AeroElectric-List Digest Archive

Sat 01/03/09


Total Messages Posted: 22



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 05:48 AM - Re: Follow-up on Carling switch failures. . .  (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     2. 06:02 AM - Re: Follow-up on Carling switch failures. . .  (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     3. 07:11 AM - Re: Using TurboCad (Harley)
     4. 07:23 AM - Re: Using TurboCad (LarryMcFarland)
     5. 08:07 AM - Re: New RWS EFI/Electcronic Ignition group (Robert McCallum)
     6. 08:44 AM - Cessna Flaps motor (bouguy)
     7. 09:09 AM - Re: Cessna Flaps motor (David LLoyd)
     8. 10:28 AM - Re: Cessna Flaps motor (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     9. 11:12 AM - Re: Z-14 v Z-14Fadec question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    10. 12:16 PM - Re: Using TurboCad (Allen Fulmer)
    11. 01:17 PM - Re: Using TurboCad (LarryMcFarland)
    12. 01:20 PM - Re: Follow-up on Carling switch failures. . .  (B Tomm)
    13. 01:23 PM - Re: Follow-up on Carling switch failures. . .  (B Tomm)
    14. 03:18 PM - Re: Using TurboCad (Allen Fulmer)
    15. 03:23 PM - Battery capacity checker (Sam Hoskins)
    16. 04:24 PM - Re: Follow-up on Carling switch failures. . .  (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    17. 04:56 PM - Re: Battery capacity checker (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    18. 05:26 PM - Ground Power (Vern Little)
    19. 05:48 PM - Re: Battery capacity checker (Brian R. Wood)
    20. 06:30 PM - Re: Using TurboCad (LarryMcFarland)
    21. 07:10 PM - Re: Using TurboCad (ROGER & JEAN CURTIS)
    22. 09:10 PM - Re: Using TurboCad (Allen Fulmer)
 
 
 


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
    Time: 05:48:12 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    Subject: Follow-up on Carling switch failures. . .
    At 08:34 PM 1/2/2009, you wrote: >Vern, > >When you say "Carling switches with loose rivets". How loose? Do >you mean wobbly terminals? > I've checked all mine and most of the terminals can pivot around > the rivet until it hits a stop molded into the switch. I wonder if > this is tight enough. I would expect them to be tighter. Interesting! The riveted-tabs are obviously not as rigid about the rivet axis. Some versions do drop the tab base into a "pocket" molded into the back of the housing. See: http://tinyurl.com/96yqmg I'm away from home for a week so I can't shuffle through all the switches in my shop. But even with the recesses shown, the tab isn't really "captured". > I have a couple Mil-spec switches and I don't think they pivot > like this but will check again next time I'm at the shop. Maybe > this pivoting action is what is not compatible with a high > vibration environment. I'm aware of no mil-qualified switches that do not feature terminals molded into the housing. Here's an exemplar design (Microswitch) . . . http://tinyurl.com/842eos > >I've had two strobe switch failures, one landing light switch >(actually a wig-wag) failure, and one master switch failure (loose >rivet but no charred terminals). I have also received brand-new >Carling switches with loose terminals. In retrospect, the only thing that resists rotation of the tabs on the rivets is friction between tab and housing established coefficient of friction between plastic/brass and force of the riveted joint. Obviously, there are limits to the force you can put on the plastic housing . . . > >As an experiment, I replaced several Carling switches with Honeywell >switches and have been running them, monitoring for failures. I >proposed about 100 hours of testing before any conclusions could be >made. This will probably take several more months. I have check >them in the interim, with no problems. > >If the experiment shows failure of the Honeywell switches, then the >problem may be attributed to my installation. >If the experiment does not show failure of the Honeywell switches, >then the problem may be attributed to the Carling switches >sensitivity to vibration. > . . . and I would expect no failures of these devices. They're exceedingly well designed and tested in environments our airplanes will never see. >Bob has concluded that the Carling switches are fine, but should >have vibration decoupling loops to minimize vibration stresses on >the terminals. Good advice no matter who's switches are >installed. Unfortunately, I don't agree that the problem is that my >(our) installations are incorrect. Rather, I believe that the >problem is that the Carling switches are unusually sensitive to vibration. Perhaps 'error' was the wrong term. Lack of understanding leads to lack of attention to the sensitivities you've cited . . . and without a doubt, tabs riveted to plastic housings have a weakness of design where vibration and temperature cycles are strong. > >In my next project, I am planning to use different switches, plus >decoupling loops. In addition, strobe and landing light loads will >be isolated with automotive relays which are generally more robust. It will be interesting to learn of your experience with this. Certainly addition of the relays will eliminate all potential for heating effects. It occurs to me that a little modification of the Carling (or similar) switches would add some degree of robustness. There's a product called JB Weld that offers a process for beefing up the riveted joints before the switches are installed. As soon as I get home, I'll do the treatment on a few switches and publish some photos. Bob . . .


    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
    Time: 06:02:59 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    Subject: Follow-up on Carling switch failures. . .
    At 01:25 AM 1/3/2009, you wrote: >Yes, I am considering contacting the vendor to see if I can return >them, and change to Milspec switches throughout. I don't really >want them for a few bucks savings and if the vendor gets enough >back, perhaps they will offer/recommend a better product. > >Bevan If your worried about them I wouldn't discourage you from upgrading. Keep in mind that electrical system failures at the component level in a failure tolerant design is a low risk event. It's unfortunate that the price ratio of Carling vs. Microswitch is so large (about 1:4) but in the grand scheme of things, total dollars difference in the cost of your project for going with Microswitch is pretty trivial. I'm still tantalized by the idea that the Carlings with fast-on tabs have been around for a very long time. Adding robustness to the tabs before installation may offer a low cost means by which our observed shortcomings may be brought to heel. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ----------------------------------------


    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
    Time: 07:11:29 AM PST US
    From: Harley <harley@AgelessWings.com>
    Subject: Re: Using TurboCad
    Morning, Bevan... It's been awhile since I played with TurboCad, I use VisualCad now, but the basics are pretty much the same in just about any CAD program. First, you may not be able to work directly with the dwg file, in case you are. Save it in Turbocad format before doing anything else. Then close the dwg file, open the Turbocad file and work with that. Although I have no problem editing Bob's drawings directly in VisualCAD, TurboCad may be different. Different CAD programs treat dwg drawings differently and may not allow editing until in the native format. I just checked one of Bob's Z drawings in my VCADD, and was able to edit it without any conversions, but it may be different for you in TCADD. >>Can I not just put a square around a section of the drawing, cut and paste etc?<< Yes and no! Remember, unlike the normal graphics we see on computers, CAD programs are a collection of components like lines, squares, circles and other geometrics as well as symbols that are complete in themselves. With a "normal" raster graphic (like a jpg or bmp file) simply drawing a "square" ("window" in CAD speak) around what you want to delete, then hitting the delete key removes everything inside the window. However, with CADD some of the components may lie OUTSIDE your selection window (like unseen points used to construct the object you are seeing...known as construction points. Or the other end of a line or symbol). When editing, CAD programs consider only COMPLETE objects and their components that are inside the window as having been selected. For example, putting a selection window around a straight line but not including one end of it, will not select that line. Also, curves and text often have reference points considerably removed from what you see. Unless these are included in the window, the object you see and want to work with will not be selected. In summary, any object whose visible AND invisible parts are inside the selection window will be selected and can be edited or removed. I find it easier to just use the selection tool (usually an arrow) to point to (then click on) an object to see what is included. Whatever gets highlighted is the entire object that has to be selected to edit. Right clicking then usually produces a menu of options for the highlighted (selected) object. Or you can use the delete key, ctrl-c or ctrl-x if you want to remove it, copy or cut respectively. To display the normally invisible construction points, which must be included in the selection, look for the command "Display Construction Points", or something similar. In Visual CAD it is the two letter command "DC". If the item you've selected by clicking on it with the selection pointer appears to be complex, i.e. made of several lines, circles, curves, etc, that are all highlighted at once, it has been been made into a symbol. If you want to remove the entire symbol, you're all set, as it has been selected in it's entirety. If you want to edit only a portion of it, then you first have to "de-symbolize" it (now that's a new word!). Look for a command that will do that. In VCADD, it's "Explode Symbol" (YX). You will then see the symbol broken down into it's component parts, and you can edit the individual lines, circles, text, etc. Hope this helps a bit...remembering Turbocad when I worked with it, I seem to recall that it had a pretty good help system, so any questions you have can probably be answered with a bit of search. The learning curve will eventually get you to the point where you can be comfortable with the level of drawing that you need. There are many commands and procedures in VCADD that I don't use, but with the drawing I do, I probably never will. Harley Dixon ------------------------------------------------------------------------ B Tomm wrote: > To the Cad whizzes out there. > > I'm taking advantage of the bad weather and trying to > "professionalize" my wiring diagrams using TurboCad. I'm starting to > feel really old here cause I'm so frustrated with this TurboCad > program. I really want to make it work and not get something else. > I've imported a drawing from Bob's collection in DWG format. All I > want to do is erase a few lines, re-draw them slightly elsewhere and > copy a few fuses to add the extra circuits. Erase, copy, cut, paste, > snap are eluding me even though there are a bazillion tools all > around. Can I not just put a square around a section of the drawing, > cut and paste etc? > > Jack Daniels is starting to tempt me! > > Bevan > >


    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
    Time: 07:23:58 AM PST US
    From: LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com>
    Subject: Re: Using TurboCad
    Hi Bevan, The (AutoCAD) Dwg format needs to be saved as a TurboCAD format. That said, some of the characteristics of line manipulation will not carry over and you may need to break the drawing down to smaller elements or just make a new drawing. Starting with the TurboCAD is the better idea and when you get used to the program, you'll find it twice as fast as AutoCAD and much more intuitive. Larry McFarland 601HDS B Tomm wrote: > To the Cad whizzes out there. > > I'm taking advantage of the bad weather and trying to > "professionalize" my wiring diagrams using TurboCad. I'm starting to > feel really old here cause I'm so frustrated with this TurboCad > program. I really want to make it work and not get something else. > I've imported a drawing from Bob's collection in DWG format. All I > want to do is erase a few lines, re-draw them slightly elsewhere and > copy a few fuses to add the extra circuits. Erase, copy, cut, paste, > snap are eluding me even though there are a bazillion tools all > around. Can I not just put a square around a section of the drawing, > cut and paste etc? > > Jack Daniels is starting to tempt me! > > Bevan > > * > > > *


    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
    Time: 08:07:46 AM PST US
    From: "Robert McCallum" <robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
    Subject: Re: New RWS EFI/Electcronic Ignition group
    Thanks to all who took up my comments and provided the insight and re-education process. That's the beauty of these lists, continuing education and new information every day. Yahoo has obviously changed. Past experience is not always relevant in the fast paced progress of software and computers. Thanks once again for the enlightenment. Bob McC ----- Original Message ----- From: Sam Hoskins To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 7:34 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: New RWS EFI/Electcronic Ignition group I don't know what bad experiences guys have had, but to me Yahoo! is easy to take. It is easy to upload photos and I would also like to build up the share links section so guys can share resources, such as sources for fuel injection parts. Plus, my learning curve on it is very flat. Tell you what. If you are interested in the RWS EC2/EC3 controller, sign up and if you have ANY trouble with it, we'll pull you out of it ASAP. I have it set up so only aviators can join on my approval and only the members can post messages. Therefore, there should be NO SPAM. Yes, Yahoo has small adds, ala Google, but I don't even notice them. In reality, I anticipate that posts will be fairly far and few between, since we live in such a small universe. Sam Hoskins Murphysboro, IL www.samhoskins.blogspot.com On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Peter Eedy <peter@eedy.id.au> wrote: <peter@eedy.id.au> Hi all I have used PG offline to "manage" yahoo group messages for several years now. www.personalgroupware.com Great program, lets me download the messages from Yahoo and view, search, tag etc on my pc. No affiliation just a satisfied user. Peter E. Newcastle NSW Australia Waiex VH-WYX - 20% done -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Horton Sent: Saturday, 3 January 2009 10:55 AM To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: New RWS EFI/Electcronic Ignition group <khorton01@rogers.com> Yahoo Groups subscribers can select the option to have messages sent to them via e-mail. I subscribe to several Yahoo Groups, and am the group owner for two others, and never have to go to the web site unless I want to change message delivery options. Kevin Horton On 2 Jan 2009, at 14:10, Robert McCallum wrote: > John; > > Maybe I'm not up to speed on the current state of Yahoo, but the > last time I belonged to a Yahoo list (admittedly several years ago) > I had to go to the Yahoo website, log in, wait for 5 minutes of > garbage ads to unfold, find the list I was interested in, log into > that then scroll through all of the messages to determine what I'd > already seen and what was new. > The Matronics lists just appear as a current message from a "friend" > in my regular e-mail and what I've already read is deleted and gone. > No fuss, no muss, no hassle, no adverts. > Sounds from your description that I need to be re-educated on the > current workings of Yahoo. Thank you for the enlightenment. > > Bob McC > > Do Not Archive > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: John McMahon > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 2:04 PM > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: New RWS EFI/Electcronic Ignition group > > Bob, FWIW I have the LML, the Yahoo ES group and the AeroElectric > list all sent to my Google gmail account, where they are sent to > their own folder labels. > > They then are all in the same place, in the same format and easy to > search in the same way. > > Works great for me...


    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
    Time: 08:44:32 AM PST US
    Subject: Cessna Flaps motor
    From: "bouguy" <boullu.guy@libertysurf.fr>
    Hi , i am looking for the current draw of a 24v/28v flap motor of a Cessna 172 and not able to find it . thanks for help , Boullu guy . Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222590#222590


    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
    Time: 09:09:45 AM PST US
    From: "David LLoyd" <skywagon@charter.net>
    Subject: Re: Cessna Flaps motor
    Probably best to use the flaps circuit breaker rating, amps, in case the flap mechanism gets stiff or worn and the elect. motor goes to max current... D ----- Original Message ----- From: "bouguy" <boullu.guy@libertysurf.fr> Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 8:41 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Cessna Flaps motor > <boullu.guy@libertysurf.fr> > > Hi , > > i am looking for the current draw of a 24v/28v flap motor > of a Cessna 172 and not able to find it . > > thanks for help , > > Boullu guy . > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=222590#222590 > > >


    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
    Time: 10:28:40 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    Subject: Re: Cessna Flaps motor
    At 10:41 AM 1/3/2009, you wrote: > >Hi , > >i am looking for the current draw of a 24v/28v flap motor >of a Cessna 172 and not able to find it . > >thanks for help , > >Boullu guy . How do you need to use the information? If for a load analysis, know that flaps are very low duty cycle (hence low energy) systems that are not big players in sizing an electrical system. If for circuit protection and wiring decisions, I think you'll find that this critter seldom draws more than 7 amps (extension during max allowable IAS for full flaps). You can check the size of a breaker in any of the 28v s.e. airplanes and go with that. It's probably a 10 or 15A breaker. You can wire with 14AWG and go with smaller breaker and upsize the breaker to and including 20A if you're getting nuisance trips. Assuming you're installing this motor/actuator in a OBAM aircraft, it could be that your flap geometry and air-loads are decidedly different that for the Cessna installation. Wire it with "too-big" wire and leave yourself room for resizing the breaker/fuse after you've had some time to acquire real-life experience with it. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ----------------------------------------


    Message 9


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 11:12:44 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    Subject: Re: Z-14 v Z-14Fadec question
    > >Now, I have a general question regarding the Z-14 schemes. For the >crossover switch, up is to engage the starter with both batteries, >center is non-crossover, normal mode with batteries working to power >their bus independently and down is both batteries working together >on both busses......If I understand correctly. So, in the Z-14 >Fadec scheme, the start button engages the starter, then one >position on the switch is independent alt to each bus and the other >switch to have the systems work together? Or, is on position Off and >the other switch position engaging both alternators to work >together? If it is the second scenario, does that mean the two >systems ALWAYS work together? If so, is there any reason not to >have both systems always working together in the standard Z-14 >scheme. I assume the FADEC label is since it is always engaged >there is no pilot intervention. Just looking for a better >understanding. Thanks. Two ideas drove the crafting the first iteration of of Z-14 many moons ago. (1) For operators that plan a highly redundant electrical and instrumentation system for flight in marginal to adverse conditions, two independent systems is desirable/ practical by teaming a conventional main alternator with a vacuum pump pad driven alternator. (2) Both systems need their own battery. With fully redundant systems having cross-feed capability, one may strive for smallest practical batteries with the notion that battery-only flight is exceedingly improbable. However, small batteries don't crank engines well . . . so auto-crossfeed or paralleling small batteries during engine cranking is a useful thing to consider. The two systems are never cross-connected for normal operations. Each system receives the benefit of a load analysis. Pairs of redundant electronics are distributed between the two systems. Some years later we were offered electro-whizzies with desirable performance characteristics under normal operating conditions but not designed to live in the real-world of vehicular DC power systems. During starter motor inrush time, system voltage can sag sufficiently low, sufficiently long . . . http://tinyurl.com/6tbry6 that some appliances wander off into the weeds or take an untimely interval to reboot. These appliances include but are not limited to electronic ignitions, electronic fuel injection, EFIS systems, FADECs, etc. This prompted the addition of two Band-Aids to the Z-figures. The FADEC version of Z-14 suggested elimination of the auto-crossfeed feature during cranking. Another version of Z-13/8 was crafted to add a brownout protection battery and auto-disconnect relay to support e-bus loads during engine-cranking http://tinyurl.com/7q2usj The supposition you offered at the end of your post is not correct. The cross-feed switch in the FADEC version of Z-14 is never closed except to allow ONE working alternator to support both sides of the system (within that alternator's limitations). The switch is left open all other times. Recalcitrant systems are operated from the Aux Battery which is NOT loaded during engine cranking. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ----------------------------------------


    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
    Time: 12:16:35 PM PST US
    From: "Allen Fulmer" <afulmer@charter.net>
    Subject: Using TurboCad
    I have had pretty much the same frustrating experience with Turbo CAD! I bought the version 10 like BobN suggested for $10 or so, but found the program and internet devoid of any help or tutorials. Finally gave up. I get regular emails from the IMSI folks trying to get me to upgrade to the latest version, 15.2, for 50 bucks or so. Anyone care to offer an opinion on versions? I need to do something as my hand done drawings (sketches) won't really do for the finished product. Allen Fulmer RV7 Wiring Alexander City, AL -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of B Tomm Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 8:40 PM To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Using TurboCad To the Cad whizzes out there. I'm taking advantage of the bad weather and trying to "professionalize" my wiring diagrams using TurboCad. I'm starting to feel really old here cause I'm so frustrated with this TurboCad program. I really want to make it work and not get something else. I've imported a drawing from Bob's collection in DWG format. All I want to do is erase a few lines, re-draw them slightly elsewhere and copy a few fuses to add the extra circuits. Erase, copy, cut, paste, snap are eluding me even though there are a bazillion tools all around. Can I not just put a square around a section of the drawing, cut and paste etc? Jack Daniels is starting to tempt me! Bevan


    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
    Time: 01:17:04 PM PST US
    From: LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com>
    Subject: Re: Using TurboCad
    Hi Allen, TurboCAD is a fine program for one off drawings. Having experienced Pro E and AutoCAD, I've found TurboCAD is a versatile program if you sit down and read the reference manual completely. Spend a little time with it and you can't help but like it. If it's not part of your background, i.e., engineering or design you may take a little longer to get on with it, but don't get discouraged. I used the Aeroelectric guidance and did a schematic/drawing in TurboCAD without too many of the formal symbols. http://www.macsmachine.com/images/electrical/full/primary-wiring.gif Allen Fulmer wrote: > I have had pretty much the same frustrating experience with Turbo > CAD! I bought the version 10 like BobN suggested for $10 or so, but > found the program and internet devoid of any help or tutorials. > Finally gave up. > > I get regular emails from the IMSI folks trying to get me to upgrade > to the latest version, 15.2, for 50 bucks or so. Anyone care to offer > an opinion on versions? > > I need to do something as my hand done drawings (sketches) won't > really do for the finished product. > > Allen Fulmer > RV7 Wiring > Alexander City, AL > * > *


    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
    Time: 01:20:44 PM PST US
    From: "B Tomm" <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
    Subject: Follow-up on Carling switch failures. . .
    RE JB weld. I had the same thought yesterday. What I don't know is whether the JB weld will also add some thermal insulation to the joint and cause any excess heating which will lead to the same result as what we're trying to avoid. Those big exposed fast on tabs got to be working as radiators, but how much. Perhaps a dab of JB over the rivet only will have no appreciable affect on overall cooling. Anybody know the co-efficient of thermal conductivity of JB weld as it compares to copper? The fast on tabs on the switches are probably a copper alloy? Bevan _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 5:46 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Follow-up on Carling switch failures. . . At 08:34 PM 1/2/2009, you wrote: Vern, When you say "Carling switches with loose rivets". How loose? Do you mean wobbly terminals? I've checked all mine and most of the terminals can pivot around the rivet until it hits a stop molded into the switch. I wonder if this is tight enough. I would expect them to be tighter. Interesting! The riveted-tabs are obviously not as rigid about the rivet axis. Some versions do drop the tab base into a "pocket" molded into the back of the housing. See: http://tinyurl.com/96yqmg I'm away from home for a week so I can't shuffle through all the switches in my shop. But even with the recesses shown, the tab isn't really "captured". I have a couple Mil-spec switches and I don't think they pivot like this but will check again next time I'm at the shop. Maybe this pivoting action is what is not compatible with a high vibration environment. I'm aware of no mil-qualified switches that do not feature terminals molded into the housing. Here's an exemplar design (Microswitch) . . . http://tinyurl.com/842eos I've had two strobe switch failures, one landing light switch (actually a wig-wag) failure, and one master switch failure (loose rivet but no charred terminals). I have also received brand-new Carling switches with loose terminals. In retrospect, the only thing that resists rotation of the tabs on the rivets is friction between tab and housing established coefficient of friction between plastic/brass and force of the riveted joint. Obviously, there are limits to the force you can put on the plastic housing . . . As an experiment, I replaced several Carling switches with Honeywell switches and have been running them, monitoring for failures. I proposed about 100 hours of testing before any conclusions could be made. This will probably take several more months. I have check them in the interim, with no problems. If the experiment shows failure of the Honeywell switches, then the problem may be attributed to my installation. If the experiment does not show failure of the Honeywell switches, then the problem may be attributed to the Carling switches sensitivity to vibration. . . . and I would expect no failures of these devices. They're exceedingly well designed and tested in environments our airplanes will never see. Bob has concluded that the Carling switches are fine, but should have vibration decoupling loops to minimize vibration stresses on the terminals. Good advice no matter who's switches are installed. Unfortunately, I don't agree that the problem is that my (our) installations are incorrect. Rather, I believe that the problem is that the Carling switches are unusually sensitive to vibration. Perhaps 'error' was the wrong term. Lack of understanding leads to lack of attention to the sensitivities you've cited . . . and without a doubt, tabs riveted to plastic housings have a weakness of design where vibration and temperature cycles are strong. In my next project, I am planning to use different switches, plus decoupling loops. In addition, strobe and landing light loads will be isolated with automotive relays which are generally more robust. It will be interesting to learn of your experience with this. Certainly addition of the relays will eliminate all potential for heating effects. It occurs to me that a little modification of the Carling (or similar) switches would add some degree of robustness. There's a product called JB Weld that offers a process for beefing up the riveted joints before the switches are installed. As soon as I get home, I'll do the treatment on a few switches and publish some photos. Bob . . .


    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
    Time: 01:23:25 PM PST US
    From: "B Tomm" <fvalarm@rapidnet.net>
    Subject: Follow-up on Carling switch failures. . .
    I agree and adding JB would be the faster and easier way to go. Trouble is, it's all just theory for now, and the airplane is becoming a reality fast. Bevan _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 6:01 AM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Follow-up on Carling switch failures. . . At 01:25 AM 1/3/2009, you wrote: Yes, I am considering contacting the vendor to see if I can return them, and change to Milspec switches throughout. I don't really want them for a few bucks savings and if the vendor gets enough back, perhaps they will offer/recommend a better product. Bevan If your worried about them I wouldn't discourage you from upgrading. Keep in mind that electrical system failures at the component level in a failure tolerant design is a low risk event. It's unfortunate that the price ratio of Carling vs. Microswitch is so large (about 1:4) but in the grand scheme of things, total dollars difference in the cost of your project for going with Microswitch is pretty trivial. I'm still tantalized by the idea that the Carlings with fast-on tabs have been around for a very long time. Adding robustness to the tabs before installation may offer a low cost means by which our observed shortcomings may be brought to heel. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ----------------------------------------


    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
    Time: 03:18:41 PM PST US
    From: "Allen Fulmer" <afulmer@charter.net>
    Subject: Using TurboCad
    Thanks for the encouragement, Larry. Any comment on version 10 vs. latest (15.2 at this time)? Thanks, Allen >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >>>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of >>>LarryMcFarland >>>Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 3:06 PM >>>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >>>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Using TurboCad >>> >>> >>><larry@macsmachine.com> >>> >>>Hi Allen, >>>TurboCAD is a fine program for one off drawings. Having >>>experienced Pro >>>E and AutoCAD, I've found TurboCAD is a versatile program if >>>you sit down >>>and read the reference manual completely. Spend a little >>>time with it >>>and you can't help but like it. If it's not part of your background, >>>i.e., engineering or design >>>you may take a little longer to get on with it, but don't get >>>discouraged. I used the Aeroelectric guidance and did a >>>schematic/drawing in TurboCAD >>>without too many of the formal symbols. >>>http://www.macsmachine.com/images/electrical/full/primary-wiring.gif >>> >>> >>>Allen Fulmer wrote: >>>> I have had pretty much the same frustrating experience with Turbo >>>> CAD! I bought the version 10 like BobN suggested for $10 >>>or so, but >>>> found the program and internet devoid of any help or tutorials. >>>> Finally gave up. >>>> >>>> I get regular emails from the IMSI folks trying to get me >>>to upgrade >>>> to the latest version, 15.2, for 50 bucks or so. Anyone >>>care to offer >>>> an opinion on versions? >>>> >>>> I need to do something as my hand done drawings (sketches) won't >>>> really do for the finished product. >>>> >>>> Allen Fulmer >>>> RV7 Wiring >>>> Alexander City, AL >>>> * >>>> * >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>


    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
    Time: 03:23:13 PM PST US
    From: "Sam Hoskins" <sam.hoskins@gmail.com>
    Subject: Battery capacity checker
    I stumbled across this home brewed battery capacity tester, using a power inverter. Neat idea. http://www.instructables.com/id/AmpHourTest/ Sam Hoskins Murphysbro, IL


    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
    Time: 04:24:48 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    Subject: Follow-up on Carling switch failures. . .
    At 03:12 PM 1/3/2009, you wrote: >RE JB weld. > >I had the same thought yesterday. What I don't know is whether the >JB weld will also add some thermal insulation to the joint and cause >any excess heating which will lead to the same result as what we're >trying to avoid. Those big exposed fast on tabs got to be working >as radiators, but how much. Perhaps a dab of JB over the rivet only >will have no appreciable affect on overall cooling. Vern mentioned something last night that triggered another thought of my own today. Certainly vibration and bending moments put these joints at risk for loosening . . . but lack of gas-tightness increases resistance due to corrosion too. If you've got some switches to play with, see if the rivet is of an material that will readily alloy with 63/37 solder. We know that the brass tab will. If you can get a solder-cap over the rivet-to-tab interface AND THEN mechanically secure the tab with JB Weld, we may well have deduced the simplest 'fix'. > >Anybody know the co-efficient of thermal conductivity of JB weld as >it compares to copper? The fast on tabs on the switches are >probably a copper alloy? Heat rejection in a properly functioning switch is not an issue. Further, more heat is carried away on the fast-on terminal and wire than is radiated from the small portion of tab that would be covered by JB Weld. The kind of heat that accelerates destruction of the switch happens AFTER joint integrity is lost. Solder+Potting goes to protection of that integrity. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ----------------------------------------


    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
    Time: 04:56:40 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    Subject: Re: Battery capacity checker
    At 05:22 PM 1/3/2009, you wrote: >I stumbled across this home brewed battery capacity tester, using a >power inverter. Neat idea. > ><http://www.instructables.com/id/AmpHourTest/>http://www.instructables.com/id/AmpHourTest/ > >Sam Hoskins >Murphysbro, IL Pretty slick. This is an extension of an idea I published in the battery chapter of the 'Connection way back when. A reprint of that idea was excerpted about 10 years ago and published at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/battest.pdf The idea discovered by Sam is interesting in that it takes advantage of the end-of-discharge detection feature built into many inverters (usually 100W or greater). It also has the advantage of choosing combinations of 120 volt bulbs for sizing load as opposed to 12 volt devices. As one reader suggested in the comments under the posting, one should probably put a good ammeter in series with the DC power leads to the inverter and then adjusting the number and size of lamps to achieve the desired load on the battery. Bob . . . ----------------------------------------) ( . . . a long habit of not thinking ) ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial ) ( appearance of being right . . . ) ( ) ( -Thomas Paine 1776- ) ----------------------------------------


    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
    Time: 05:26:10 PM PST US
    From: "Vern Little" <rv-9a-online@telus.net>
    Subject: Ground Power
    Bob, there's been some discussion on ground power setup over on the VAF list, and there's an issue that has come up that needs your sage advise. My design is based on a modified version of the one you have published (I use the milspec plug and add an over-ride so that I can force power out of the connector as well). Another builder has a different design that feeds the electrical system after the master contactor (not directly to the battery): See http://nerv10.com/wcurtis/90Electric...eBookPage2.pdf. I contend that if he has a dead battery, he cannot charge it with ground power, or even with a running engine. In my opinion, this defeats one of the purposes of ground power, which is jump-starting an aircraft with a dead battery. Since you can't fly without electrical power (usually). He claims that this is the way Cessna does it, and maybe they think that if you have a dead battery, you should charge it with a proper charger rather than jumpstarting and using your (overstressed) alternator to do the job for you. What are your thoughts on this? The list is here: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?p=286211#post28621 1 Thanks, Vern Little


    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
    Time: 05:48:13 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Battery capacity checker
    From: "Brian R. Wood" <brianrobertwood@gmail.com>
    Shouldn't you have to take into account the effciency of the inverter also, to get usable results? Brian in Brazil Em Sat, 03 Jan 2009 22:54:00 -0200, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> escreveu: > At 05:22 PM 1/3/2009, you wrote: >> I stumbled across this home brewed battery capacity tester, using a >> power inverter. Neat idea. >>


    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
    Time: 06:30:36 PM PST US
    From: LarryMcFarland <larry@macsmachine.com>
    Subject: Re: Using TurboCad
    Allen, I started with version 8 a long time ago, but kept upgrading and using TurboCAD to put models into a TrueSpace program. Pro E was dropped at work and I got involved in modeling military equipment that the USMC needed. Several upgrades included V10 and it's still a good program. I now use version 15 (mechanical) and it supports pretty much anything you want to do. A small price for a program that does 3-D modeling so well. It even has a good rendering capability that provides material surfacing, accurate reflections and shadowing. that can be used within (Light Wave) an animation program that I use. If you intend to advance your work or employment with engineering drawings, TurboCAD is a fine program to know. If you only need it for the current wiring diagrams, and your aircraft project, then Version 10 is likely all you'll ever really need. Larry McFarland 601HDS at www.macsmachine.com do not archive Allen Fulmer wrote: > > Thanks for the encouragement, Larry. > > Any comment on version 10 vs. latest (15.2 at this time)? > > Thanks, > > Allen > >


    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
    Time: 07:10:28 PM PST US
    From: "ROGER & JEAN CURTIS" <mrspudandcompany@verizon.net>
    Subject: Using TurboCad
    I purchased the tutorial from IMSI. I found it to be quite good for a relative beginner. There are a lot of subtleties that are hard to ferret out of the manual alone, and the tutorial leads you through many of these and gives you a very good starting point. Good luck, Roger -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Allen Fulmer Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 3:13 PM Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Using TurboCad I have had pretty much the same frustrating experience with Turbo CAD! I bought the version 10 like BobN suggested for $10 or so, but found the program and internet devoid of any help or tutorials. Finally gave up. I get regular emails from the IMSI folks trying to get me to upgrade to the latest version, 15.2, for 50 bucks or so. Anyone care to offer an opinion on versions? I need to do something as my hand done drawings (sketches) won't really do for the finished product. Allen Fulmer RV7 Wiring Alexander City, AL -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of B Tomm Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 8:40 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Using TurboCad To the Cad whizzes out there. I'm taking advantage of the bad weather and trying to "professionalize" my wiring diagrams using TurboCad. I'm starting to feel really old here cause I'm so frustrated with this TurboCad program. I really want to make it work and not get something else. I've imported a drawing from Bob's collection in DWG format. All I want to do is erase a few lines, re-draw them slightly elsewhere and copy a few fuses to add the extra circuits. Erase, copy, cut, paste, snap are eluding me even though there are a bazillion tools all around. Can I not just put a square around a section of the drawing, cut and paste etc? Jack Daniels is starting to tempt me! Bevan


    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
    Time: 09:10:03 PM PST US
    From: "Allen Fulmer" <afulmer@charter.net>
    Subject: Using TurboCad
    Thanks Larry, Guess I'll give it a try again. And maybe contact IMSI re: upgrade and/or tutorials. And I've bookmarked your web site to see what you have done. Allen DO NOT ARCHIVE




    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
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse AeroElectric-List 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.

    -- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --