---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 10/26/08: 15 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 01:38 AM - =?ISO-8859-1?Q?A=E9roclub_de_Montaigu? (Iberplanes IGL) 2. 06:30 AM - Re: Continuous Lacing (bcrnfnp@sbcglobal.net) 3. 06:45 AM - Re: Re: Dry Cell Batteries? (ROGER & JEAN CURTIS) 4. 07:06 AM - Re: Re: Dry Cell Batteries? (Sam Hoskins) 5. 09:51 AM - Re: Re: Dry Cell Batteries? (Sam Hoskins) 6. 10:14 AM - Re: Re: Dry Cell Batteries? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 7. 10:42 AM - local grounding for wingtip lights (Lincoln Keill) 8. 12:06 PM - Re: local grounding for wingtip lights (Peter Pengilly) 9. 12:21 PM - Re: local grounding for wingtip lights (Vernon Little) 10. 12:28 PM - Installing Audio Jacks (Carlos Trigo) 11. 01:26 PM - Re: Installing Audio Jacks (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 12. 01:49 PM - Re: Installing Audio Jacks (Charlie England) 13. 01:56 PM - Re: Installing Audio Jacks (Carlos Trigo) 14. 03:04 PM - Re: Re: Dry Cell Batteries? (Mike Pienaar) 15. 09:22 PM - Durocell Leaking Batteries (jerb) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 01:38:31 AM PST US From: "Iberplanes IGL" Subject: AeroElectric-List: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?A=E9roclub_de_Montaigu? *Hello Friends, I=B4m looking for someone near or currently flying at this French Aerodrome . I need to stablish an email contact off-line. many thanks in advance. A=E9ro-Clubs**A=E9roclub de Montaigu* Adresse : A=E9rodrome Montaigu Les landes de Corprais 85600 SAINT-GEORGES DE MONTAIGU http://www.flygoto.com/OACI/Aerodrome/GPS/Gpx/LFFW/ Alberto Martin www.iberplanes.es Igualada - Barcelona - Spain ---------------------------------------------- Zodiac 601 XL Builder Serial: 6-7011 Tail Kit: Finished Wings: Not Started Fuselage: Ordered Engine: Jabiru 3300 ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 06:30:52 AM PST US From: bcrnfnp@sbcglobal.net Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Continuous Lacing Bob, et al I agree. Not hard core "don't do lacing". It has it's place. Two things for lacing. 1) Neater 2) some weight savings. I too was taught in the older days of the Air Force (70s) to do the continuous lacing. I feel lacing of any kind has its place in our wiring scheme. I was all for the continuous, until I had to pull out the old nav radio harness out of the 172. It had so many twists and turns under the floor that it was very difficult (not impossible) to follow the wires. As I didn't have a wiring schematic, I was at the mercy of following the wires down through the winding route that Cessna put the wires. It had continuous lacing. Having to pull the wire back and forth to get at the lacing was the pain I had. I eventually got it out though. My suggestion is that if you are going to use continuos lacing, use it somewhere that every loop is accessible (for that inevitable day that you will need to get into the harness for whatever reason). If you can't access it after the area is covered I suggest not doing lacing or tie wraps. I suggest conduit. I guess what I'm trying to get across is: think of the day that you or someone will have to acess that wire bundle. Think about how accessible it may or may not be at that time. Also think of the mechanic (you) when it comes time to repair the wiring. Cheers, Barry Chapman RV-9A ________________________________ >From: "BobsV35B@aol.com" Good Morning Barry, Just to prove there are always differences of opinion, may I say that I prefer proper lacing to Tywraps? What I do is use Tywraps during the layout and build up process, then replace them with flat waxed lacing cord after the build up is complete. I do NOT use a continuous string as was taught fifty to sixty years ago and as is shown in Manual 18, but use individual ties where needed. I think such ties are at least as easy to remove as are Tywraps, and they do not have the large protrusions such as cutoff Tywraps have. I think they are even just a tiny bit lighter! Back when I attended Aviation Electrician Mate training, we were told to use continuous lacing cord because it supplied some support for the wire run. I think that thought is no longer in vogue. It probably went away with Manual 18! 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 ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 06:45:26 AM PST US From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dry Cell Batteries? -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam Hoskins Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2008 9:17 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dry Cell Batteries? Bob, What would be the proper way to parallel two batteries? I am using Z19/RB Sam Sam, Just tie them together with "fat" wires, + to + and - to -. Roger ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 07:06:28 AM PST US From: "Sam Hoskins" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dry Cell Batteries? Well I KNOW that! I mean, if you have gone to the trouble to install two batteries, wouldn't you generally keep them separate, unless you were operating in the enduranc e mode? Otherwise, why go to the trouble to install the engine battery bus and contactor? Again, the model is Z19/RB Sam On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 8:41 AM, ROGER & JEAN CURTIS < mrspudandcompany@verizon.net> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto: > owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Sam Hoskins > *Sent:* Saturday, October 25, 2008 9:17 PM > *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dry Cell Batteries? > > > Bob, > > What would be the proper way to parallel two batteries? I am using Z19/R B > > Sam > > * * > > * * > > *Sam,* > > * * > > *Just tie them together with "fat" wires, + to + and ' to -.* > > * * > > *Roger* > > * > =========== =========== =========== =========== > * > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 09:51:43 AM PST US From: "Sam Hoskins" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dry Cell Batteries? Never mind. I found the answer here: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/bat_iso2.pdf Sam On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Sam Hoskins wrote: > Bob, > > What would be the proper way to parallel two batteries? I am using Z19/RB > > Sam > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 9:39 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < > nuckolls.bob@cox.net> wrote: > >> nuckolls.bob@cox.net> >> >> >> > >>> > What are your requirements for capacity? Have you >>> > done an energy study for battery-only endurance? >>> > The 310 is not cheap and it's fragile compared to it's >>> > larger siblings. >>> > >>> > Bob . . . >>> > >>> > After much discussion, we think this is how my electrically-dependent >>> engine breaks out... >>> >>> > Current draw on 4 cylinder EFI engines: >>> > >>> > Pump at 40 psi- 5-8 amps >>> > Injectors at 5000 rpm- 3-4 amps >>> > Ignition at 5000 rpm- 2.5-4 amps (depends on coil charge time) >>> > ECU- .15- .6 amps depending on ECU >>> > >>> > My total current draw in flight at 4500 rpm with 2 pumps on (one LP >>> > Facet, one HP Bosch 048), transponder, comm, gps, injectors, coils, >>> > ECU and scavenge pump is 18 amps. >>> >>> >>> We seem to think that the 17ah PC680 clone would give just about 15 >>> minutes of realistic run time, given some age on the battery. I guess I >>> might have to carry the weight of another battery around to be safe. >>> >> >> According to the performance curves at: >> >> http://tinyurl.com/5p6d4w >> >> a 17A load on a 100% battery will give you just >> under 30 minutes of run time down to about 10V. So >> a battery due for replacement would be suited >> for about 20 minutes of operation. >> >> Consider running both batteries of a 2-battery >> architecture in parallel. Losses in any given battery is an >> I(squared)*R function. By cutting the current per >> battery by about 1/2, the energy lost in each battery >> drops to 1/4th the original amount. Doing 1/4 >> per battery in two batteries gets you 1/2 the >> lost watts. Two 17 a.h. batteries gives you >> 34 a.h. of total capacity. An 18A load on this >> combo goes to a 60+ minutes of duration. >> >> A savings of 5 or so pounds can be realized by >> going to a single 28 a.h. battery. >> >> http://tinyurl.com/6eu2p8 >> >> The internal impedance of this battery seems >> better than two 17 a.h. in parallel. It gives >> you the same 60+ minutes at less weight >> and total capacity. >> >> Of course, with a single battery or treating >> two batteries as one battery dictates an >> aggressive capacity tracking protocol. If >> ever there was an power plant begging for >> a second, small alternator, it's this one. >> >> Bob . . . >> >> >> >> >> > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 10:14:27 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dry Cell Batteries? At 08:17 PM 10/25/2008 -0500, you wrote: >Bob, > >What would be the proper way to parallel two batteries? I am using Z19/RB >Sam If you're paralleling two batteries for a simple increase of capacity and reduction of internal resistance, then just hook 'em up. If you have two batteries that need to be partitioned off to separate tasks during alternator out operations, then separate battery contactors and busses are called for . . . precisely as illustrated in Z-19. Those batteries are operated in parallel when the alternator is working . . . and separated to separate tasks when the alternator is not working. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 10:42:26 AM PST US From: Lincoln Keill Subject: AeroElectric-List: local grounding for wingtip lights Can't find this specifically addressed in Aeroelectric connection, but I think I have it figured out -- comments please. Here's the situation: RV-7, each wingtip has LED position light (22AWG), strobe light (18AWG shielded) and 75W landing light (14AWG due to length of wire run). I think I read somewhere that you should NOT ground the shielding of the strobe wires at the wingtip, only at the power supply. The position lights and landing lights will have two different size crimped ring terminals running from each of their ground wires, so I need to have a #6 nutplate/screw to ground the position lights to the outboard wing rib, and a #8 nutplate/screw to ground the landing lights to the outboard wing rib. Since I don't know what material the ring terminals are made out of (I don't think they're aluminum), once I bottle brush the two locations where the grounding will occur, I need a cadmium washer between the rib and the ring terminal to avoid corrosion. I was also planning on coating all components with vaseline before installation. Have I got this all correct or am I over-thinking? Comments/suggestions please. Jim Lincoln RV-7A wings DO NOT ARCHIVE ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 12:06:37 PM PST US From: "Peter Pengilly" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: local grounding for wingtip lights In my view you're over thinking! I would put the same size ring terminal on the end of all the wires, say #10. Then see AC43.13-1B pages 11-76 to 11-78 and take your choice. Terminals are usually copper. If you coat everything in vaseline before installation it probably won't work. Install dry, if you have to apply vaseline do it once everything is screwed up (perhaps only worthwhile if you live in a very damp maritime environment). Does the earth for the strobe go back down the shielded cable? Yes, don't earth the shield at the wing tip. I'm sure others will have differing views!;) Peter -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Lincoln Keill Sent: 26 October 2008 17:39 Subject: AeroElectric-List: local grounding for wingtip lights Can't find this specifically addressed in Aeroelectric connection, but I think I have it figured out -- comments please. Here's the situation: RV-7, each wingtip has LED position light (22AWG), strobe light (18AWG shielded) and 75W landing light (14AWG due to length of wire run). I think I read somewhere that you should NOT ground the shielding of the strobe wires at the wingtip, only at the power supply. The position lights and landing lights will have two different size crimped ring terminals running from each of their ground wires, so I need to have a #6 nutplate/screw to ground the position lights to the outboard wing rib, and a #8 nutplate/screw to ground the landing lights to the outboard wing rib. Since I don't know what material the ring terminals are made out of (I don't think they're aluminum), once I bottle brush the two locations where the grounding will occur, I need a cadmium washer between the rib and the ring terminal to avoid corrosion. I was also planning on coating all components with vaseline before installation. Have I got this all correct or am I over-thinking? Comments/suggestions please. Jim Lincoln RV-7A wings DO NOT ARCHIVE ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 12:21:51 PM PST US From: "Vernon Little" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: local grounding for wingtip lights Hi Jim. AC43-13 covers this in some detail. My copy is at the hangar, so I can't quote from it directly. The sequence and material of the washers, lock washers and terminals is covered precisely. My recollection is for a nutplate mount: cadmium plated bolt, cadmium plated lockwasher, cadmium plated washer, terminal (tinned), aluminum alloy washer, substrate. I actually drilled a hole in my spar (don't panic, it was cleared by the factory) for the ground point. Although the rib is probably fine, I just wanted a lower resistance path. I used dielectric grease rather than Vaseline. You can always crimp on new ring terminals with the same hole diameters and use a single point for grounding if you want. You are correct about the strobe shield, don't ground it at the wingtip. Vern > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On > Behalf Of Lincoln Keill > Sent: October 26, 2008 10:39 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: local grounding for wingtip lights > > > > --> > > Can't find this specifically addressed in Aeroelectric > connection, but I think I have it figured out -- comments > please. Here's the situation: > > RV-7, each wingtip has LED position light (22AWG), strobe > light (18AWG shielded) and 75W landing light (14AWG due to > length of wire run). I think I read somewhere that you > should NOT ground the shielding of the strobe wires at the > wingtip, only at the power supply. The position lights and > landing lights will have two different size crimped ring > terminals running from each of their ground wires, so I need > to have a #6 nutplate/screw to ground the position lights to > the outboard wing rib, and a #8 nutplate/screw to ground the > landing lights to the outboard wing rib. Since I don't know > what material the ring terminals are made out of (I don't > think they're aluminum), once I bottle brush the two > locations where the grounding will occur, I need a cadmium > washer between the rib and the ring terminal to avoid > corrosion. I was also planning on coating all components > with vaseline before installation. Have I got this all > correct or am I over-thinking? > Comments/suggestions please. > > Jim Lincoln > RV-7A wings > > DO NOT ARCHIVE > > > > > ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 12:28:38 PM PST US From: "Carlos Trigo" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Installing Audio Jacks I am installing the Intercom in my RV and I remember reading in this forum that, when installing the audio jacks on the panel or any other aluminium surface of the cockpit, one shall isolate the jacks from the metal surface with plastic or rubber insulating washers. However, in the Flightcom instructions they only recommend (and include washers to) isolation of the Microphone jack and not in the Headphone jack. They even show in the schematic drawing the Headphone jack locally grounded. Is this correct? If yes, why? Carlos ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 01:26:08 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Installing Audio Jacks At 07:25 PM 10/26/2008 +0000, you wrote: >I am installing the Intercom in my RV and I remember reading in this forum >that, when installing the audio jacks on the panel or any other aluminium >surface of the cockpit, one shall isolate the jacks from the metal surface >with plastic or rubber insulating washers. > >However, in the Flightcom instructions they only recommend (and include >washers to) isolation of the Microphone jack and not in the Headphone jack. > >They even show in the schematic drawing the Headphone jack locally grounded. > > >Is this correct? If yes, why? It's a good idea if not a necessary thing to isolate small signal systems from airframe ground . . . See http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/18Audio_R11.pdf Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ---------------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 01:49:58 PM PST US From: Charlie England Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Installing Audio Jacks Carlos Trigo wrote: > > I am installing the Intercom in my RV and I remember reading in this > forum that, when installing the audio jacks on the panel or any other > aluminium surface of the cockpit, one shall isolate the jacks from the > metal surface with plastic or rubber insulating washers. > > However, in the Flightcom instructions they only recommend (and > include washers to) isolation of the Microphone jack and not in the > Headphone jack. > > They even show in the schematic drawing the Headphone jack locally > grounded. > > > > Is this correct? If yes, why? > > > > Carlos > The non-physics-based answer is probably: ground loop induced noise on the input (mic) side gets amplified; the output side is less likely to cause problems. ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 01:56:47 PM PST US From: "Carlos Trigo" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Installing Audio Jacks Bob I really didn't find anything about my question in the link you provided, although it is your book's chapter about Audio Systems. Can you please be more specific about what you think about not insulating the Headphone jack? And if I isolate it, to where exactly should I connect the ground lug of the Headphone jack? Carlos > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list- > server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III > Sent: domingo, 26 de Outubro de 2008 20:23 > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Installing Audio Jacks > > > > At 07:25 PM 10/26/2008 +0000, you wrote: > > >I am installing the Intercom in my RV and I remember reading in this forum > >that, when installing the audio jacks on the panel or any other aluminium > >surface of the cockpit, one shall isolate the jacks from the metal surface > >with plastic or rubber insulating washers. > > > >However, in the Flightcom instructions they only recommend (and include > >washers to) isolation of the Microphone jack and not in the Headphone jack. > > > >They even show in the schematic drawing the Headphone jack locally grounded. > > > > > > > >Is this correct? If yes, why? > > It's a good idea if not a necessary thing to isolate > small signal systems from airframe ground . . . > > See > http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/18Audio_R11.pdf > > > > > Bob . . . > > ----------------------------------------) > ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) > ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) > ( appearance of being right . . . ) > ( ) > ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) > ---------------------------------------- > > > > > ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 03:04:33 PM PST US From: "Mike Pienaar" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dry Cell Batteries? The "AUX BATTERY MANAGEMENT MODULE" illustrated on page 2 in the article mentioned, can I buy that or do I have to make it. Cheers Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: Sam Hoskins To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2008 9:48 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Dry Cell Batteries? Never mind. I found the answer here: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/bat_iso2.pdf Sam On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Sam Hoskins wrote: Bob, What would be the proper way to parallel two batteries? I am using Z19/RB Sam On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 9:39 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > What are your requirements for capacity? Have you > done an energy study for battery-only endurance? > The 310 is not cheap and it's fragile compared to it's > larger siblings. > > Bob . . . > > After much discussion, we think this is how my electrically-dependent engine breaks out... > Current draw on 4 cylinder EFI engines: > > Pump at 40 psi- 5-8 amps > Injectors at 5000 rpm- 3-4 amps > Ignition at 5000 rpm- 2.5-4 amps (depends on coil charge time) > ECU- .15- .6 amps depending on ECU > > My total current draw in flight at 4500 rpm with 2 pumps on (one LP > Facet, one HP Bosch 048), transponder, comm, gps, injectors, coils, > ECU and scavenge pump is 18 amps. We seem to think that the 17ah PC680 clone would give just about 15 minutes of realistic run time, given some age on the battery. I guess I might have to carry the weight of another battery around to be safe. According to the performance curves at: http://tinyurl.com/5p6d4w a 17A load on a 100% battery will give you just under 30 minutes of run time down to about 10V. So a battery due for replacement would be suited for about 20 minutes of operation. Consider running both batteries of a 2-battery architecture in parallel. Losses in any given battery is an I(squared)*R function. By cutting the current per battery by about 1/2, the energy lost in each battery drops to 1/4th the original amount. Doing 1/4 per battery in two batteries gets you 1/2 the lost watts. Two 17 a.h. batteries gives you 34 a.h. of total capacity. An 18A load on this combo goes to a 60+ minutes of duration. A savings of 5 or so pounds can be realized by going to a single 28 a.h. battery. http://tinyurl.com/6eu2p8 The internal impedance of this battery seems better than two 17 a.h. in parallel. It gives you the same 60+ minutes at less weight and total capacity. Of course, with a single battery or treating two batteries as one battery dictates an aggressive capacity tracking protocol. If ever there was an power plant begging for a second, small alternator, it's this one. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 09:22:13 PM PST US From: jerb Subject: AeroElectric-List: Durocell Leaking Batteries Hi, Has anyone else experienced an increase of Durocell batteries leaking in devices in the last couple years. I've used them for years in test equipment, cameras, and high dollar radios because they didn't leak. Can't say that no more. So far I had them leak in a couple small Mag flashlights, my PDA device, and my GPS. A little further back they done in my red/white lens aviation flash light also. I never used to have a problem with them. They cost more than ever today and appear to leak more, is there a relationship here. I never recharge them. Darn, I just looked behind me at a package to see if I had spelled the name right, and found another one of a few I had sitting their has leaked. Crap.... Might they relabeling Rayovac's. What is different with these batteries selling now? jerb ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.