:15 PM - Re: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. (Bill Boyd) 28. 12:23 PM - Re: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. (simon@synchronousdesign.com) 29. 12:34 PM - Re: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. (ROGER & JEAN CURTIS) 30. 12:53 PM - Re: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. (Terry Watson) 31. 01:11 PM - Re: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. (Dj Merrill) 32. 01:25 PM - Re: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 33. 01:40 PM - Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 34. 01:57 PM - Nippondenso alternator question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 35. 02:49 PM - Re: Nippondenso alternator question (Rob Housman) 36. 03:05 PM - Re: Over filling during flight? (LarryMcFarland) 37. 03:12 PM - W31 switch/breaker fiasco (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 38. 04:26 PM - Re: Over filling during flight? (paul wilson) 39. 04:26 PM - Re: W31 switch/breaker fiasco (Matt Prather) 40. 06:08 PM - Re: W31 switch/breaker fiasco (Ron Quillin) 41. 07:16 PM - Re: W31 switch/breaker fiasco (Matt Prather) 42. 10:44 PM - Re: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. (Dave Leikam) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 03:05:26 AM PST US From: "Andrew Butler" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: S700 switches "Will do, but my pesky job may prevent me from getting to the hangar and providing the answer until Friday or Saturday. " Yeah, life just keeps getting in the way of finishing the damn thing and getting in the air! There was a great article in Kitplanes magazine a couple of months ago written more like an ode to the writers' unfinished RV7 that was sitting patiently in his shed, apprantly longing to get in the air. It was in response to another builder's observation, in the same magazine, that build projects should win over all else. Mind you, this indvidual seemed to be able to make a nice living playing on his computer a couple of hours here and there in his own home whenever he wasn't working on his plane..... Nice work if you can get it! Ditto on not knowing nothin' about aircraft electrics until reading Aeroelectric twice on two (very) long haul flights last year. I have a few S700 switches sitting in an unopened box from B&C. This is a good excuse to fish them out and figure them out. Andrew. RV71700. ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 04:37:34 AM PST US From: "Sam Hoskins" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Over filling during flight? ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 05:03:16 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: S700 Switches From: "ianwilson2" Bob & all, I have some 1-3 and 2-10 switches that were delivered by B&C about a month ago. The 2-10 is definitely wired as per the Micro Switch vs Carling article, i.e. with keyway up, on the first switch up, pins 1 & 2 (bottom left & middle) connect and on the second switch up, pins 4 & 5 (bottom right & middle) connect. My 2-10 has the code 0817R on the side and my 1-3 has 0639R on it. The 1-3 seems to be perform as advertised. Hope this helps. Ian Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=193053#193053 ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 05:08:18 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Z-20 Mag Switches From: "ianwilson2" Hi Bob, Phew, it's not easy posting a message like that as I always think it must be something I've got wrong or don't understand. So, you see, I must be learning and it's thanks to all of you out there. Thanks guys and girls. Bob, thanks for correcting the drawing so quickly and it's nice for me, finally to have contributed something to this forum! Off to wire my mags............ Ian Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=193056#193056 ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 05:15:47 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Cabbages and kings . . . From: "Eric M. Jones" Etienne: > http://forums.matronics.com//files/leos_tale_967.pdf > > Cute story... I don't understand it's relevance to the discussion > though...? Am I missing something? Etienne, You didn't miss a thing. I just threw it in like a sherbet between courses. I posted this tale on the Glastarnet some years ago. A couple years later a guy sent me an email containing this nice story that he'd heard at a fly-in. "He whose in-flowing thoughts are dried up - the way of such a person is hard to follow, like the path of birds through the sky." - Buddha -------- 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=193058#193058 ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 05:35:23 AM PST US From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Over filling during flight? Sam, Your message didn't come through!! You might want to try it again. Roger -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam Hoskins Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 7:33 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Over filling during flight? ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 05:56:06 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Cabbages and kings . . . From: "Eric M. Jones" > The LT4356 does not seem to be suited for standing > off the uncontrolled runway. The schematic proposed > does not suggest a means by which an alternator may > be controlled . . . I'm presuming that the "new > philosophy" is that the artfully designed system > of the future does not demand control. I'm not > aware of how that might be accomplished. The prototyped device is good to 150V. I admit that this may not be the final form, that's why it's called a prototype. The LT4356 doesn't do anything that couldn't have been done earlier. It is just far simpler. The diagram in my paper is not a schematic. Attached is the schematic of my prototype. As for the kind offer to re-open old subjects like crowbars, bi-directional Zeners for coil suppression, battery meters (instead of dual batteries), Schottkys, elimination of contactors, etc., etc.--I looked in the mirror this morning and nobody had written "STUPID" on my forehead, so I guess it won't happen. But if I bump my head REALLY HARD, I'll be sure to let you know. -------- 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=193063#193063 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/power_good_a1_134.pdf ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 06:09:43 AM PST US From: Ernest Christley Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Over filling during flight? LarryMcFarland wrote: > > The question would be, is it possible to use the EIS to read the full > point of a common rheostat type tank sensor to set an alarm point? > > Or, should one consider a blinking light that constantly runs when > either of the wing pumps is running. > > Or, does anyone have a good "reminder" that the pump is running or the > tank is nearly full? > > Thanks again, It's entirely possible, Larry, but this sounds like an accident waiting to happen. If the pilot is distracted and misses the warning, or the warning light burns out, what will be the result? Some other options you might consider: - Put a normally closed level switch in the header tank that will interrupt the pump in the tank is full. -Tracey Crook has his RV set up to pull fuel to the engine from one tank. Fuel from the other wing tank is accessed by a transferring it over with a second pump. He put the transfer pump on a timer. Hit a button and you get three minutes of pumping. Fire and forget scenario. ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 06:39:55 AM PST US From: "Sam Hoskins" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Over filling during flight? ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 06:52:57 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: S700 Switches At 05:00 AM 7/16/2008 -0700, you wrote: > >Bob & all, > >I have some 1-3 and 2-10 switches that were delivered by B&C about a month >ago. The 2-10 is definitely wired as per the Micro Switch vs Carling >article, i.e. with keyway up, on the first switch up, pins 1 & 2 (bottom >left & middle) connect and on the second switch up, pins 4 & 5 (bottom >right & middle) connect. My 2-10 has the code 0817R on the side and my >1-3 has 0639R on it. The 1-3 seems to be perform as advertised. > >Hope this helps. Its a LOT of help. Folks should understand that the single pole and two-pole tandem transfer switches have no way to be 'different' from other brands. It's when we purchase the very useful PROGRESSIVE TRANSFER devices that there is room for variability between brands. Of course, Microswitch molds numbers into their switch bodies . . . and they've delivered their switches to conforming to consistent catalog data and military specification going back many decades. Now, there are dozens if not hundreds of sources for switches that are useful to our purposes . . . SOME of these suppliers will offer the progressive transfer devices and they have a decision to make: "Which side of the switch transfers first?" It's a 50:50 thing that doesn't make much difference in the big picture as long as the installer KNOWS which side is which and how it relates to his task in following an explicit wiring diagram. This situation has come up before in another venue. I used to drop by the MAC/RayAllen booth at OSH every year to plead the case for slightly larger wire and TWO colors on the motor leads that they control as (+)extend and (+)retract. No joy. They did not seem to appreciate the value of crafting a user friendly product. Anyone who attempted to publish drawings that assisted THEIR customers in wiring THEIR product right the first time was unable to offer that support. If researched the few catalogs I have on my hard drive for switches and I find that most of the industry seems to conform to the same progressive transfer convention adopted by Microswitch many moons ago. There IS a military specification for such switches and once carved in government stone, large volume suppliers to the government are loath to diddle with tradition for any reason! http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Switches/Honeywell_Prog_Xfer_Convention.pdf http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Switches/C&K_Prog_Xfer_Convention.pdf http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Switches/APEM_Prog_Xfer_Convention.pdf Unfortunately, Carlingswitch does not number their terminals and they only refer to the progressive transfer functionality by referring to the two sides as "Circuit 1" and "Circuit 2". See page 2 of . . . http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Switches/Carling_G-series.pdf So, they could easily have swapped sides to conform to everyone else's notion of how it should be done . . . without reprinting their catalog! I've written to Carlingswitch to see if they can offer us some insight as to (1) whether or not the swap was intentional and (2) if so, when (what date code) did the swap take place. Time will tell . . . Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 06:57:45 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: G-Series Progressive Transfer Conventions Good morning! I am a consulting electrical engineer for aviation. I am also write for the amateur built aviation industry. I used to have a parts business catering to that industry wherein I offered a select line of Carlingswitch F and G series switches. I also published a series of architecture drawings for a variety of electrical systems for light aircraft. My readers had an interest in 2-pole, progressive transfer switches for a number of applications. My drawings called out terminal numbers on the switches and referenced keyway-up-rear-views of switches to assist the neophyte builder in correctly wiring the progressive transfer devices. At that time (late 90's and early 00's) we noted that the progressive transfer convention for Carlingswitch products swapped sides compared to the rest of the industry. I was obliged to point out this difference in a number of publications. See page 9 of . . . http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Switch_Ratings.pdf I no longer sell parts but continue to support the industry with consulting. I'm receiving reports from my readers that recently purchased Carlingsitch products appear to have swapped sides compared to older products in terms of progressive transfer sequencing. The Carlingswitch catalog doesn't number the terminals and refers to switching functions as "Circuit 1" and "Circuit 2" . . . so swapping sides would be transparent to the catalog data. Can you tell me if present production switches now conform to what appears to be an industry standard convention for progressive transfer? If so, is there any way that I can help my readers identify when the change occurred? Can you give me a date code range for the changeover? Thanks! Regards, Bob Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 07:08:01 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Z-20 Mag Switches At 05:05 AM 7/16/2008 -0700, you wrote: > >Hi Bob, > >Phew, it's not easy posting a message like that as I always think it must >be something I've got wrong or don't understand. So, you see, I must be >learning and it's thanks to all of you out there. Thanks guys and girls. > >Bob, thanks for correcting the drawing so quickly and it's nice for me, >finally to have contributed something to this forum! > >Off to wire my mags............ This isn't MY publication and forum, it's OURS. When I set out to publish the 'Connection 20+ years ago, I soon realized that I could not answer questions without first knowing what the questions were. Further, our consideration for processes, parts, and design philosophies could be selected from the universal pallet of possibilities and NOT LIMITED to that which was dictated by management/government. Over the years, its YOU folks who have set the course for this effort and YOU folks have been the filter for "gee it doesn't work the way you said" or "I don't understand". Any real teacher absolutely depends on these filters to correct error and refine teaching technique. Your service to all of us by raising the flag far exceeds my service to you in correcting the error. Thousands of others refer to the works I've published and it's imperative that we strive to get it right. I can't do it all by myself. Thank YOU sir! Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 07:11:38 AM PST US From: "Dennis Jones" Subject: AeroElectric-List: connecting two wires For removing two wires for maintenance reasons is the knife splice or the fully insulated male/female push on best? If one uses the knife type wouldn't one need to use shrink wrap to protect the exposed knife portion of the connection? Jonsey ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 07:19:32 AM PST US From: Jeff Page Subject: AeroElectric-List: Z13/8 wiring correction ? Please look closely at the switch wiring for the E-Mag in Z13/8. The operation of the switch as pictured is correct. That is the power is applied to the E-Mag while the P Lead is still grounded, and the P Lead is grounded before power is removed. However, the pictorial diagram of the switch does not match the diagram of the 2-10 switch shown on Page 11-18. Assuming that page 11-18 is correct, then the V+, pin 5 of the E-Mag should be controlled by switch connections 2-1 and the P Lead, pin 4 of the E-Mag should be controlled by switch connections 5-6. Or am I mixed up about something ? Jeff Page Dream Aircraft Tundra #10 ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 07:35:26 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: S700 switches At 10:00 AM 7/16/2008 +0000, you wrote: >"Will do, but my pesky job may prevent me from getting to the hangar and >providing the answer until Friday or Saturday. " > > >I have a few S700 switches sitting in an unopened box from B&C. This is a >good excuse to fish them out and figure them out. Cool! Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 07:59:44 AM PST US From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: connecting two wires Jonsey, The knife splice is mechanically somewhat stronger, and you should slip on a piece of heat shrink before connecting. That said, the push on will work just fine as long as the stress is minimal. Roger -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dennis Jones Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:08 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: connecting two wires For removing two wires for maintenance reasons is the knife splice or the fully insulated male/female push on best? If one uses the knife type wouldn't one need to use shrink wrap to protect the exposed knife portion of the connection? Jonsey ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 09:08:07 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Over filling during flight? At 08:23 PM 7/15/2008 -0500, you wrote: > > >Hi Guys, > >July 14 Monday was perfect. I walked Toby our cat, then packed the flight >bag and went to the airport. After a lengthy preflight, the plane was >pulled from the hangar and I did a secondary walk around. All good, the >tower cleared my request for runway 5. I lifted off in a soft downwind, >but still short enough for traffic. I set course for Clinton and climbed >to 3000 ft. On the formerly flooded Mississippi, one could see the river >traffic moving again and a few recreational boaters. Clinton airport was >also visible 8-miles out. I passed over the airport and entered downwind >for 32. Good pattern work, but I flared a foot high and just bounced the >touchdown. I taxied in and parked to check wheel-pants for damage. None >was found, so after visiting with the FBO, I taxied to 32 and took off, >departed west. The header tank was less than full so the left wing pump >was turned on. Engine temps were good for an 85-degrees ambient. EGTs >1370, oil 220, coolant 198, CHT 210 and oil pressure was 48 psi. On >turning south for the return, I called Quad Cities approach, collected >traffic and guidance and nearly forgot to track the refill. The header was >completely full when I turned off the wing pump and centered the selector >valve. I felt a chill down my spine, because I didn't want to overfill. >I worried that fumes from spilled fuel could trace across the 601s >non-laminar wing to the exhaust pipe's back draft and turn the plane into >a roman candle. I couldn't smell any fuel within the cabin. On landing, >I taxied back and shut down. Inside the header, fuel was 3-inches from the >cap and the overflow tube was dry. This is the tank's max fill limit. Very >relieved, I put the 601 back in the hangar and drove home with this tidbit >chewing on my mind. Nice flight, but the wrong kind of adrenaline rush! > >The question would be, is it possible to use the EIS to read the full >point of a common rheostat type tank sensor to set an alarm point? > >Or, should one consider a blinking light that constantly runs when either >of the wing pumps is running. > >Or, does anyone have a good "reminder" that the pump is running or the >tank is nearly full? > >Thanks again, Absolutely. I've designed several manual and automatic fuel transfer systems that spoke to your experience and concerns. Consider these thoughts: Any automatic or manual fuel transfer system needs to consider the potential for overfilling due to inattention and/or failure. Some fuel system designers have deduced that the vent system on a tank provides some level of protection for over-pressuring a tank or spilling fuel into the interior of the aircraft . . . but this only prolongs the unhappy surprise that a whole lot of fuel went overboard while the pilot was occupied with other things. The last auto-transfer system I proposed for a header tank auto fill used an array of 3 optical liquid level sensors in the tank. See: http://www.gemssensors.com/content.aspx?id=282 and in particular . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Sensors/ELS900.pdf http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Sensors/ELS1100.pdf One sensor was located at 60% of tank capacity and wired to light a LOW FUEL warning light and generate an alarm tone. A second sensor was located at 90% of tank capacity and wired to light a FUEL FULL warning light and generate an alarm tone. The third sensor was at 75% of tank capacity and wired to control a transfer pump when in the AUTO XFER mode. If controlling a rotary pump (brushed motor) we called for a running the pump ANY TIME the sensor was exposed - further, a 5 second timer was included to make the pump run a minimum of 5 seconds each time the ON-cycle was tripped. This minimized the deleterious effects of electrical "chatter" when starting a motor with high inrush characteristics. Indeterminate submersion at the control-point exacerbated by sloshing was filtered out. With solid state pumps like Facet http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Pumps/Facet_Solid_State_Pump.pdf there is no 'inrush', no contact to arc and very fast check valves. Hence, little need for a minimum-run timer. On could wire one of these pumps directly to a mid-level sensor in the AUTO XFER mode to hold the header tank at the CALIBRATED capacity as described by physical location of the sensor on the tank. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 09:15:03 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: connecting two wires At 09:07 AM 4/16/2008 -0500, you wrote: >For removing two wires for maintenance reasons is the knife splice or the >fully insulated male/female push on best? If one uses the knife type >wouldn't one need to use shrink wrap to protect the exposed knife portion >of the connection? Yup. See: http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Terminals/ksplc2.jpg That's how we did it on the B-52's at Boeing when I was working there . . . except we used a plastic sleeving we called "irvolite" (sp?) and a string tie. Heat shrink is the modern cover of choice for this legacy service joint in a wire run. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 09:49:56 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. I just heard on the news that the FAA has issued a new rule "critical to making aviation safer". It seems that a redesign of fuel tanks on air transport category a/c are to be modified to prevent "catastrophic explosion like that which brought down TWA800". This is an excellent example of the lack of science and understanding that drives the actions of folk-who-know- more-about-airplanes-than-we-do. This is in spite of the fact that a kerosene fueled explosion of the type observed from TWA800 has never happened before or since nor has it been duplicated in the lab by anyone, anywhere. This is in spite of the fact that experienced observers of many explosions of all kinds (military and x-military) observed that first-light from the TWA800 explosion was "white" . . . kerosene doesn't burn white under any conditions. This is one of those pesky details that is not unlike the famous bullet ostensibly found on a cot in the emergency room of a Dallas hospital. A bevy of learned observers and finders of fact ultimately deduced that this bullet made multiple holes in two individuals, even turned a corner or two . . . and "fell out" of one of the bodies not bearing a single mark or evidence of deformation. When really stupid "mistakes" are observed, it gives rise to two questions: If the writers really believe this, what are their qualifications for making judgement on the matter in the first place? If they don't believe it but are counting on the majority of the populace to believe it . . . well, the implications of that are far more disturbing. Those are the same folks who sit in judgement on the things we do on our airplanes and how we use them. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 10:14:24 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. From: jaybannist@cs.com My question was: What makes an explosion in a wing center section tank any more deadly than an explosion in a outer wing tank? I guess the next step is the removal of ALL fuel tanks, because they just might explode. Jay in Dallas -----Original Message----- From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:45 am Subject: AeroElectric-List: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. ? I just heard on the news that the FAA has issued a new? rule "critical to making aviation safer". It seems that? a redesign of fuel tanks on air transport category a/c? are to be modified to prevent "catastrophic explosion? like that which brought down TWA800".? ? This is an excellent example of the lack of science and? understanding that drives the actions of folk-who-know-? more-about-airplanes-than-we-do.? ? This is in spite of the fact that a kerosene fueled explosion? of the type observed from TWA800 has never happened? before or since nor has it been duplicated in the lab? by anyone, anywhere. This is in spite of the fact that? experienced observers of many explosions of all kinds? (military and x-military) observed that first-light from? the TWA800 explosion was "white" . . . kerosene doesn't? burn white under any conditions.? ? This is one of those pesky details that is not unlike? the famous bullet ostensibly found on a cot in the emergency? room of a Dallas hospital. A bevy of learned observers? and finders of fact ultimately deduced that this bullet? made multiple holes in two individuals, even turned? a corner or two . . . and "fell out" of one of the bodies? not bearing a single mark or evidence of deformation.? ? When really stupid "mistakes" are observed, it gives rise? to two questions: If the writers really believe this, what? are their qualifications for making judgement on the matter? in the first place? If they don't believe it but are counting? on the majority of the populace to believe it . . . well,? the implications of that are far more disturbing.? ? Those are the same folks who sit in judgement on the things we? do on our airplanes and how we use them.? ? ? ? Bob . . .? ? ? ----------------------------------------)? ? ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )? ? ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )? ? ( appearance of being right . . . )? ? ( )? ? ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )? ? ----------------------------------------? ? ? ? ? ________________________________________________________________________ Email message sent from CompuServe - visit us today at http://www.cs.com ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 10:14:38 AM PST US From: "Hinde, Frank George (Corvallis)" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. And you would think this was a perfect opportunity to blame it on "terrorists" and a good reason to invade another country...Hmm..Lets see which one this time? I mean didn't we invade Iraq after a bunch of SAUDI ARABIAN terrorsts carried out 9-11? Rule making at least doesn't cost us a billion dollars a day....:) Frank -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 9:46 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. --> I just heard on the news that the FAA has issued a new rule "critical to making aviation safer". It seems that a redesign of fuel tanks on air transport category a/c are to be modified to prevent "catastrophic explosion like that which brought down TWA800". This is an excellent example of the lack of science and understanding that drives the actions of folk-who-know- more-about-airplanes-than-we-do. This is in spite of the fact that a kerosene fueled explosion of the type observed from TWA800 has never happened before or since nor has it been duplicated in the lab by anyone, anywhere. This is in spite of the fact that experienced observers of many explosions of all kinds (military and x-military) observed that first-light from the TWA800 explosion was "white" . . . kerosene doesn't burn white under any conditions. This is one of those pesky details that is not unlike the famous bullet ostensibly found on a cot in the emergency room of a Dallas hospital. A bevy of learned observers and finders of fact ultimately deduced that this bullet made multiple holes in two individuals, even turned a corner or two . . . and "fell out" of one of the bodies not bearing a single mark or evidence of deformation. When really stupid "mistakes" are observed, it gives rise to two questions: If the writers really believe this, what are their qualifications for making judgement on the matter in the first place? If they don't believe it but are counting on the majority of the populace to believe it . . . well, the implications of that are far more disturbing. Those are the same folks who sit in judgement on the things we do on our airplanes and how we use them. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 10:42:15 AM PST US From: "Rob Housman" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Nippondenso alternator question First, please learn how to use a spell checker. Second, your URL is obviously spelled wrong - it should be mtMIND.com Third, neither you nor gmcjetpilot would recognize real research if it bit you in the butt. Finally, why don't you and your gmcjetpilot friend start you own raving forum and spare the rest of from your diatribes. Best regards, Rob Housman Irvine, CA Europa XS Tri-Gear A070 Airframe complete -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Paul Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 10:59 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Nippondenso alternator question Well (very sadly but it did seem too good to be true and I am not surprised) I had hoped for mutual cooperation but I guess you want to do it all your self. Good timing as I was just finishing the first part of the planned discussion. Be my guest, I had thought you had changed. Clearly you want yo frive the discussion VS get the benefit of my extensive work. Random comments as its not worth my time to put them in ordered sequence. I have made some suggestions about how and what to test to avoid missing information that is not gathered just using your sketched circuit. You are incorrect about my approach and intent and about my past analysis and testing which is in my opinion adequate to determine the problem and I have "crafted" a proven solution. In my opinion there is ZERO need for more testing other for self aggrandizement. I find this sad as you have not seen any real results of my testing nor the scope of it. Reading your suggested approach I find little to agree with so there is no point in my being a part of your long promised study. Further most of your below comments about my position are totally incorrect assumptions which is not surprising as you have never spent the time to find out what my approach is; the amount of analysis, investigation nor testing setup and results. I will not tolerate testing as anything other as proof of pre testing design analysis. I also simply will not design using assumptions or unofficial verbal assurances from one manufacturer its safe to exceed the specifications as that is simply a high risk approach no engineer will do. My results are identical design solution for all reasonable alternator but clearly its not reasonable to allow any alternator to be covered and that position indicates to me a lack of modern alternator designs etc. Further you seem fixated on maintaining several design flexibilities and pilot control that I feel is not only not required but potentially dangerous. Also your sketch does not reproduce the real world load dump conditions what with fixed load and relay contact bounce in the real circuit. Finally it appears you intend to have a constant string of load dumps which is very likely to destroy the internal to the regulator load dump protection components. Each single load dump needs time for the protection circuits to cool down. Hopefully you will end up with far more evaluation, studying, and testing than what you listed below as its not adequate nor has it addressed ALL the problems I have addressed. You really should test all the brands of alternators you intend to approve of and in the several different types and amps in each style. There are differences to consider. For example different regulator transient response as well as the winding charactericts which will determine the load dump information. Further you should take note of the fact just how much (or more important, how little) is replaced in rebuilt alternators as if you know what is replaced you would never recommend a rebuilt alternator (rebuilt is a misnomer minimal repair is what actually happens).Junk yard is not a source for ANY aircraft as who knows how close to failure the parts are. In any event testing alone, with out first doing an analysis and manufacturers detailed data is NEVER sufficient. Both Myself and Jet Pilot found getting more detailed information was not easy and getting past the sales staff if difficult at best. However a lot of useful information was passed on and po-poed on this groups list. Also be sure to test with a full load current and zero fixed load. Note my selected 50 amp rated alternator is specified to put out 70 amps at 13V and more amps at lower voltages so a full output failure results in a much higher current than your suggested testing which based on my testing is not nearly worst case! Another comment about getting the real data first. My NEW alternator came with a computer printout of the actual alternator during final test prior to shipment. Note the full amp output is a lot higher than past comments have been clearly assumed on this list in the past. 40% higher is not small in my opinion and under load dump conditions the load being dumped is much higher energy as well as the peak voltage. My testing was based on a real duplication of a typical aircraft wiring including wire gauge and lengths as well as flight batteries. It started with your OVP and contactor with the diode on the contactor coil. Very different than what your sketch shows. Also very long alternator failure point to final contactor opening requiring voltage clamping during that time of a lot more energy than what has been assumed in one of your tests from years ago. But then we have a large and fundamental difference on how to design any electrical (including aircraft) systems. My approach is to discard many of the proven pilot opportunities to mess up that have been a reason for past crashes and leap into the 21st century. Building on the past and not address the fundamental cause of most accidents is not progress in my opinion. The more pilot required actions greatly increases the pilots lack or incorrect action. Today there is no need to do things manually in most cases. Every manual control available to the pilot 's another opportunity to make a mistake that can lead to a crash. Today we have Integrated Solid state switches/circuit breakers. Schottly diodes are not really needed much less silicon bridges which have no use in aircraft. Yes Solid state switching is easy to make with full bi-directional isolation and ON resistance less that of mechanical relays etc switching (as low as 0.002 ohms ON resistance). The pilot needs to be notified of any CB failure not by finding out by failure of the component to work for example. The aircraft instruments have migrated from steam gauges to flat panels yet we still find the old contactor relay// switch approach of 1950 etc and that ignores the modern components available today that are far more reliable and more pilot friendly. Its a fact that pilot error is the major cause of accidents. Its pilot error if you run out of fuel, deplete the battery based on an assumption of battery condition and electrical load etc etc. The requirement to throw a switch in an emergency is bad design if there is a reasonable solution that eliminates the mechanical pilot action and its done automatically. Its sad that there is no truly modern system available at a reasonable price on the market today that automates the system and provides the pilot with useful real time electrical system conditions. My designs have been peer reviewed by my (multiple) peers and all have stated its both more reliable and a great improvement to current 1950's parts and today's arrangements and approaches. You have long promoted fly the airplane and trouble shoot back on the ground which is not what your design requirement to turn on and off the alternator in flight and a simple voltage check is enough for preflight. Personal situation has delayed getting my system on the market. The E bus is a good example where there is a design requirement to have a group of avionics disabled during part of the flight and then guess about how much battery life is left. A simple additional electrical instrument I have designed allows the pilot to simply see the real flight time left and change the load and have the flight time left update. It also determines the true battery life dynamically. If I am IFR I may need a different set of avionics than what is on the E bus for example depending on the actual flight conditions. Or what if the battery power left at any point is less that what was predicted or measured months ago?. I know of several off field crashes due to the battery being depleted well before the expected time. Another bad design to assume something in particular when it ns not required to assume. Fuel tank gauges system when the only accurate requirement is full and empty has been replaced with fuel flow measurement and totalized as seen in modern automobiles. No reason the battery cannot be treated the same way, sure its a little more complex but not hard to do with reasonable accuracy. There are many ways to make flying safer than having a check list of which switches to throw under different failure modes and make assumptions of flight time left for example. How about a warning and a count down display that tells the time left to fly and updates as the pilot changes the equipment powered on. No action is required if the time remaining is long enough. Your insistence of performing your own testing is fine but you are discarding months of investigation as well as hundreds of hours of testing and analysis. On the other hand it will save me a lot of time producing a machine readable copy etc. A lot of people blindly used your OVP crowbar until it was used with Vans aircraft and had many reported failures. As far as I know there was never and failure analysis to prove the true reason for the failures. My own testing found fault at least two faults with the OVP design but they only caused false tripping and the real reason appeared to be the use of the contactor and perhaps rebuilt alternators with possible second rate (read lower cost) regulators that could not stand up to the resulting load dump voltage peaks. In any event the OVP design was not properly desinged in the first place likely due to the test first and skip the analysis under transient conditions. It is true I had intended to produce an engineering document VS a technicians experimental results I have far too much to do, so its easy to simply bow out. Further I will not comment on your results as I have better things to do. There is no need to try to discuss your approach as your mind is seemingly always made up ahead of time. You win and I think the group looses. Jet Pilot tried with a lot of real research and was not listened to either. We have very very different backgrounds and approaches to design. I had hoped we could work together but that is not to be. I simply do not have the time, nor can I stand the frustration of writing one paragraph and getting a response of several pages of comments which are mostly, to me, not to the point. Best wishes Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 5:53 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Nippondenso alternator question > > > At 10:28 AM 7/10/2008 -0700, you wrote: >> >>>THANK YOU for your very nice reply!! >>> > > > >>>In any event its now my turn to start one subject at a time in replying >>>to your comments and questions. > > Paul, how about we avoid turning this into an unnecessary and/or > unproductive research/science project . . . It would be useful to > craft a sort of mission statement where goals, impediments to > goals, questions and plans for acquiring data that go to aswering > those questions are identified up front. To that effort I'll offer > the following: > > 1) Since day-one, electrical systems in aircraft have offered > a means by which engine driven power sources may be turned on > and off at will of the pilot. This absolute ON/OFF control goes > to a number of issues that include but are not limited to > preflight testing, load management, ability to take a mis-behaving > system off line, and plan-B activities crafted to mitigate > effects of failure. I.e., failure tolerance. > > 2) The modern automotive alternator has a proven track record > in ground based vehicles that eclipses anything flying > by an order of 1000:1 or more. It's inarguable that sources > of automotive components from salvage yards up through the > chain to manufacturers of modern components offer the OBAM > aircraft community a treasure-trove of choices. > > 3) The shear magnitude of choices can be a boon in terms > of potential return on investment for performance and > reliability . . . and a bane in terms of the complexity > for choosing "suitable" hardware from an overwhelming > universe of products and sources. > > 4) As knowledgeable and experienced practitioners of the > art and sciences we can relieve OBAM aircraft owner/operator > concern for making choices while minimizing risk for having made > a "bad" choice? I'll have to qualify "bad" . . . EVERY > piece of hardware we choose to bolt to an airplane will fail > at some point in time irrespective of its source or perceived > quality. Failure can be due to quality issues . . . operation > outside design limits . . . or the thing simply wears out. > > 5) My personal preference for minimizing risk is to craft > failure tolerant architectures . . . if we do > that job well, then it doesn't matter if the platinum > plated part fails because some kid didn't tighten a > bolt (quality issue). . . or failed because the part is > one step above junk (design or manufacturing issue). > Failure tolerance is the most powerful tool for risk > management we can bring to the table. > > 6) You appear to be crafting a risk mitigation > approach along with relief of the decision making process > in the form of specific architectures crafted from > specific part numbers. You believe this approach > is attractive to potential customers. This is the > essence of entrepreneurial opportunity in what is > still (unlike TC aviation) a relatively free marketplace. > Your approach borrows from the legacies of TC aviation > by specifying a design and more controlled suite of > components. No doubt here are/will-be customers > attracted to this approach and I'm sure we all wish > you well in your endeavor. My entrepreneurial leanings > go to system integration hardware, products that help > the OBAM aircraft builder comfortably integrate a host > of choices into the airplane. But first, I need to achieve > an understanding of the simple-ideas that go into > our respective inventions . . . ingredients that drive > recipes for success. > > 7) We have a common need to exercise a solid grasp > of the same simple-ideas even if our respective inventions > have no competitive features. The most pressing question > for me is understanding the load-dump characteristics > of our favorite alternators under conditions likely to > be encountered in a typical installation on a Lycoming - > spinning like a whirling dervish and subject to > unloading under any condition between zero and full > output with normal regulation. This means knowing the magnitude, > source impedance and timing of the transient that occurs > after sudden load removal at all corners of the > operating envelope. > > 8) The very first experiment I plan to conduct after > the alternator drive stand is running is based on > the sketch at: > > On a 60A machine with battery disconnected, > I'd get data plots of load dumps at 4, 6, 8, 10 > and 12KRPM for fixed load of 50A with a 10A dump, > fixed load of 40A with 10A and 20A dumps, fixed > of 30A and 10, 20 30A dumps . . . I think you'll see > the pattern here. > > The goal would be to calculate/measure the peak > voltage, total energy and duration of each overshoot > event (or series of overshoots assuming the regulator > control loop is poorly damped). I would probably > set up to run external regulators (of the type > normally installed inside) so that I could explore > the differences between various regulators while > holding the alternator constant. > > Obviously a big task to gather enough data to > be reasonably sure we understand the majority of > the fleet . . . assuming we discover wide variances. > > (9) The next tests would involve system behavior under > runaway conditions. Artificially fail a regulator > and plot dv/dt at the bus and di/dt at the battery > with various fixed loads . . . one suite of plots > with a fresh battery, another with a battery that > has fallen to 1/2 capacity or less. > > Having this data on only one combination of > alternator/regulator would set the order of magnitude > for energies involved. Once the equipment for the > testing is in place and the procedure tuned, it would > probably take less than a half hour to test any other > combination. > > I ran all these tests that supported products I designed > for Beech and others many moons ago. But the only > data acquisition we had then were storage 'scopes and > chart recorders. You could "eyeball" the data for gross > suitability to task but real energy studies were exceedingly > difficult . . . they were never done. We can do a much > better job today. > > The task is to characterize the dynamic response to > load change for a normally functioning as well as > a runaway alternator. The data collected would allow > a designer to craft systems that deal quietly and > capably with the voltages, currents and energies that > are present during recovery from both a load-dump > and hard-failure conditions. > > This was the kind of data I was hoping to gather > some years back when there was discussion about > you and Eric teaming on some sort of activity. I > wasn't sure exactly what equipment you were going to > have access to . . . or what testing satisfied > curiosities for your project . . . but I had hopes > of piggy-backing studies above if you didn't already > have similar data. > > Do I presume that for your needs, no further > investigation is necessary/useful to your task? > Know that all of my own test results will be published > on aeroelectric.com and that my equipment will be available > to you (or anyone else in the OBAM aviation community) > should new questions arise. > > I'm going to have Zach start stripping out the automotive > test setup wiring from the test stand next week. We'll > leave only the 3-phase motor drive wiring intact. We'll > Z-12 and Z-13/8 architectures in the stand. I already > have a small drive stand for second alternators up to 20A. > > I have a static phase converter to install in the > big stand. We'll see we can get the motor and variable > speed drives to run. That will be a BIG step. Not sure > if we'll be able to do real testing before we have to > pack up and move to M.L. I have a contractor running > a fat 240 feeder to the shop at the same time we excavate > for a new retaining wall at the back of the yard. So the > heavy/dirty/ugly work should be behind us at both > locations this summer. > > Bob . . . > > > ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 11:12:19 AM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. From: simon@synchronousdesign.com Hmm, Frank, we invaded Afghanistan because of 9-11. We invaded Iraq because they invaded Kuwait. Now we're looking for a reason to invade Iran and rename the Persian Gulf to something more reasonable (Gulf of Clinton?). Why didn't they blame TWA800 on Iran is what you're asking. Maybe O-Bama will reverse the FAA decision and just do it! :) Simon > > > And you would think this was a perfect opportunity to blame it on > "terrorists" and a good reason to invade another country...Hmm..Lets see > which one this time? > > I mean didn't we invade Iraq after a bunch of SAUDI ARABIAN terrorsts > carried out 9-11? > > Rule making at least doesn't cost us a billion dollars a day....:) > > Frank ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 11:35:25 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. From: Dj Merrill simon@synchronousdesign.com wrote: > > Hmm, Frank, we invaded Afghanistan because of 9-11. We invaded Iraq > because they invaded Kuwait. > Plenty of video of Bush saying that we invaded Iraq because Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction that he was afraid were going to be used to help terrorists. Hmmm, where exactly did we find those WMDs again? -Dj do not archive ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 11:59:07 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. From: jon@finleyweb.net =0AThe 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons were found in a warehouse in Mosul .=0A=0A =0A=0AI'm not exactly sure where they found the 550 metric tons of Uranium but I do now that it went to Montreal. =0A=0A =0A=0AJon=0A=0ADo No t Archive=0A=0A-----Original Message-----=0AFrom: "Dj Merrill" =0ASent: Wed nesday, July 16, 2008 2:27pm=0ATo: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com=0ASubjec t: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake.=0A chronousdesign.com=0A>=0A> Hmm, Frank, we invaded Afghanistan because of 9- 11. We invaded Iraq=0A> because they invaded Kuwait.=0A> =0A=0APlenty of vi deo of Bush saying that we invaded Iraq because Iraq had =0AWeapons of Mass Destruction that he was afraid were going to be used to =0Ahelp terrorists . =0AHmmm, where exactly did we find those WMDs again?=0A=0A-Dj=0A ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 12:03:26 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Solid-state electrical system forum at OSH From: "marcausman" I will be presenting "Benefits of a modern, solid state electrical system" on Monday, July 28 at 1:00 in forum 8 NATCA Pavilion at Oshkosh. The presentation will discuss the reasoning and benefits of switching from mechanical breakers and switches to solid-state technology. While I will be talking a bit about the Vertical Power products, the presentation is really aimed at discussing trends in the marketplace, how the new technology is implemented (and balanced with tried and true methods), and what to expect from this technology. You can come by our booth in Hangar B for a demo too. -------- Marc Ausman http://www.verticalpower.com RV-7 IO-390 Flying Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=193157#193157 ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 12:15:55 PM PST US From: "Bill Boyd" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. There's also "plenty of video" showing that Kennedy, Kerry and Clinton thought the same thing about Iraq, and for the same good reasons. Google "Iraq yellow cake uranium" and read the articles about the finds made this year - should keep you busy awhile rethinking this tripe. As for the rest of Saddam's WMD's (beyond the nerve agents already found in the first months of the war or already used on the Kurds) - he had plenty of time to export them to the Bakaa Valley in peace-loving Syria, where they likely remain hidden to this day, waiting for transfer to the jihadis. Sleep well ;-) I'll admit this is getting way off topic and could be better taken somewhere else. The general discussion forum on AR15.com might be a good playground for you, if your skin is thick enough. -Bill B On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Dj Merrill wrote: > > simon@synchronousdesign.com wrote: > >> >> Hmm, Frank, we invaded Afghanistan because of 9-11. We invaded Iraq >> because they invaded Kuwait. >> >> > > Plenty of video of Bush saying that we invaded Iraq because Iraq had > Weapons of Mass Destruction that he was afraid were going to be used to help > terrorists. Hmmm, where exactly did we find those WMDs again? > > -Dj > do not archive > > ________________________________ Message 28 ____________________________________ Time: 12:23:29 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. From: simon@synchronousdesign.com Er, correct, for the second time. I was talking about the first time we invaded Iraq, back in 1990. Simon Do not archive > > simon@synchronousdesign.com wrote: >> >> Hmm, Frank, we invaded Afghanistan because of 9-11. We invaded Iraq >> because they invaded Kuwait. >> > > Plenty of video of Bush saying that we invaded Iraq because Iraq had > Weapons of Mass Destruction that he was afraid were going to be used to > help terrorists. > Hmmm, where exactly did we find those WMDs again? > > -Dj > do not archive ________________________________ Message 29 ____________________________________ Time: 12:34:18 PM PST US From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. Plenty of video of Bush saying that we invaded Iraq because Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction that he was afraid were going to be used to help terrorists. Hmmm, where exactly did we find those WMDs again? -Dj And, how many others in our government, BOTH PARTIES, believed the same thing, and then conveniently changed their minds when it became PC??? Roger Do not archive ________________________________ Message 30 ____________________________________ Time: 12:53:01 PM PST US From: "Terry Watson" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. If your foresight was as good as your hindsight, you could have prevented 9-11 for us. Saddam Hussein's generals thought they had weapons of mass destruction, as did the intelligence services of all civilized countries that were interested enough to think about it. Where were you when we needed you? Look at all the lives and dollars you could have saved if you would have shown them they were wrong. Terry -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj Merrill Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 11:27 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. simon@synchronousdesign.com wrote: > > Hmm, Frank, we invaded Afghanistan because of 9-11. We invaded Iraq > because they invaded Kuwait. > Plenty of video of Bush saying that we invaded Iraq because Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction that he was afraid were going to be used to help terrorists. Hmmm, where exactly did we find those WMDs again? -Dj do not archive ________________________________ Message 31 ____________________________________ Time: 01:11:35 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. From: Dj Merrill Terry Watson wrote: > Where were you when we needed > you? Look at all the lives and dollars you could have saved if you would > have shown them they were wrong. > > I must have been out in the shop pounding rivets. Can anyone recommend a good primer? ;-) -Dj do not archive ________________________________ Message 32 ____________________________________ Time: 01:25:52 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. At 05:10 PM 7/16/2008 +0000, you wrote: > > >And you would think this was a perfect opportunity to blame it on >"terrorists" and a good reason to invade another country...Hmm..Lets see >which one this time? > >I mean didn't we invade Iraq after a bunch of SAUDI ARABIAN terrorsts >carried out 9-11? > >Rule making at least doesn't cost us a billion dollars a day....:) > >Frank I was afraid this might digress onto other UNRELATED matters. This is about the science of fuel-driven explosion . . . and rules that are going to drive up costs that trickle down to about everything we buy . . . rules that have no demonstrable benefit and huge expense. Let's not get out a wider brush than is necessary. One can do two things about it. Ignore it and accept that the heaviest burdens won't be realized for years -or- take some active role in guiding those we've elected based more on their popularity than on demonstrated leadership. Whatever anyone's personal feelings are about the situation, there are simple-ideas to be considered that include the legacy we've charted for our children and grandchildren . . . because we choose to let this one go and pass the buck down to them. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 33 ____________________________________ Time: 01:40:59 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. At 03:37 PM 7/16/2008 -0400, you wrote: > >Er, correct, for the second time. I was talking about the first time we >invaded Iraq, back in 1990. > >Simon I'll encourage EVERYONE to make their feelings about such matters known to their representatives. Check out http://congress.org You can easily write your favorite leadership with a few minutes effort every day. While the details of your letter will not reach that individual. The TOPICS and FLAVORS are tracked by their office minions. You can bet that 1500 notes with a common theme are noticed and will at least get lip service if not action. To be sure, the majority of those in power are finger- in-the-wind politicians. If the wind doesn't blow, they don't act. Write to them if you will about anything else . . . but write to them about the justification of ever heavier regulatory burdens based on junk-science. Everybody writes to complain about the crisis du jour, very few write to point out fundamental errors in logic and assaults upon liberty based on those errors. 1500 notes on THAT would generate some wind. Recall that we're not SUPPOSED to know about that stuff, it wasn't taught to us in the approved curriculum. But for us here on the List, let us keep our heads down over the project but our heads up on the horizon lest we discover that when the project is finished, we're unable to use it for the stupidest of reasons . . . mindless, burdensome and ineffectual rule making. Throwing rocks at each other here is a gross mis-use of precious $time$. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 34 ____________________________________ Time: 01:57:34 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Nippondenso alternator question At 10:38 AM 7/16/2008 -0700, you wrote: First, please learn how to use a spell checker. Second, your URL is obviously spelled wrong - it should be mtMIND.com Third, neither you nor gmcjetpilot would recognize real research if it bit you in the butt. Finally, why don't you and your gmcjetpilot friend start you own raving forum and spare the rest of from your diatribes. Gently my friend. We cannot expect morale to improve by meting out more vigorous beatings. It's time to recognize these folks limitations and be saddened by the fact that they cannot enjoy (through no fault of their own) the pleasures we all get from finding things out and using them to make our jobs easier and lives better. I'll suggest we "spin down" attention to these guys and get on with the important stuff. Zach is over today taking a day off from his 'other' job. We're starting to strip down the drive stand. I'm going up in the attic over the garage and bring down the 240 line I extended out there last winter. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 35 ____________________________________ Time: 02:49:33 PM PST US From: "Rob Housman" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Nippondenso alternator question OK, point taken. Best regards, Rob Housman Irvine, CA Europa XS Tri-Gear A070 Airframe complete -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 1:54 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Nippondenso alternator question At 10:38 AM 7/16/2008 -0700, you wrote: First, please learn how to use a spell checker. Second, your URL is obviously spelled wrong - it should be mtMIND.com Third, neither you nor gmcjetpilot would recognize real research if it bit you in the butt. Finally, why don't you and your gmcjetpilot friend start you own raving forum and spare the rest of from your diatribes. Gently my friend. We cannot expect morale to improve by meting out more vigorous beatings. It's time to recognize these folks limitations and be saddened by the fact that they cannot enjoy (through no fault of their own) the pleasures we all get from finding things out and using them to make our jobs easier and lives better. I'll suggest we "spin down" attention to these guys and get on with the important stuff. Zach is over today taking a day off from his 'other' job. We're starting to strip down the drive stand. I'm going up in the attic over the garage and bring down the 240 line I extended out there last winter. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 36 ____________________________________ Time: 03:05:27 PM PST US From: LarryMcFarland Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Over filling during flight? Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > At 08:23 PM 7/15/2008 -0500, you wrote: >> >> >> Hi Guys, >> >> July 14 Monday was perfect. I walked Toby our cat, then packed the >> flight bag and went to the airport. After a lengthy preflight, the >> plane was pulled from the hangar and I did a secondary walk around. >> All good, the tower cleared my request for runway 5. I lifted off in >> a soft downwind, but still short enough for traffic. I set course for >> Clinton and climbed to 3000 ft. On the formerly flooded Mississippi, >> one could see the river traffic moving again and a few recreational >> boaters. Clinton airport was also visible 8-miles out. I passed over >> the airport and entered downwind for 32. Good pattern work, but I >> flared a foot high and just bounced the touchdown. I taxied in and >> parked to check wheel-pants for damage. None was found, so after >> visiting with the FBO, I taxied to 32 and took off, departed west. >> The header tank was less than full so the left wing pump was turned >> on. Engine temps were good for an 85-degrees ambient. EGTs 1370, oil >> 220, coolant 198, CHT 210 and oil pressure was 48 psi. On turning >> south for the return, I called Quad Cities approach, collected >> traffic and guidance and nearly forgot to track the refill. The >> header was completely full when I turned off the wing pump and >> centered the selector valve. I felt a chill down my spine, because I >> didn't want to overfill. I worried that fumes from spilled fuel >> could trace across the 601s non-laminar wing to the exhaust pipe's >> back draft and turn the plane into a roman candle. I couldn't smell >> any fuel within the cabin. On landing, I taxied back and shut down. >> Inside the header, fuel was 3-inches from the cap and the overflow >> tube was dry. This is the tank's max fill limit. Very relieved, I put >> the 601 back in the hangar and drove home with this tidbit chewing on >> my mind. Nice flight, but the wrong kind of adrenaline rush! >> >> The question would be, is it possible to use the EIS to read the full >> point of a common rheostat type tank sensor to set an alarm point? >> >> Or, should one consider a blinking light that constantly runs when >> either of the wing pumps is running. >> >> Or, does anyone have a good "reminder" that the pump is running or >> the tank is nearly full? >> >> Thanks again, > > Absolutely. I've designed several manual and automatic fuel > transfer systems that spoke to your experience and concerns. > Consider these thoughts: > > Any automatic or manual fuel transfer system needs to consider > the potential for overfilling due to inattention and/or failure. > Some fuel system designers have deduced that the vent system > on a tank provides some level of protection for over-pressuring > a tank or spilling fuel into the interior of the aircraft . . . but > this only prolongs the unhappy surprise that a whole lot of > fuel went overboard while the pilot was occupied with other things. > > The last auto-transfer system I proposed for a header tank > auto fill used an array of 3 optical liquid level sensors > in the tank. See: > > http://www.gemssensors.com/content.aspx?id=282 > > and in particular . . . > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Sensors/ELS900.pdf > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Sensors/ELS1100.pdf > > One sensor was located at 60% of tank capacity and > wired to light a LOW FUEL warning light and generate > an alarm tone. > > A second sensor was located at 90% of tank capacity > and wired to light a FUEL FULL warning light and > generate an alarm tone. > > The third sensor was at 75% of tank capacity and > wired to control a transfer pump when in the AUTO > XFER mode. If controlling a rotary pump (brushed > motor) we called for a running the pump ANY TIME > the sensor was exposed - further, a 5 second timer > was included to make the pump run a minimum of > 5 seconds each time the ON-cycle was tripped. > This minimized the deleterious effects of > electrical "chatter" when starting a motor with > high inrush characteristics. Indeterminate > submersion at the control-point exacerbated > by sloshing was filtered out. > > With solid state pumps like Facet > > http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Pumps/Facet_Solid_State_Pump.pdf > > there is no 'inrush', no contact to arc and > very fast check valves. Hence, little need for > a minimum-run timer. On could wire one of these > pumps directly to a mid-level sensor in the AUTO > XFER mode to hold the header tank at the CALIBRATED > capacity as described by physical location of > the sensor on the tank. > > Bob . . . > > Thanks Bob, for an elegant, yet simple approach. It's a minor modification to my header tank and electrical. I believe one sensor with a panel light to engage my attention at the header's 75% full mark and disengage the pump switch would be easiest to use. Thank you again for excellent guidance, Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com do not archive > > ________________________________ Message 37 ____________________________________ Time: 03:12:26 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: W31 switch/breaker fiasco Just got a call from folks at the American Bonanza Society and will be meeting them for lunch tomorrow. From the short conversations I had with them today, I perceive them to be REALLY sharp. We're going to see if we can craft an "AMOC", alternative method of compliance for that "rip 'em all out and replace them" approach to the breaker failures on the Beech products. I've not heard whether or not similar AD's are in the works for other OEMs. The W31 is remarked and fitted with stylized handles for a number of folks including Cessna. I'll know more tomorrow. One of the most promising possibilities is to conduct a 4-wire ohmmeter test on a partially failed breaker to see if we can detect broken strands at some time before the last strands break (or become vulnerable to over-heating due to current). It occurs to me that a voltage drop measurement in the airplane may be sufficiently fine-grained to detect an impending failure . . . the prop de-ice heaters certainly provide sufficient "bias current" for a meaningful measurement . . . more than my little 4-wire adapter does. Shucks, who would have thought I might do more for Beech from outside the fence than I was able to from inside? This is going to be an INTERESTING science project! Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 38 ____________________________________ Time: 04:26:24 PM PST US From: paul wilson Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Over filling during flight? This thread brings up an interesting question of how to make a penetration to a tank or header. Ideally I would like a fitting that could be snaked into the tank and into a drilled hole in the tank, then a jam nut could be tightened from the outside to compress a proper o-ring. The gadget should have female pipe threads to screw the sender into. Not sure how this could be done but it sure beats welding on a metal tank or gluing a plastic tank. Anybody heard of such a gadget? Thanks, Paul ======== At 04:02 PM 7/16/2008, you wrote: >LarryMcFarland > >Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >>"Robert L. Nuckolls, III" >> >>At 08:23 PM 7/15/2008 -0500, you wrote: >>>LarryMcFarland >>> >>>Hi Guys, >>> >>>July 14 Monday was perfect. I walked Toby our >>>cat, then packed the flight bag and went to >>>the airport. After a lengthy preflight, the >>>plane was pulled from the hangar and I did a >>>secondary walk around. All good, the tower >>>cleared my request for runway 5. I lifted off >>>in a soft downwind, but still short enough for >>>traffic. I set course for Clinton and climbed >>>to 3000 ft. On the formerly flooded >>>Mississippi, one could see the river traffic >>>moving again and a few recreational boaters. >>>Clinton airport was also visible 8-miles out. >>>I passed over the airport and entered downwind >>>for 32. Good pattern work, but I flared a foot >>>high and just bounced the touchdown. I taxied >>>in and parked to check wheel-pants for damage. >>>None was found, so after visiting with the >>>FBO, I taxied to 32 and took off, departed >>>west. The header tank was less than full so >>>the left wing pump was turned on. Engine temps >>>were good for an 85-degrees ambient. EGTs >>>1370, oil 220, coolant 198, CHT 210 and oil >>>pressure was 48 psi. On turning south for the >>>return, I called Quad Cities approach, >>>collected traffic and guidance and nearly >>>forgot to track the refill. The header was >>>completely full when I turned off the wing >>>pump and centered the selector valve. I felt a >>>chill down my spine, because I didn't want to >>>overfill. I worried that fumes from spilled >>>fuel could trace across the 601s non-laminar >>>wing to the exhaust pipe's back draft and turn >>>the plane into a roman candle. I couldn't >>>smell any fuel within the cabin. On landing, I >>>taxied back and shut down. Inside the header, >>>fuel was 3-inches from the cap and the >>>overflow tube was dry. This is the tank's max >>>fill limit. Very relieved, I put the 601 back >>>in the hangar and drove home with this tidbit >>>chewing on my mind. Nice flight, but the wrong kind of adrenaline rush! >>> >>>The question would be, is it possible to use >>>the EIS to read the full point of a common >>>rheostat type tank sensor to set an alarm point? >>> >>>Or, should one consider a blinking light that >>>constantly runs when either of the wing pumps is running. >>> >>>Or, does anyone have a good "reminder" that >>>the pump is running or the tank is nearly full? >>> >>>Thanks again, >> >>Absolutely. I've designed several manual and automatic fuel >>transfer systems that spoke to your experience and concerns. >>Consider these thoughts: >> >>Any automatic or manual fuel transfer system needs to consider >>the potential for overfilling due to inattention and/or failure. >>Some fuel system designers have deduced that the vent system >>on a tank provides some level of protection for over-pressuring >>a tank or spilling fuel into the interior of the aircraft . . . but >>this only prolongs the unhappy surprise that a whole lot of >>fuel went overboard while the pilot was occupied with other things. >> >>The last auto-transfer system I proposed for a header tank >>auto fill used an array of 3 optical liquid level sensors >>in the tank. See: >> >>http://www.gemssensors.com/content.aspx?id=282 >> >>and in particular . . . >> >>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Sensors/ELS900.pdf >> >>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Sensors/ELS1100.pdf >> >>One sensor was located at 60% of tank capacity and >>wired to light a LOW FUEL warning light and generate >>an alarm tone. >> >>A second sensor was located at 90% of tank capacity >>and wired to light a FUEL FULL warning light and >>generate an alarm tone. >> >>The third sensor was at 75% of tank capacity and >>wired to control a transfer pump when in the AUTO >>XFER mode. If controlling a rotary pump (brushed >>motor) we called for a running the pump ANY TIME >>the sensor was exposed - further, a 5 second timer >>was included to make the pump run a minimum of >>5 seconds each time the ON-cycle was tripped. >>This minimized the deleterious effects of >>electrical "chatter" when starting a motor with >>high inrush characteristics. Indeterminate >>submersion at the control-point exacerbated >>by sloshing was filtered out. >> >>With solid state pumps like Facet >> >>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Pumps/Facet_Solid_State_Pump.pdf >> >>there is no 'inrush', no contact to arc and >>very fast check valves. Hence, little need for >>a minimum-run timer. On could wire one of these >>pumps directly to a mid-level sensor in the AUTO >>XFER mode to hold the header tank at the CALIBRATED >>capacity as described by physical location of >>the sensor on the tank. >> >>Bob . . . >> >>Thanks Bob, for an elegant, yet simple approach. >It's a minor modification to my header tank and >electrical. I believe one sensor with a panel light to engage my attention >at the header's 75% full mark and disengage the >pump switch would be easiest to use. > >Thank you again for excellent guidance, > >Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com >do not archive >> >> > > ________________________________ Message 39 ____________________________________ Time: 04:26:25 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: W31 switch/breaker fiasco From: "Matt Prather" Hey Bob, It sounds like the AMOC might involve annual or hours checks - a breaker that's okay this year might not be okay after another year or 500 hours? Or, if a breaker's good after 20 years, it won't ever go bad? When's the crossover as far as cost - inspect again vs. replace? Regards, Matt- > > > Just got a call from folks at the American Bonanza Society > and will be meeting them for lunch tomorrow. From the > short conversations I had with them today, I perceive > them to be REALLY sharp. We're going to see if we can > craft an "AMOC", alternative method of compliance for > that "rip 'em all out and replace them" approach to > the breaker failures on the Beech products. > > I've not heard whether or not similar AD's are in the > works for other OEMs. The W31 is remarked and fitted with > stylized handles for a number of folks including Cessna. > I'll know more tomorrow. > > One of the most promising possibilities is to conduct > a 4-wire ohmmeter test on a partially failed breaker > to see if we can detect broken strands at some time > before the last strands break (or become vulnerable > to over-heating due to current). It occurs > to me that a voltage drop measurement in the airplane > may be sufficiently fine-grained to detect an impending > failure . . . the prop de-ice heaters certainly provide > sufficient "bias current" for a meaningful measurement . . . > more than my little 4-wire adapter does. > > Shucks, who would have thought I might do more for > Beech from outside the fence than I was able to from > inside? This is going to be an INTERESTING science > project! > > > Bob . . . > > ----------------------------------------) > ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) > ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) > ( appearance of being right . . . ) > ( ) > ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) > ---------------------------------------- > > ________________________________ Message 40 ____________________________________ Time: 06:08:35 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: W31 switch/breaker fiasco From: Ron Quillin Plus AMOC's are A/C specific. That is each and every aircraft will have to submit and obtain approval for the specific A/C (by S/N and or tail number) into which it will be installed prior to implementing the "fix". Not at all like a 337 that may, depending on the local FSDO, be used on other similar A/C with a simple sign-off. Doable, but what a PITA. Ron Q. At 16:22 7/16/2008, you wrote: >It sounds like the AMOC might involve annual or hours checks - a breaker >that's okay this year might not be okay after another year or 500 hours? >Or, if a breaker's good after 20 years, it won't ever go bad? When's the >crossover as far as cost - inspect again vs. replace? > > >Regards, > >Matt- ________________________________ Message 41 ____________________________________ Time: 07:16:02 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: W31 switch/breaker fiasco From: "Matt Prather" I didn't realize that about AMOC's. Even so, a type club like for Bonanzas would likely be able to help streamline the process. Matt- > > Plus AMOC's are A/C specific. That is each and every aircraft will > have to submit and obtain approval for the specific A/C (by S/N and > or tail number) into which it will be installed prior to implementing > the "fix". Not at all like a 337 that may, depending on the local > FSDO, be used on other similar A/C with a simple sign-off. > > Doable, but what a PITA. > > Ron Q. > > At 16:22 7/16/2008, you wrote: >>It sounds like the AMOC might involve annual or hours checks - a breaker >>that's okay this year might not be okay after another year or 500 hours? >>Or, if a breaker's good after 20 years, it won't ever go bad? When's the >>crossover as far as cost - inspect again vs. replace? >> >> >>Regards, >> >>Matt- > > ________________________________ Message 42 ____________________________________ Time: 10:44:45 PM PST US From: "Dave Leikam" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. Correct. Uranium also known as "Yellow Cake" enriched to make nuclear bombs. I guess the mass graves discovered while looking for the WMD's wouldn't have been worth the effort however and were none of the USA's business anyway. We should have just left Hussein alone, and not listened to Bill, Hillary, Kerry, Gore and the rest. Oh yeah, and a good chunk of the billions we spend on the war is going into the pockets of our soldiers and employees of manufacturers of the supplies they need. Dave do not archive ----- Original Message ----- From: jon@finleyweb.net To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 1:55 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. The 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons were found in a warehouse in Mosul. I'm not exactly sure where they found the 550 metric tons of Uranium but I do now that it went to Montreal. Jon Do Not Archive -----Original Message----- From: "Dj Merrill" Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 2:27pm To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sleep well tonight, your government is awake. simon@synchronousdesign.com wrote: > > Hmm, Frank, we invaded Afghanistan because of 9-11. We invaded Iraq > because they invaded Kuwait. > Plenty of video of Bush saying that we invaded Iraq because Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction that he was afraid were going to be used to help terrorists. Hmmm, where exactly did we find those WMDs again? -Dj ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message aeroelectric-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.