---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 07/18/08: 20 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 12:07 AM - Re: Problems with multiple emails (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Mich=E8le_W?=) 2. 01:36 AM - Night VFR and Fuse/Breaker Accessibility (Jeff) 3. 04:11 AM - Night VFR and Fuse/Breaker Accessibility () 4. 06:28 AM - Standards for switch colors? (kkinney) 5. 06:36 AM - Re: Night VFR and Fuse/Breaker Accessibility () 6. 07:16 AM - Re: Standards for switch colors? () 7. 08:30 AM - Re: Re: W31 switch/breaker fiasco (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 8. 08:50 AM - Re: Re: Night VFR and Fuse/Breaker Accessibility (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 9. 08:51 AM - Re: Problems with multiple emails (Matt Dralle) 10. 09:07 AM - Re: Problems with multiple emails (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 11. 11:06 AM - Re: Nippondenso alternator question () 12. 11:24 AM - Re: Re: Nippondenso alternator question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 13. 12:11 PM - Re: Problems with multiple emails (RV Builder (Michael Sausen)) 14. 01:57 PM - Re: Z13/8 wiring correction ? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 15. 02:09 PM - ND Alternator Mod (hgerhardt) 16. 02:55 PM - Re: W31 switch/breaker fiasco (Speedy11@aol.com) 17. 03:11 PM - Re: ND Alternator Mod (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 18. 03:30 PM - The great(?) debate . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 19. 06:11 PM - Re: ND Alternator Mod (hgerhardt) 20. 06:24 PM - Re: Re: ND Alternator Mod (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 12:07:31 AM PST US From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mich=E8le_W?= Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Problems with multiple emails Steve, Negative as this is only happening with matronics emails. The ration is currently anywhere from 6 to 1 to 10 to 1. As to unsubscribe, resubscribe, since I am on several matronics list, I'd keep this as a last solution. Do not archive Michle -----Message d'origine----- De: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] De la part de Steve Thomas Envoy: jeudi 17 juillet 2008 15:28 : aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Objet: Re: AeroElectric-List: Problems with multiple emails Michle, This is not an unusual situation with Outlook. If you are getting your mail from an Exchange server, the server is resending the messages to your Outlook because, for some reason, it didn't think that it was delivered correctly the last time. Talk to your system administrator. If not Exchange, then the same situation is occurring where Outlook is not correctly responding to the delivery of the mail. Try using Thunderbird. On Jul 16, 2008, at 11:52 PM, Michle W wrote: > = > > Matte, > > I've been getting recently aeroelectric duplicates in large numbers. > Some as > much as 6 copies of the same email. It's a pain as instead of > getting 10 > emails, I get 50. This does not seem to be happening on the other > matronics > lists. > > Am I alone with this syndrome ? or are others also being hit? > > Michle > RV8 - engine/avionics > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] De la part de > Terry > Watson > Envoy : mercredi 16 juillet 2008 21:49 > : aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Objet : 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 > 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 > do not archive > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 01:36:55 AM PST US From: "Jeff " Subject: AeroElectric-List: Night VFR and Fuse/Breaker Accessibility Thank you everyone for the replies. My fuse block will stay where it is. If the Inspector/DAR takes a contrary opinion, I'll just have to ask him to educate me as Bob suggests in an old post. Jeff Davidson ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 04:11:26 AM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Night VFR and Fuse/Breaker Accessibility 7/18/2008 Hello Jeff, You wrote: "Has anyone been successful in getting their OBAM given Night VFR operating priviledges by an FAA Inspector without any fuses/breakers being accessible in flight?" A) It is true that FAR Secs 23.1357 (d) and (e) read as follows: "(d) If the ability to reset a circuit breaker or replace a fuse is essential to safety in flight, that circuit breaker or fuse must be so located and identified that it can be readily reset or replaced in flight. (e) For fuses identified as replaceable in flight- (1) There must be one spare of each rating or 50 percent spare fuses of each rating, whichever is greater; and (2) The spare fuse(s) must be readily accessible to any required pilot." B) But you are not building an airplane that must comply with Part 23, you are building an amateur built experimental airplane that instead needs only to comply with certain parts of FAR Part 91 under certain circumstances. C) The paragraph in FAR Sec 91.205 that applies to this issue reads as follows: "(6) One spare set of fuses, or three spare fuses of each kind required, that are accessible to the pilot in flight." Since you also wrote: "I have built my Zenair 601 with the fuse block on the cabin side of the firewall. It is not accessible to the pilot in flight." Therefore from a regulatory viewpoint there is no need to be concerned about: "What fuses/breakers control a circuit that is critical to night flight?" Or your access to those specific fuses while in flight. Since your airplane will be in compliance with applicable regulations the inspector should not have this subject as an issue unless he has a personal fetish in this regard. 'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and understand knowledge." PS: Also note that the inspector does not: "...... give(n) Night VFR operating priviledges......" Instead he issues you a set of Operating Limitations for your specific airplane which contain this statement: "After completion of Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only." This places the burden upon you to have your aircraft properly equipped for night and/or instrument flight after completion of Phase I flight testing, not on the inspector at the time of initial airworthiness inspection. -------------------------------------------------------- Time: 09:36:03 AM PST US From: Jeff Davidson Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fw: Night VFR and Fuse/Breaker Accessibility I have built my Zenair 601 with the fuse block on the cabin side of the firewall. It is not accessible to the pilot in flight. I don't plan to try to debug electrical problems in the air. I do, however, want to be able to fly my craft at night in VFR conditions. I have read most of the posts on this subject in the archives. All told, the crucial question seems to be "What fuses/breakers control a circuit that is critical to night flight?" I have gone down the list instruments and avionics in my plane and found that either I have provided a backup power supply (battery) outside of the ship's power or that I can fly without the item in question. I understand flight can continue with inoperative navigation lights. (Actually, what other option is there? Stop right there?) The transponder is the only item that doesn't have some sort of backup, and I can't find any applicable requirement for it as far as night operating limitations are concerned. Here is my question: Has anyone been successful in getting their OBAM given Night VFR operating priviledges by an FAA Inspector without any fuses/breakers being accessible in flight? This refers to 91.205. Locally, I have gotten answers on both sides of this issue from those that should know. Jeff Davidson ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 06:28:34 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Standards for switch colors? From: "kkinney" Pardon my ignorance. I'm trying to correct that. I'm looking to add colored covers to my toggle switches. Is there a standard for which each color means? (Similar to red, blue & black knobs on the panel.) Regards, Kevin Kinney Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=193579#193579 ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 06:36:57 AM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Night VFR and Fuse/Breaker Accessibility From: Folks, Let's be mindful of the size of text that is continually appended to the news list. With your thoughts exploding it's easy to forget all of what you write and send including previous comments are duplicated on the server. We don't want to choke that bugger. Strip the previous person's comments from these emails (your thoughts are not lost) before sending. If you don't care to preserve your comments, do not archive will drop them from record. Do not archive ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 07:16:18 AM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Standards for switch colors? From: Kevin, Outside the box I suppose that depends if one is color blind? There is no standard that I am aware of, but it won't hurt to run through the FAR's. I'm sure you will find that Boeing and Airbus probably have different standards for the same function. That is a good question worth pursuing. In the big iron, red is normally emergency, while yellow indicates caution. That is an international standard. On your ship pink many mean panic and blue may indicate blown fuse. I've never heard of a DAR testing all of your idiot lights which may be impossible to simulate without damage to equipment. ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 08:30:27 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: W31 switch/breaker fiasco At 06:02 PM 7/17/2008 -0400, you wrote: > > >Actually, if it fails it does NOT short anything to ground, although that >is what the FAA dissertation says. What happens if the device fails is >that the current normally carried by large copper wires within the breaker >takes an alternate, higher resistance path to wherever it would normally >go. For relatively lower currents this really does pretty much >nothing. For high current loads, the parts in the path it goes through >heat up significantly and may generate some smoke - easily remedied by >switching the breaker off and then replacing it (on the ground). > >While this is not to be construed to be a trivial problem, it is a problem >only if the part fails and then only in a few applications. >What is needed, rather than a wholesale replacement of all the potentially >affected breakers in all the affected airplanes is a simple way to test >them - which it seems that Bob is working on. > >Dick Tasker > >BobsV35B@aol.com wrote: >>Good Afternoon Stan, >> >>That depends on what you mean! >> >>We Bonanza and the Baron pilots have had almost no problems at all with >>any of the W31 series switches, but the FAA has perceived (falsely most >>of us believe) that there is a problem with a very few of the switches. >> >>It is not a problem that occurs due to use, but one that is a result of >>thousands of hours of vibration. When (IF) the failure does occur, an >>electrical load can be shunted to ground which will cause a bit of smoke. >>If something ignitable is located in the way, I suppose a fire could ensue. >> >>Most of us feel that the AD that has been issued by the FAA is not at all >>needed. A simple service letter outlining the potential problem should be >>more than sufficient. I haven't talked to Bob N. about it, but from what >>he has written, I think he agrees with the assessment made by most of us >>who are affected by the recently issued AD.. Correct. I'm also discovering that this situation has deeper roots in political and regulatory bureaucracy than it does in science and safety. But the AD is what it is and once issued, it's not going to go away. I've not been able to look at real failed parts. We're still trying to do that. If one considers the internal construction of this device . . . http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/W31_1.jpg and . . . http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Breakers/W31_3.jpg we see that a current path through the closed switch comes in the top terminal, through closed contacts, through the soft-copper jumper fabricated from a bizillion strands of copper cat hair, around the corner of the frame to the anchor point of a bi-metal strut (heater for circuit breaker), and through another soft-copper jumper out to the lower terminal. The bottom jumper is needed to allow the strut move away from the trip latch as the part flexes due to heating under electrical load. The upper jumper gets flexed each time the switch operates. This arrangement has been laboratory tested many times and found suitable for use in aircraft . . . but is an excellent example of how laboratory testing CAN overlook (or simply cannot duplicate ALL) effects in the field not the least of which are subtle levels of vibration in normal service over LONG periods of time. In the article on wire joining as it relates to terminals . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf we considered the effects of mashing a collection of fine copper strands (fine for resistance to breaking due to flexing along the run) into essentially solid conductors at the attach point. This effect is a constant whether crimped, soldered or spot welded. The simple-idea here is that when stranded wire becomes solid at the electrical joint, there are stress-risers at the transition from joint-to-strands. If the wire is going to break due to flexing (vibration is micro- flexing), it will break at the transition. The obvious and elegant solution is SUPPORT to the wire immediately adjacent to the transition zone. Hence the DUAL crimp of a PIDG termnal, one for the connection, the second for support that prevents flexing at the transition. Take this idea back to the W31 breaker and we see that where the soft copper jumpers join struts and frames, there is a spot weld but NO SUPPORT. Magnitude of problem? Obviously no big deal in the lab . . . and in reality, no big deal in the airplanes either. None-the-less, a very few of these switches (compared to over 100,000 parts in service for 20+ years) have failed. Now, when the jumper finally fails completely, the ALTERNATE path for current is through the spring over the pin in the upper left corner of the pictures. In the photos, you see the UPGRADED design that includes a fiberglas sheet that insulates the spring from the frame. The jumper is still going to fail . . . but the result is a passive failure that simply causes the downstream device to stop functioning. Before the upgrade, current through the spring causes it to warm up. In the smaller circuits (5 and 10A switches) one would probably never be aware of the failure. On the larger circuits (30A prop deice) the spring heats up like the coils in your toaster and causes the adjacent plastic of the case to char and put out some smoke. The really interesting thing about the AD is that it seems to be reacting to the smoke . . . and not to the specific failure and subsequent situation that is presented to the pilot because that particular system isn't working. This is especially interesting in view of the fact that failure of a 30A de-ice breaker is a whole lot more tense situation than loss of the 10A nav lights! But when it comes to smoke, the rules are really hard-over. It matters not that the failure will not generate a propagating combustion event. I.e., no fire. This idea is not without foundation in the study of human factors. From the whole population of airplane drivers, how many are likely to become !@#$@#-for-brains pilots when presented with smoke in the cockpit? The number is small . . . but no doubt significant. So the result of compliance with the AD doesn't raise the relative reliability of the overall system, the failure rate of breaker-switches will remain the same. it only avoids the potential for panic driven accident due to smoke. I've ordered switches and intend to explore ways that an impending failure might be spotted without removing the breaker from the airplane. Certainly failed devices in the lower current ratings can be spotted too. The road to Nirvana does not take us down the path of getting the AD rescinded. These are carved in granite and simply don't go away. However, wording in the AD does leave a door open for alternate method of compliance which is the goal of the moment. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 08:50:09 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Night VFR and Fuse/Breaker Accessibility At 08:18 PM 7/17/2008 -0400, you wrote: >Good Evening Dennis, > >Jut as a point of interest, the later Bonanzas have a whole passel of >fuses on the forward side of the firewall, They are quite obviously not >replaceable in flight! > >Do Not Archive > >Happy Skies, > >Old Bob >AKA >Bob Siegfried >Ancient Aviator >628 West 86th Street >Downers Grove, IL 60516 >630 985-8502 >Stearman N3977A >Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Yeah, take a peek at: http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/Firewall_Ckt_Protection.jpg Aside from the fact that the FARS have a very limited influence on design and operation of the OBAM aircraft, I'll suggest there is a simple, reliable approach to complying with the spirit and intent of 91.205 . . . We KNOW that there are countless ways that a useful appliance can fail such that the fuse or breaker is never tripped. In fact, 99.99+% of all breakers and fuses in all kinds of vehicles run the lifetime of the vehicle never having been called upon to do their job . . . keep a wire from burning and keep a failure within a single system from propagating into other systems in the vehicle. If there is ANY appliance bolted to your airplane that you personally depend on for comfortable termination of flight, then access to fuses and/or breakers contributes NOTHING to probability of a comfortable termination of flight. If a breaker or fuse opens, it's because there's a failure downstream of the fuse that will only open the fuse again if you take the time and suffer the distraction to replace it. The other reason for a trip is that the fuse/breaker is UNDERSIZED and needs to be fixed. On an OBAM aircraft, no big deal. On a TC aircraft, big deal. Having considered this, I'll suggest the road to Nirvana is FAILURE TOLERANT design. For the few items you've put on your list of real important things, you'd better have a back up for those devices . . . PLAN B. Once plan-B is implemented, criticality of all devices in the airplane goes to zero . . . i.e, there are no single failures that cause you to break a sweat before you put the wheels back on the ground. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 08:51:54 AM PST US From: Matt Dralle Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Problems with multiple emails Michele, Looks like the problem is at your email server. The Matronics server is getting the follow response from your email server: RPFD:michele.delsol@microsigma.fr MDeferred: Connection timed out with mail.ionfunding.com. This tells the Matronics server that the email was not properly delivered, so after a period of time, it tries to deliver it again. Apparently, the message is actually being delivered, however. This would account for the multiple copies of the same message. I would contact your ISP and ask them about their Internet connectivity. They are probably already aware of connection reliability issues, but it wouldn't hurt to add your complaint. Best regards, Matt Dralle Matronics Network/Email Manager At 11:49 PM 7/17/2008 Thursday, you wrote: > >Steve, > >Negative as this is only happening with matronics emails. The ration is >currently anywhere from 6 to 1 to 10 to 1. > >As to unsubscribe, resubscribe, since I am on several matronics list, I'd >keep this as a last solution. > >Do not archive > >Michle >-----Message d'origine----- >De : owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] De la part de Steve >Thomas >Envoy : jeudi 17 juillet 2008 15:28 > : aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >Objet : Re: AeroElectric-List: Problems with multiple emails > > >Michle, > >This is not an unusual situation with Outlook. If you are getting >your mail from an Exchange server, the server is resending the >messages to your Outlook because, for some reason, it didn't think >that it was delivered correctly the last time. Talk to your system >administrator. If not Exchange, then the same situation is occurring >where Outlook is not correctly responding to the delivery of the >mail. Try using Thunderbird. > > >On Jul 16, 2008, at 11:52 PM, Michle W wrote: > >> = >> >> Matte, >> >> I've been getting recently aeroelectric duplicates in large numbers. >> Some as >> much as 6 copies of the same email. It's a pain as instead of >> getting 10 >> emails, I get 50. This does not seem to be happening on the other >> matronics >> lists. >> >> Am I alone with this syndrome ? or are others also being hit? >> >> Michle >> RV8 - engine/avionics >> >> -----Message d'origine----- >> De : owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] De la part de >> Terry >> Watson >> Envoy : mercredi 16 juillet 2008 21:49 >> : aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >> Objet : 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 >> 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 >> do not archive >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551 925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle@matronics.com Email http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 09:07:13 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Problems with multiple emails At 03:15 PM 7/17/2008 -0500, you wrote: > > > I always love it when people make assumptions. Because it's M$ it just > couldn't be a misconfiguration somewhere, it must be the > software. Better solution, unsubscribe and then resubscribe to this > list. Odds are that will probably fix it. If not email Matt directly at > dralle@matronics.com. > >Do not archive One of my ISP gurus suggested that it may not be a problem in your computer or the software that it runs. He explained that e-mail relaying protocols watch for a return message indicating that the file was delivered to the mailbox on the recipient's server. When circuits are busy, mail-box servers are down, mail-boxes are full, etc, then a "message not delivered" flag is returned to the originating system. In this case, the message is held for a period of time and re-sent. This re-sending activity will happen for some number of times as selected by the programmer. If successful delivery is not achieved after time-out, it bounces back to the originator with an explanation of some kind. He's seen situations where bugs in software do not properly report a received message. In this case, the originating system is fooled into believing that it needs to keep trying. The numbers of messages in the string of duplications is a function of how many times the originating system tried to send it . . . without getting a proper message received flag. It's something that can occur in several locations along the pipe and any single complaint on your part is unlikely to result in a timely resolution. In any case, it's something you should make your ISP aware of. He/she MIGHT do something on your behalf . . . and may have too many irons in the fire to take on a new worry. He also said it COULD be a situation where your email application is not telling your e-mail server to erase a message after it has been downloaded. If your e-mail client is set up to periodically download the current suite of mail residing on your service, then it would conduct multiple downloads of the same message. You might go into the application and shut off periodic, automatic downloads. Also see if there's an option for "Erase message from server after download" that has not been invoked. But if this problem resided on your computer, then it would do the same thing with all emails, not just those from matronics lists. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 11:06:30 AM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Nippondenso alternator question Dear Mr Rob Housman First of all I have not posted anything on ND alternators in months and months. I don't know what your problem is or what I did to offend you, but I do know facts from rhetoric, propaganda and hyperbole when I hear it. In spent at least a 100 hours tracking alternator "stories" down. I found some genuine failures but nothing to back up the grossly exaggerated stories told on this list in the past. I called several alternator distributors, manufactures - OEM and aftermarket, asking dozens of questions. I have offered to analyse anyone failed internal regulator (with x-ray & real failure analysis by a major manufacture who works with me). That is proactive research, not a bunch of personal spewing. I did not take the time and effort to be right or win; I did it for the joy of learning, knowledge and hope to help others. I have no wish to steal anyone's thunder or gain fame or fortune, just help others build a better plane for less effort, money with same or better results. If you want to hate on me fine, but that is sad for you. I am not convinced 1970's technology is the best we can do, while relying on shorting out CB's for band-aid protection, while internally regulated alternators can be made even better than they already are. Sorry, but thinking of better ways to do things is not bad or a personal affront on Bob or anyone else. Electronics have come a long way since externally regulated alternators where in vogue. I got tired of hearing from people like you, telling stories with no details of any kind. When pressed for details the answer was always the same, "I don't know" or silence. The failed transistor theory of internally regulated alternators has never been shown as a cause of any OV condition, but it's commonly quoted as a severe design limitation. It's like politics, bad stuff happens on both sides, including externally regulated alternators, but you just won't hear about it on this forum. If you do report honestly, people like you call you names like grade school. That is sad, pathetic and totally unproductive for improving designs. Some people go on and on about their experience as if that makes their opinion always right. Well I have experience and deal in the most complicated electrical systems found on aircraft, but that doesn't make me automatically right. However I'm entitled to my opinion with out being personally attacked. We can agree to disagree, but please try to act like a Gentleman or lighten up.. For some reason the "culture" of this forum is, to disagree, is to hate the other person and be adversarial. Why? The forum culture here has a reason & perennial. This forum sadly is far from a free exchange of ideas. There is a lot of great information, but its also has people who enjoy personally attacking one another. We need to change that. Why can't you just disagree and be pleasant with out calling the other person stupid? I don't have a problem or one ounce of animosity towards anyone on this list, but there are a few that seem to have problems with many people? (for some weird reason) Good luck with your Europa tricycle Mr. Rob Housman, but I don't even know you, nor do you know me; why you have some grudge against me is beyond normality and reason. Sincerely gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com (please send hate mail to above) do not archive >Time: 01:14:49 PM PST US >From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" >Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Nippondenso alternator question > >HA! Best laugh I've had all week! Reminds me of elementary school "my >dad can >beat up your dad". I prefer lead by example. > >Do not archive this useless information > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Housman >>Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 12:39 PM >>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 ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 11:24:35 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Nippondenso alternator question At 11:02 AM 7/18/2008 -0700, you wrote: >Dear Mr Rob Housman > >First of all I have not posted anything on ND alternators >in months and months. > >I don't know what your problem is or what I did to offend >you, but I do know facts from rhetoric, propaganda and >hyperbole when I hear it. Put it to bed George. We've already moved on to more important things. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 12:11:19 PM PST US From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Problems with multiple emails If it's only happening with the Matronics emails, and Matt confirmed there is a connection time out, there is a chance your ISP is seeing connections from Matronics as potential SPAM and is Tarpitting the connections to force the reset and discourage further SPAM being sent to their servers. Either way, follow up with your mail server admin. Michael -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt Dralle Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 10:49 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Problems with multiple emails Michele, Looks like the problem is at your email server. The Matronics server is getting the follow response from your email server: RPFD:michele.delsol@microsigma.fr MDeferred: Connection timed out with mail.ionfunding.com. This tells the Matronics server that the email was not properly delivered, so after a period of time, it tries to deliver it again. Apparently, the message is actually being delivered, however. This would account for the multiple copies of the same message. I would contact your ISP and ask them about their Internet connectivity. They are probably already aware of connection reliability issues, but it wouldn't hurt to add your complaint. Best regards, Matt Dralle Matronics Network/Email Manager ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 01:57:43 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z13/8 wiring correction ? At 10:16 AM 7/16/2008 -0400, you wrote: > >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 ? Good eye! I have to be careful when doing major edits between various z-figures. Some of these drawings were done 10 years ago before I discovered the differences between Carling-Like and Microswitch-Like progressive transfer conventions. A few drawings still have un-revised blocks embedded in them. I've fixed the error you've cited and published the new drawing at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z13-8Q.pdf Thanks for the heads-up. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 02:09:24 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: ND Alternator Mod From: "hgerhardt" After reading waaaay too much verbal abuse and other hand-wringing about the subject of internally-regulated alternator "dangers", I finally decided there has to be a better way than Kilovac contactors and transorbs or praying to various deities to making these things "safe". Why not just modify the alternator in such a way as to prevent its ability to run away in the first place? One vendor in particular does it already, so I thought that if they can do it, surely it isn't impossible. So, I took my ND alternator apart one afternoon and stared at the pieces for a while. I also found manuals of the internal workings on the web and studied those too. I came up with a method, which I've attached here, that takes about an hour to accomplish and costs next to nothing. The modification makes it impossible for the alternator to "run away" (unless the 5A field breaker malfunctions). In a nutshell, what it does is remove the always-on B+ field feed and replaces it with power from the "IG" terminal. This way, all of the field current goes through the IG terminal. Pull the field breaker and there is no possible way for the field to get power any other way. Heinrich Gerhardt RV-6, flying Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=193689#193689 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/denso_alternator_mod_923.pdf ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 02:55:56 PM PST US From: Speedy11@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: W31 switch/breaker fiasco Any help at all? Yes. Thanks Old Bob! Stan Do not archive **************Get fantasy football with free live scoring. Sign up for FanHouse Fantasy Football today. (http://www.fanhouse.com/fantasyaffair?ncid=aolspr00050000000020) ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 03:11:12 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ND Alternator Mod At 02:06 PM 7/18/2008 -0700, you wrote: > >After reading waaaay too much verbal abuse and other hand-wringing about >the subject of internally-regulated alternator "dangers", I finally >decided there has to be a better way than Kilovac contactors and transorbs >or praying to various deities to making these things "safe". > >Why not just modify the alternator in such a way as to prevent its ability >to run away in the first place? One vendor in particular does it already, >so I thought that if they can do it, surely it isn't impossible. So, I >took my ND alternator apart one afternoon and stared at the pieces for a >while. I also found manuals of the internal workings on the web and >studied those too. I came up with a method, which I've attached here, >that takes about an hour to accomplish and costs next to nothing. The >modification makes it impossible for the alternator to "run away" (unless >the 5A field breaker malfunctions). In a nutshell, what it does is remove >the always-on B+ field feed and replaces it with power from the "IG" >terminal. This way, all of the field current goes through the IG >terminal. Pull the field breaker and there is no possible way for the >field to get power any other way. > >Heinrich Gerhardt >RV-6, flying > Heinrich has been gracious enough to favor us with a document that describes the modification he's talking about. This paper was not produced by Heinrich but he promises that the next time he has another alternator apart for modification, he'll take more pictures to share with us. In the mean time, here's the base-line document: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Nipon-Denso_Alternator_Mod.pdf Thanks Heinrich! Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 03:30:36 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: The great(?) debate . . . Published works found: A reader sent me a link to the MTF Industries website. One can only guess as to why Paul did not reference this body of work that supports his and rebuts much of my work. I'll leave it up to readers here on the List to deduce the value of what's published. Assuming that products described ever become available, it will ultimately be you folks who validate or debunk the ideas offered at: http://smartaircraftsystems.com/ At first blush, this system seems to compete with http://www.verticalpower.com/ This is for information only and not intended to start a new thread. Before there are schematics and/or hardware to evaluate, there's nothing worthy of our $time$ to discuss at length. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 06:11:23 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: ND Alternator Mod From: "hgerhardt" Actually, Bob, I DID write that article you posted. My pictures aren't the greatest, but are good enough to get my points across and for a reasonably savvy homebuilder to perform the mod. Heinrich Gerhardt Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=193718#193718 ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 06:24:33 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: ND Alternator Mod At 06:07 PM 7/18/2008 -0700, you wrote: > >Actually, Bob, I DID write that article you posted. My pictures aren't >the greatest, but are good enough to get my points across and for a >reasonably savvy homebuilder to perform the mod. Sorry . . . I misunderstood. In any case, than you for contribution. If you have occasion to upgrade/revise the work, I'd be pleased to offer it on the website. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.