Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:52 AM - Wig Wag and LED's (selwyn)
2. 03:13 AM - fuses, wire sizes (bob noffs)
3. 04:02 AM - Re: Re: S700 switch pin positions (bob noffs)
4. 04:55 AM - Igntion Switches ()
5. 06:10 AM - Re: fuses, wire sizes (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 06:55 AM - Re: The great(?) debate . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 07:02 AM - Re: Wig Wag and LED's (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 07:08 AM - Re: ignition cables (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 07:12 AM - Re: Re: S700 switch pin positions (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 07:16 AM - Re: The great(?) debate . . . (Ernest Christley)
11. 08:07 AM - Ground in an all wood airplane (ROGER & JEAN CURTIS)
12. 08:25 AM - Re: The great(?) debate . . . (marcausman)
13. 09:31 AM - Re: Ground in an all wood airplane (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 10:12 AM - Re: Ground in an all wood airplane (ROGER & JEAN CURTIS)
15. 10:18 AM - Re: Re: IR to ER alternator mod (Steve Stearns)
16. 11:26 AM - Re: Problems with multiple emails (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Mich=E8le_B?=)
17. 11:32 AM - Re: Re: IR to ER alternator mod (earl_schroeder@juno.com)
18. 12:43 PM - Re: Re: IR to ER alternator mod (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
19. 04:04 PM - Re: Ground in an all wood airplane (Ken)
20. 04:51 PM - Re: "primer-line fuel injection" (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
21. 07:35 PM - fuses, wire sizes (bob noffs)
22. 09:26 PM - 30 Amp switch? (Ed Holyoke)
23. 09:37 PM - Re: 30 Amp switch? (Don Vs)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Wig Wag and LED's |
I'm planning the set up of a wig wag flash system on my forward lights using the
B&C SSF1 unit. I notice that this unit will switch up to 150 W and that it
requires a load on each leg to function. I am wondering what the minimum value
for the load is as I am planning on using LEDs of around 4 or 5 W for each light.
Will this unit function correctly with loads such as this?
Cheers, Selwyn.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194074#194074
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | fuses, wire sizes |
hi all,
i am following a schematic for an ov mod and am stumped at the 10 ga
wire with 30 amp fuse in the diagram. the fuseholder from b and c for
a 30 amp fuse will only allow a 12 ga wire be fitted inside the crimp
connection. a fuseholder from NAPA labeled for a 30 amp fuse uses 12 ga
wire. this 10 ga wire is used with the 20 amp breaker from 12 volt power
to the relay. this is on a 3300 jabiru. what do i do? any help
appreciated.
bob noffs
Message 3
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: S700 switch pin positions |
i also pulled out a 3 yr old carling 2-10 switch and it matched the diagram
of a switch as it was wired as a master in one of the ''z'' schematics. it
was correct according to the diagram in the schematic. i didnt compare it to
the chapter on switches. i vaguely remember though calling b and c about
this issue several years ago and was told a diagram [dont remember which]
was backwards. i guess i will double check the z drawing and the other
diagram in the book.
bob noffs
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 6:05 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: S700 switch pin positions
> <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
>
> At 06:45 PM 7/19/2008 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>Found an unused Carling 2-10 switch in my electrical supply box today, so
>>pulled out my now ragged copy of the Aeroelectric Connection and my cheapo
>>RS multimeter to confirm what I had previously posted - that the pin
>>positions were transposed left to right from the diagram in the
>>'Connection.
>>
>>They are indeed transposed, assuming a view looking at the back of the
>>switch with the keyway up. The date code on the side of the switch is
>>0443.
>>
>>I am sure that the transposition is not just a single switch anomaly,
>>because I had more than one of these on my plane, and I remember making
>>the wiring correction in multiple places - in my case, two p-mag switches
>>and a landing lights/wig-wag switch.
>>
>>regards,
>>
>>Erich Weaver
>
> Excellent hard data! Thank you sir. I've
> not heard from Carling yet but it seems likely
> that their "odd-man-out" position in the market
> place for switches would be a powerful incentive
> to swap columns and bring their functionality
> into synchronization with the rest of the industry.
>
> I think I'll be revising the switch ratings document
> to include a caveat for testing any given switch
> to determine it's position in the industry. Carling
> is the only company I'm aware of that did not conform
> but that doesn't mean there are not others.
>
> It would be really cool if Carling could offer a date
> range for the change-over.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
>
Message 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Igntion Switches |
7/21/2008
Hello Skip, You wrote: "I saw the referenced ACS Keyed Ignition Switches
and a starter switch. What is the benefit in two switches over one?"
I am glad you asked. The history of these types of ignition
switches:
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/search/search.php
does not fill one with great confidence. See:
http://tinyurl.com/j3m5j
They are mechanical devices, of not necessarily the highest quality -- sort
of like an old time watch -- with a lot of little bits and pieces inside
that can get worn / broken.
Actually I'd prefer three switches. A simple, reliable, separate toggle
switch for each magneto P lead, and a push button switch with a guard on it
for activating the starter contact solenoid.
See the postings copied below for other's experience with the ACS / Bendix
keyed type switches.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
--------------------------------------------
{#} Replies are directed back to kisbuilders@angus.mystery.com
{#} To reply to the author, write to Keith.Miller@esa.int
OC
I started with the standard ACS switch , but junked it after it left one
of
the mags live after switching off , now I also have 3 seperate switches ( 2
"heavy duty" for the mags and a "push to make" type for the starter ).
-----------------------------------------------------------
Message: #19408
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <rnuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com>
Subject: Re: ACS switch issues for Rotax 912S
>
>
>Ok, I traced it down to the ACS ignition switch (P/N A-510-2). When I
>switch to the left side ("R") it will cut out sometimes. Not very often
>but if I do it just right then off she goes. The switch only had been
>used about 40 hours when this started showing up.
>
>It appears that it is grounding, or at least partially grounding,
>inadvertently when switched over to that "mag".
>
>Could it have to do with the diode issue that ACS mentions with regards to
>impulse coupled mags?
The diode was added to the starter contactor control circuit . . .
with totally bogus engineering behind it. See
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/spikecatcher.pdf
>FWIW I've wired according to Bob's notes with the shield acting as the
>ground. I was very very careful when wiring and so far this is the only
>electrical problem I've had.
>
>I've also wiggled all the wires around behind the switch (and also the
>engine) and it doesn't seem to be any of the wires. I'm guessing it's
>internal to the switch or something to do with a spike of some sort.
>
>Any other ideas before I pull the switch out and send it back to ACS?
Have you considered getting your money back and putting in toggle
switches? In my never humble opinion, key-switches suck.
Bob . . .
-----------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Skip LaPolice" <skipper144@juno.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: AW: Replacing Starter
> Hi Owen,
> I noticed in your reply to JF regarding an ignition
> switch that it is better to have " separate magneto
> and starters." Please help my understanding.
> I'm building a Pulsar with a 2200 Jabiru and I'm
> thinking avionics as I mix epoxy.
> I saw the referenced ACS Keyed Ignition Switches
> and a starter switch. What is the benefit in two switches
> over one? My car has one.
> Thanks much!
> Be well,
> Skip/
Message 5
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: fuses, wire sizes |
At 05:10 AM 7/21/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>hi all,
> i am following a schematic for an ov mod and am stumped at the 10 ga
> wire with 30 amp fuse in the diagram. the fuseholder from b and c for a
> 30 amp fuse will only allow a 12 ga wire be fitted inside the crimp
> connection. a fuseholder from NAPA labeled for a 30 amp fuse uses 12 ga
> wire. this 10 ga wire is used with the 20 amp breaker from 12 volt power
> to the relay. this is on a 3300 jabiru. what do i do? any help appreciated.
Who's schematic?
Wire sizes versus published recommended protection levels
is a VERY broad brush. The "conventions" adopted by most
of the aircraft industry are exceedingly conservative too.
There are TWO considerations for selecting a size of wire
and the protection for that wire. (1) TEMPERATURE rise over
ambient as it relates to that particular wire, where it's
to be installed and the rating of it's INSULATION for
maximum operating temperature. (2) Voltage drop in a wire
might degrade performance of the appliance at the other
end.
To make our jobs easier in the TC aircraft world where
the problems to be solved are much greater and more
frustrating than wire selection, conventions were adopted
that assured the designer of good performance in 99.9% of
all instances where wire is used aboard the airplane.
Chapter 8 of the 'Connection speaks to these issues. You
can download a copy of this chapter published at:
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/Ch8_R12.pdf
where you will find two figures that speak to these
conventions where we said that 10C rise is a good
target for conservative application of wiring in
aircraft and that we choose wire gages to limit
voltage drop in wiring to 5% of system voltage.
Folks are often worried about burning up wires
should they be protected by the wrong size of
fuse. I'll refer you to this photo . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/Ch8_R12.pdf
where a 22AWG wire has been loaded to 20 amps for
about 15 minutes. The insulation temperature of
the wire has settled out at 112C (the wire is
rated at 150C). However, at 16 milliohms per
foot and a 5% wire drop value of 0.7 volts in
a 14v system, the maximum length of a 22AWG
conductor in a 20A circuit would be (0.7/20x0.016)
2.2 feet long!
Obviously, nobody would WANT to use a 22AWG
wire in such a demanding way . . . the point
is that it COULD be used without creating
an issue with respect to fire hazard.
So the short answer to your question is use the
12AWG wire. If this wire in in series with your
alternator (rated at 20A I think) then a 30A
fuse is appropriate protection for the purpose
of preventing nuisance trips . . . and this in
no way places your 12AWG wires at risk for
immolation.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
Message 6
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | The great(?) debate . . . |
At 08:15 PM 7/20/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Bob, thanks for responding to my query with your thoughts on the topic
>(centralization and control of an aircraft electrical system).
>
>I have no experience with electrical systems or homebuilding, just starting
>my RV-9A QB. But even though I started programming with Fortran and punch
>cards, I've kept reasonably current with computer usage and trends over the
>last nearly 35 years. I work with and develop numerical models of estuaries
>at work. In other words I still enjoy tinkering with PCs. I won't
>dogmatically put a technology on- or off-limits for a proposed application.
>Well, true, it would be a hard sell to convince me that anything from
>Microsoft would be safe aboard an airplane.
>
>Furthermore, as I consider my experience over the last few years owning and
>maintaining a minimal IFR Alon Aircoupe, I observe a number of problems have
>come up with traditional "steam gage" technology as old as John McCain. So
>I won't consider an old technology automatically better. Instead, each
>technology must prove itself again as a competing idea comes along.
But are the "problems" one of shortcomings in as-new performance?
In other words, if this were a factory-new airplane, would you find
the instruments as-supplied inadequate to the task? Or are the problems
one of maintenance and failure to perform . . . i.e. the puppies are
just worn out and/or suffering the effects of age?
>That forms the basis for the intrigue I feel about Vertical Power and its
>concept. I've already decided there will be absolutely no vacuum pumps on
>my -9A.
Sure, and exceedingly easy to do.
> And given the less than excellent reliability of mechanical gyros,
>I will have an AHRS with at most a single electrical attitude gyro for
>backup. Given the use of AHRS, that means I can put in an EFIS with, again,
>a few--very few--traditional round gages for backup.
Yup, the new kids on the block with no moving parts are a
no-brainer selection . . . especially since it's increasingly
difficult to even find good useable HARDWARE that promises
satisfactory service life and an acceptable cost of ownership.
>At this point something like VP begins to seem reasonable. When I first
>heard of it only months ago I was shocked. Trust most of your electrical to
>a single silicon box? And then allow it to make decisions and actuate
>switches and things on your behalf?? But as the idea soaked in over the
>weeks and I read about others' experience with it--admittedly still
>limited--I found myself warming up to the idea.
As I had to state in my soliloquy it's certainly a matter
of setting one's design goals and then meeting them but
hopefully free of the Madison Avenue hammers of safety,
reliability and convenience when the new product is clearly
more complicated, heavier and expensive.
If I have to walk into a planning meeting for the purpose
of selling an idea where all the weight, cost and parts
count numbers are moving in the wrong direction, there
needs to be a really compelling reason for taking the
hit to performance of our airplane.
>I'm still a year away from making a final decision to use VP. But I
>continue to solicit opinions everywhere I can, and again, sincerely
>appreciate the time you took to write and post yours.
I understand. I would only suggest that you divide
the thought processes into two categories. Appliance
selection where clearly the performance, cost-of-ownership
and reliability issues are inarguable. But these appliances
only need to communicate with each other on WIRES. The
performance, cost-of-ownership and reliability of copper
has not changed in thousands of years . . . insulations
have just about peaked (I've not seen a quantum jump
in wire insulation in 20+ years 22759 is about as
"ideal" and we need to be).
So consider appliance selection and power distribution/
control as two tasks. Distribution and control is
not unlike the water system for your town. Yeah,
there some new plastics for pipes and this valve
design is longer lived and less expensive because
it's assembled by machines . . . but the necessary
functionality does not benefit much from the
addition of software, touch screen and automated
response to stimulus. Sometimes the best way to
drive a nail is with a hammer.
After sifting and sorting all those marbles you
just WANT that kind of system in your airplane,
by all means . . . and know that its incorporation
does not present a great shift in risk. No matter
what's in your panel, these guys should be in
your flight bag.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/Failure_Tolerance.pdf
They work in your Aircoupe and will work just
as well in your super-whizzy RV! The bottom line
is to fly comfortably in either.
Bob . . .
Message 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Wig Wag and LED's |
At 02:47 AM 7/21/2008 -0700, you wrote:
>
>I'm planning the set up of a wig wag flash system on my forward lights
>using the B&C SSF1 unit. I notice that this unit will switch up to 150 W
>and that it requires a load on each leg to function. I am wondering what
>the minimum value for the load is as I am planning on using LEDs of around
>4 or 5 W for each light. Will this unit function correctly with loads
>such as this?
>
>Cheers, Selwyn.
That's a damned good question my friend . . . and I
don't know. Those electronic automotive flashers are
certainly much less sensitive to load changes than
their thermo-mechanical ancestors but I've never
explored the necessary minimum load to not affect
functionality.
Leds are very different than incandescent lamps.
An LED biased up with microamps across it drops
voltage almost the same as when running full bright.
I'm fairly sure that the electronics in that flasher
are looking for "nearly ground" through an un-energized
filament to function properly.
When push comes to shove, you can probably parallel
one of the lamps with a resistor that might need to
be on the order of 30 ohms (about 3 watts of 'wasted'
power) to keep the flasher happy. You can experiment
with this on the bench. In any case, the final configuration
will still be MUCH less energy needy in spite of the
idiosyncrasies of the automotive electronic flasher.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: ignition cables |
At 10:57 PM 7/20/2008 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Bob N,
> As usual you have been right on the money in my instance.
> First of all, confronted with the bullet connections (hardly metric,
>for a 914) I presumed that it must be something much more complex and thus
>my first query.
<snip>
> All of this left me with the fear that even the slightest ignition
>RMI would affect the second two, and determined to run it with the securest
>coax cover I know - the RG400. To realise that your solution, the looping of
>the centre coax wire out of its shield and termination (a task I have
>performed perhaps hundreds of time in HF gear) is enough - convinces me I'm
>in the wrong hobby.......
Naw . . . there are many recipes for success in every venue
and not every chef gets there by the same roads. The nice
thing about these activities is the daily opportunity to
go to bed tonight knowing something new that we did not wake
up with this morning.
> Nevertheless, having today produced a stainless steep panel for twin
>feed-through BNC females at the firewall and a alu box which houses the back
>of the two switches, I am committed to completing the fiasco and will
>probably have the cleanest ignition result in four counties.....
Very good my friend. What you've proposed will certainly
function as needed.
> Ah well - a purified soul leads to a good night's sleep.
> Again many thanks for your help and advice.
>Ferg
>PS - and because I was trying to use a 2-blade coax stripper, I couldn't
>fathom the dimensions.
Hmmm . . . do I recall having shipped some strippers
up to you guys in Toronto . . . or was that somebody
else? I think that was right after I did the seminar.
Were those 2-blade strippers?
Bob . . .
Message 9
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: S700 switch pin positions |
At 05:58 AM 7/21/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>
>i also pulled out a 3 yr old carling 2-10 switch and it matched the
>diagram of a switch as it was wired as a master in one of the ''z''
>schematics. it was correct according to the diagram in the schematic. i
>didnt compare it to the chapter on switches. i vaguely remember though
>calling b and c about this issue several years ago and was told a diagram
>[dont remember which] was backwards. i guess i will double check the z
>drawing and the other diagram in the book.
Very good info sir. Your report combined with notes from
other folks suggests that Carling converted to the industry
wide conventions about 4 years ago. I'm hoping to hear from
somebody at Carling but not holding my breath.
I've put the switch article in my to-do bin and will update
it shortly to reflect this new data.
Thank you all for your help in sorting it out.
Bob . . .
Message 10
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: The great(?) debate . . . |
Ralph Finch wrote:
> At this point something like VP begins to seem reasonable. When I first
> heard of it only months ago I was shocked. Trust most of your electrical to
> a single silicon box? And then allow it to make decisions and actuate
> switches and things on your behalf?? But as the idea soaked in over the
> weeks and I read about others' experience with it--admittedly still
> limited--I found myself warming up to the idea.
>
Ralph, the first thing to consider when thinking of the VP (or any other
component) is "What am I gonna' do when that thing goes tits up?" Those
highly integrated devices want to control everything, but you need some
way to access control of the flight critical systems totally independent
of the computer, lest you surrender the title of PIC to a computer.
Consider this, I'm using a MegaSquirt, a DIY engine controller using
open-source software which I will be modifying. It controls both
ignition and injectors. I built it myself, and I'm perfectly
comfortable with it. How can I be so secure? ...because of HOW it is used.
For the ignition, the MegaSquirt drives two Ford EDIS-4 ignition
controllers. Both will run independently of the Megasquirt, and either
is capable of keeping the engine running (with a static advance). If
the MegaSquirt and one of the EDIS modules go south at the same time, I
still get sparks. If the generator goes out, one of the EDIS units has
a separate generator dedicated to it. For the fuel, the MegaSquirt has
total control of the electronics. If it fails, I lose all the
injectors. That didn't make me happy, so a second pickup from the tank
(the Dyke Delta has only one) will be routed through a valve in order to
gravity feed fuel directly to the throttle body. If the MegaSquirt goes
stupid on me, I simply switch it off and crack open the valve until the
engine runs 'about right'. The DIY engine controller is necessary for
smooth starting, taxiing and takeoff. It is inconsequential for cruise
or landing.
If you can point to the VP as it is installed in your project and know
that you will be safe if it blows smoke mid-flight, then move on to
consider what neat things it can do for you and if your willing to pay
for it. But the first step is always to insure that you are and always
will be PIC.
This advice carries a "100% satisfaction or double your money back"
guarantee.
Message 11
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Ground in an all wood airplane |
Bob,
I am building an all wood plane and plan to use dual electronic
ignition. A
small gnawing issue is grounding. I will have a rear battery with only
a
single FAT wire ground coming up to the firewall. Even though I will
have
my 2 ignition systems on separate battery busses this will leave me with
a
ground, single point of failure. I have been kicking around some other
ideas, but am concerned about generating ground loop noise. I would be
interested in your take on this.
Thanks, as always for your advise,
Roger
Message 12
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: The great(?) debate . . . |
If you install an EFIS, you are going to install backup gauges too. The same concept applies for Vertical Power. You can wire backup circuits for those circuits you deem "critical" so that they will continue to operate even if the system goes tango uniform. Take a look at the installation manual here: http://www.verticalpower.com/documents.html and you'll see a section dedicated to backup circuits, and they're fairly easy to wire. How many circuits need a backup is up to you, but we find that most customers have anywhere from zero (where EFIS has its own battery backup) to two backups.
--------
Marc Ausman
http://www.verticalpower.com
RV-7 IO-390 Flying
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=194132#194132
Message 13
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Ground in an all wood airplane |
At 11:02 AM 7/21/2008 -0400, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>
>I am building an all wood plane and plan to use dual electronic
>ignition. A small gnawing issue is grounding. I will have a rear battery
>with only a single FAT wire ground coming up to the firewall. Even though
>I will have my 2 ignition systems on separate battery busses this will
>leave me with a ground, single point of failure. I have been kicking
>around some other ideas, but am concerned about generating ground loop
>noise. I would be interested in your take on this.
The large wires in your airplane are really
robust. The thoughtfully installed ground wire
is as reliable as prop bolts.
The ground loop issue is addressed with the
ground system architectures described in the
'Connection. In the case of a non-conducting
airplane, bringing everything to the single
point ground location on the firewall will
eliminate any concerns for "loops". In fact,
you would have to go out of your way to
create a ground loop in a non-conducting
airplane.
Bob . . .
Message 14
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Ground in an all wood airplane |
Bob,
Thanks! This was basically my thoughts also, but I wanted to make sure I
wasn't overlooking something.
Roger
At 11:02 AM 7/21/2008 -0400, you wrote:
>Bob,
>
>
>I am building an all wood plane and plan to use dual electronic
>ignition. A small gnawing issue is grounding. I will have a rear battery
>with only a single FAT wire ground coming up to the firewall. Even though
>I will have my 2 ignition systems on separate battery busses this will
>leave me with a ground, single point of failure. I have been kicking
>around some other ideas, but am concerned about generating ground loop
>noise. I would be interested in your take on this.
The large wires in your airplane are really
robust. The thoughtfully installed ground wire
is as reliable as prop bolts.
The ground loop issue is addressed with the
ground system architectures described in the
'Connection. In the case of a non-conducting
airplane, bringing everything to the single
point ground location on the firewall will
eliminate any concerns for "loops". In fact,
you would have to go out of your way to
create a ground loop in a non-conducting
airplane.
Bob . . .
Message 15
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: IR to ER alternator mod |
Bob, Eric, George, JetPilot and the rest of the list:
From the perspective of someone who has been following the list for a
while and who is not as ignorant as most of things electrical nor of
lists supporting the free exchange of ideas and, perhaps most important,
someone who is not "tribal" in the least, I respectfully ask that Eric,
George, JetPilot NOT go away.
I don't have to agree with different viewpoints to appreciate them. As
much as we all strive for simple ideas and imagine that correct
application of logic will always result in absolute truths, the reality
is that there is much variation in our foundation goals, premises etc.
that have a great affect on our individual conclusions of what is right
for each of us. I, for one, think this list would be greatly enhanced
if there was less defensive posturing, bile etc. Responses to ideas
found to be objectionable could be concisely communicated as simply as
"regarding the idea that ... suffice to say that although there are
proponents of this approach I strongly disagree with it for reasons that
are well documented in past posts. Please do your homework on this idea
and the alternatives before committing to an approach".
The 'I'm still right and you're still wrong and since you still don't
agree with me let me explain it to you louder (or longer...)', which, by
my reading, has been evident in both camps of the great debate seems to
me to be not just disrespectful to the involved parties but also to the
list-reading public in general.
Best wishes to all,
Steve Stearns
Boulder/Longmont, Colorado
CSA,EAA,IAC,AOPA,PE,ARRL,BARC (but ignorant none-the-less)
Restoring (since 1/07): N45FC O235 Longeze Cothern/Friling CF1 (~1000 Hrs)
Flying (since 9/86): N43732 A65 Taylorcraft BC12D
Message 16
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Problems with multiple emails |
Thanks Matt - but any reason why this should be happening only with the
matronics lists ? aeroelectric included ?
Michle
-----Message d'origine-----
De: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] De la part de Matt
Dralle
Envoy: vendredi 18 juillet 2008 17:49
: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Objet: 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:
<michele.delsol@microsigma.fr>
>
>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:
>
>> = <michele.delsol@microsigma.fr>
>>
>> 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.
>>
><terry@tcwatson.com
>> >
>>
>> 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 17
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: IR to ER alternator mod |
-- Steve Stearns <steve@tomasara.com> wrote:
<snip>
>I don't have to agree with different viewpoints to appreciate them.
<snip>
I, for one, think this list would be greatly enhanced
>if there was less defensive posturing, bile etc.
<snip>
I tend to agree with Steve! Especially the above quotes.
As long as the sender's name remains available, I can choose which to read..or
agree with..
Earl
Do not archive
Message 18
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: IR to ER alternator mod |
At 11:14 AM 7/21/2008 -0600, you wrote:
>
>Bob, Eric, George, JetPilot and the rest of the list:
>
> From the perspective of someone who has been following the list for a
> while and who is not as ignorant as most of things electrical nor of
> lists supporting the free exchange of ideas and, perhaps most important,
> someone who is not "tribal" in the least, I respectfully ask that Eric,
> George, JetPilot NOT go away.
Sorry. This is MY classroom and in this venue,
it's not a question of opinion and viewpoints.
It's a question of repeatable experiments and
good science.
<snip>
>The 'I'm still right and you're still wrong and since you still don't
>agree with me let me explain it to you louder (or longer...)', which, by
>my reading, has been evident in both camps of the great debate seems to me
>to be not just disrespectful to the involved parties but also to the
>list-reading public in general.
This List is not frequented by the "public
in general" and the vast majority of the public
in general would receive no benefit from hanging
out here. A "can't we all just get along"
idea has the effect of leveling the playing
field to average . . . mediocracy . . .
an environment crafted to upset the least
numbers of folks irrespective of their viewpoints
and opinions. I'd like to believe that the membership
of this List represents the top slice of individuals
struggling to build a better than average airplane.
When you select a doctor, engineer, lawyer or
teacher, do you want one who has been trained
in the "everybody is right to some degree" school
of thought . . . or is the demonstrable best in their
respective fields?
George and Paul have demonstrated nothing . . .
yet they've wasted a lot of $time$ as we attempted
to make nice. Eric has demonstrated a great deal
of initiative and creativity. See:
http://www.periheliondesign.com/
. . . and he is trying. And I've offered
to assist his endeavors right here on this List.
I'll leave it up to those who choose to
follow the conversation to judge the value
of investing the $time$.
Please do not mistake confidence and competence
with arrogance and conceit. I'm simply exercising
control over the decorum and quality of this
activity.
If your concerns are for making nice (no matter
what opinions might be offered) you'll need to
find another group that's more concerned with
making folks feel better than in helping them
do the best we know how to do at a budget they
can afford and technologies their skills and
$time$ can master.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
Message 19
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Ground in an all wood airplane |
Two separate ground straps from engine to firewall (or forest of tabs)
may be a good idea on an electrically dependent engine though. I like
one of those to go to a starter bolt.
Ken
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> <nuckolls.bob@cox.net>
>
> At 11:02 AM 7/21/2008 -0400, you wrote:
>
>> Bob,
>>
>>
>>
>> I am building an all wood plane and plan to use dual electronic
>> ignition. A small gnawing issue is grounding. I will have a rear
>> battery with only a single FAT wire ground coming up to the firewall.
>> Even though I will have my 2 ignition systems on separate battery
>> busses this will leave me with a ground, single point of failure. I
>> have been kicking around some other ideas, but am concerned about
>> generating ground loop noise. I would be interested in your take on
>> this.
>
> The large wires in your airplane are really
> robust. The thoughtfully installed ground wire
> is as reliable as prop bolts.
>
> The ground loop issue is addressed with the
> ground system architectures described in the
> 'Connection. In the case of a non-conducting
> airplane, bringing everything to the single
> point ground location on the firewall will
> eliminate any concerns for "loops". In fact,
> you would have to go out of your way to
> create a ground loop in a non-conducting
> airplane.
>
> Bob . . .
>
Message 20
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: "primer-line fuel injection" |
At 06:28 PM 7/20/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>
>What can I say? Thanks AGAIN for another valuable bit of education.
I've only collected some ideas that have been laying
around on the ground for nearly 100 years and considered
how they might be combined into yet another recipe for
success.
Now, if you're considering this combination of ideas as
useful to your design goals, then YOU'RE the chef. It
will be up to you to search, select, ponder the assembly
of and ultimately test the product of your efforts. We
can help but YOU are going to be the guy who ultimately
brings the concept to fruition. If you choose to photograph
the installation . . . and share the problem solved with
making it work, then you become the expert and more
qualified than I to assist others in doing the same or
similar things.
Let us know how we may be of assitance!
Bob . . .
Message 21
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | fuses, wire sizes |
bob, thanks for the good reply to my question. the schematic is the one
supplied by b and c with the ov mod.
bob noffs
Message 22
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I have a setup where I need to switch about 30 amps as a backup power
source. Is there such an animal as a toggle switch that will handle
that, or do I need to think about a relay?
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
Message 23
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Ed,
The marine guys use a battery switch that would handle the thirty amps.
Problem is it is big and fairly expensive. A relay would probably be
better. Don VS
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ed
Holyoke
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 9:23 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: 30 Amp switch?
I have a setup where I need to switch about 30 amps as a backup power
source. Is there such an animal as a toggle switch that will handle
that, or do I need to think about a relay?
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|