Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:51 AM - Re: Will other wiring interfere with Magnetometer? (Allen Fulmer)
2. 07:28 AM - Re: Will other wiring interfere with Magnetometer? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 08:47 AM - Re: What's thoughts on Cool Amp? ()
4. 09:40 AM - Re: What's thoughts on Cool Amp? (rparigor@SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US)
5. 10:06 AM - Re: Will other wiring interfere with Magnetometer? (Allen Fulmer)
6. 10:40 AM - Re: Will other wiring interfere with Magnetometer? (Peter Pengilly)
7. 04:23 PM - Re: What's thoughts on Cool Amp? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 04:24 PM - Re: Ground Power (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 05:11 PM - Fuel pressure sender testing (Dennis Johnson)
10. 07:09 PM - Re: Will other wiring interfere with Magnetometer? (Allen Fulmer)
11. 10:07 PM - Re: What's thoughts on Cool Amp? (rparigor@SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US)
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: | Will other wiring interfere with Magnetometer? |
Okay, so it would be okay to run all the wires and cables thorough the same
conduit but the current carrying ones "(such as navigation or landing light
wires)" would still need to pass at least 12" from the magnetometer.
With the magnetometer 18" forward of the rear spar (and thus the aileron
steel mass balance tube) the wires for Nav and strobes will have to be
routed 12" forward of that on their way to forward end of wingtip. That
should be consistent with Bob Archer's antenna design.
Thanks,
Allen Fulmer
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>>>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On
>>>Behalf Of Robert
>>>McCallum
>>>Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 11:37 PM
>>>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Will other wiring interfere with
>>>Magnetometer?
>>>
>>>
>>><robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
>>>
>>>Allen;
>>>
>>>The instructions you cite seem to be referring to the location of the
>>>magnetometer itself NOT the routing of its connecting wires. The
>>>instructions say "when mounting the magnetometer - - etc
>>>choose a location
>>>away from magnetic disturbances" They make no mention of any
>>>precautions to
>>>be taken in routing or location of the connecting wires
>>>which is what you'd
>>>be running through your conduit.
>>>No personal experience one way or the other, just my
>>>interpretation of the
>>>quotes you've submitted.
>>>
>>>Bob McC
>>>
>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Allen Fulmer" <afulmer@charter.net>
>>>To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>>>Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 7:12 PM
>>>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Will other wiring interfere with
>>>Magnetometer?
>>>
>>>
>>><afulmer@charter.net>
>>>>
>>>> Rather than hijack the thread on interference with Bob
>>>Archer VOR antennas
>>>I
>>>> thought I would start a new thread on Magnetometer interference:
>>>>
>>>> My magnetometers will be on the end ribs of my RV7.
>>>>
>>>> GRT Magnetometer installation instructions read:
>>>> -----------------------------------------------
>>>> "The most important consideration when mounting the
>>>magnetometer is that
>>>of
>>>> choosing a location in the airplane that is away from magnetic
>>>disturbances.
>>>> It is quite amazing how sensitive the magnetometer is to these
>>>disturbances,
>>>> and how much error this can cause in the magnetic heading
>>>reported by the
>>>> AHRS."
>>>> and then:
>>>> "... be sure to keep the magnetometer at least 12 inches
>>>away from any
>>>> current carrying wires (such as navigation or landing
>>>light wires), and
>>>more
>>>> than 18 inches away from ferrous metal, such as the steel
>>>mass balance
>>>tube
>>>> that is typically used in the leading edge of ailerons."
>>>> -----------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> On my RV7, I only put two conduits in the wings as I was
>>>building: one
>>>near
>>>> the trailing edge that runs parallel (and within 12
>>>inches) to the aileron
>>>> "steel mass balance tube" and the other just behind the spar. This
>>>forward
>>>> run was originally going to carry all the wires to
>>>strobes, nav. lights,
>>>> landing lights, and coax to Bob Archer VOR antenna.
>>>>
>>>> I guess I could run all the electrical stuff in the rear
>>>conduit and the
>>>> magnetometer wires in the forward one.
>>>>
>>>> Opinion Bob? Other's experience?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Allen Fulmer
>>>> RV7 wiring
>>>> Alexander City, AL
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
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: | Will other wiring interfere with Magnetometer? |
At 07:49 AM 1/6/2009, you wrote:
>
>Okay, so it would be okay to run all the wires and cables thorough the same
>conduit but the current carrying ones "(such as navigation or landing light
>wires)" would still need to pass at least 12" from the magnetometer.
>
>With the magnetometer 18" forward of the rear spar (and thus the aileron
>steel mass balance tube) the wires for Nav and strobes will have to be
>routed 12" forward of that on their way to forward end of wingtip. That
>should be consistent with Bob Archer's antenna design.
Magnetometer installation is a good example of
a case where careful paralleling and perhaps
twisting of outbound/return current paths as they
pass by the magnetometer. I had a builder who
reported a compass swing of several degrees when
he turned on nav lights. Seems he grounded the lamp
locally and had a single power lead running only
a few inches from the remote compass sensor.
He fixed the problem by running a twisted pair
for power and ground past the compass sensor.
Strobe and antenna wiring generally have no risk
to magnetometer calibration.
Only those bundles/wires with significant unidirectional
DC currents flowing in them have a potential for
problems. Of course, DISTANCE is also a strong
attenuator of magnetic effects. I forget the
exact relationship but I'm thinking that effects
of a wire at 1" are reduced by a factor of more
than 100 at 10".
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 |
|
Subject: | What's thoughts on Cool Amp? |
Ron,
Were you planning on installing a 230 kv transformer in your craft? This
stuff is for those big connectors that weld themselves shut when
shorted. A dab of dielectric grease will do the same if needed for small
applications like ours.
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
rparigor@SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 6:06 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: What's thoughts on Cool Amp?
Anyone have any thoughts on using Cool Amp on buss and other high
amperage connections?
http://www.cool-amp.com/
It is a wipe on with damp cloth application.
Ron Parigoris
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: | What's thoughts on Cool Amp? |
Hi longg
"Were you planning on installing a 230 kv transformer in your craft? This
> stuff is for those big connectors that weld themselves shut when
> shorted. A dab of dielectric grease will do the same if needed for small
> applications like ours."
No the 230kv transformer will be used on my next flying project which will
need to transform the tremendous amount of power coming out of next
generation breadbox sized fuel cells!
You refered to the wrong product I had in mind. I wanted to know about
using the silver plating powder called:
Cool-Amp Silver Plating Powder
Part #1233-500
that can be used in situation for increasing conductivity and help keep
copper from corroding. Specific it is intended for:
Cool-Amp Can Be Used On:
Bus Bars - Cable Terminals - Current Transformers - Terminals - Clamps &
Fittings
Other Uses Include:
Ham Radios - PCBs - Welders - Musical Instruments
When used on PCBs I think it not only helps copper from corroding, but
will help with high frequency transmissions.
See:
http://www.cool-amp.com/cool-amp.html
Specific I was interested in using it for a connections in picture #28 and
#31:
http://www.europaowners.org/modules.php?set_albumName=album266&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php
My friend has some Amp cool that he will lend me.
Anyone have any comments on soldering to a silver plated piece of copper?
If I were to do so, would it be worht it to use this solder from mcMaster
that has a lower than 63-37 melting point (354F):
Tin/Lead/Silver/Antimony with Rosin Flux Composed of 62% tin, 35.75%
lead, 2% silver, and 0.25% antimony. For use on silver-plated surfaces and
heat-sensitive components and near previously soldered joints.
You were talking about :
Conducto-Lube
Ron Parigoris
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: | Will other wiring interfere with Magnetometer? |
Thank you, Bob!
That will be easy to do now as I am just pulling wires.
Stein Air has a two conductor shielded cable: MIL-27500 Tefzel AWG22 - 2
Conductor Shielded Cable
Would this be "the best" even if a little more expensive? (LED Nav lights
only draw .3 amp or so per wing.)
And if shielded is fine then ground one end of the shield at forest of tabs
on firewall?
Thanks again for all you do for us.
Allen Fulmer
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>>>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On
>>>Behalf Of Robert
>>>L. Nuckolls, III
>>>Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:26 AM
>>>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Will other wiring interfere with
>>>Magnetometer?
>>>
>>>
>>>Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>>>
>>>At 07:49 AM 1/6/2009, you wrote:
>>><afulmer@charter.net>
>>>>
>>>>Okay, so it would be okay to run all the wires and cables
>>>thorough the same
>>>>conduit but the current carrying ones "(such as navigation
>>>or landing light
>>>>wires)" would still need to pass at least 12" from the magnetometer.
>>>>
>>>>With the magnetometer 18" forward of the rear spar (and
>>>thus the aileron
>>>>steel mass balance tube) the wires for Nav and strobes will
>>>have to be
>>>>routed 12" forward of that on their way to forward end of
>>>wingtip. That
>>>>should be consistent with Bob Archer's antenna design.
>>>
>>>
>>> Magnetometer installation is a good example of
>>> a case where careful paralleling and perhaps
>>> twisting of outbound/return current paths as they
>>> pass by the magnetometer. I had a builder who
>>> reported a compass swing of several degrees when
>>> he turned on nav lights. Seems he grounded the lamp
>>> locally and had a single power lead running only
>>> a few inches from the remote compass sensor.
>>>
>>> He fixed the problem by running a twisted pair
>>> for power and ground past the compass sensor.
>>> Strobe and antenna wiring generally have no risk
>>> to magnetometer calibration.
>>>
>>> Only those bundles/wires with significant unidirectional
>>> DC currents flowing in them have a potential for
>>> problems. Of course, DISTANCE is also a strong
>>> attenuator of magnetic effects. I forget the
>>> exact relationship but I'm thinking that effects
>>> of a wire at 1" are reduced by a factor of more
>>> than 100 at 10".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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: | Will other wiring interfere with Magnetometer? |
Allen,
A few years ago I worked on an airplane that was the first of type to have a
magnetic anomaly detector in the fuselage. The thing could cope with
constant magnetic fields - that is circuits that were always on or off, but
not with variable ones. We learnt that shielded wires have no effect on the
magnetic influence of current carrier, and that a simple twisted pair is by
far better (I think the reason why was explained on the list a week or two
ago). So don't bother with the shielded wire, just twist up a pair of 22g
wires yourself - something like 5 to 10 twists per foot should be adequate.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Allen
Fulmer
Sent: 06 January 2009 18:05
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Will other wiring interfere with
Magnetometer?
<afulmer@charter.net>
Thank you, Bob!
That will be easy to do now as I am just pulling wires.
Stein Air has a two conductor shielded cable: MIL-27500 Tefzel AWG22 - 2
Conductor Shielded Cable
Would this be "the best" even if a little more expensive? (LED Nav lights
only draw .3 amp or so per wing.)
And if shielded is fine then ground one end of the shield at forest of tabs
on firewall?
Thanks again for all you do for us.
Allen Fulmer
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>>>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On
>>>Behalf Of Robert
>>>L. Nuckolls, III
>>>Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:26 AM
>>>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Will other wiring interfere with
>>>Magnetometer?
>>>
>>>
>>>Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>>>
>>>At 07:49 AM 1/6/2009, you wrote:
>>><afulmer@charter.net>
>>>>
>>>>Okay, so it would be okay to run all the wires and cables
>>>thorough the same
>>>>conduit but the current carrying ones "(such as navigation
>>>or landing light
>>>>wires)" would still need to pass at least 12" from the magnetometer.
>>>>
>>>>With the magnetometer 18" forward of the rear spar (and
>>>thus the aileron
>>>>steel mass balance tube) the wires for Nav and strobes will
>>>have to be
>>>>routed 12" forward of that on their way to forward end of
>>>wingtip. That
>>>>should be consistent with Bob Archer's antenna design.
>>>
>>>
>>> Magnetometer installation is a good example of
>>> a case where careful paralleling and perhaps
>>> twisting of outbound/return current paths as they
>>> pass by the magnetometer. I had a builder who
>>> reported a compass swing of several degrees when
>>> he turned on nav lights. Seems he grounded the lamp
>>> locally and had a single power lead running only
>>> a few inches from the remote compass sensor.
>>>
>>> He fixed the problem by running a twisted pair
>>> for power and ground past the compass sensor.
>>> Strobe and antenna wiring generally have no risk
>>> to magnetometer calibration.
>>>
>>> Only those bundles/wires with significant unidirectional
>>> DC currents flowing in them have a potential for
>>> problems. Of course, DISTANCE is also a strong
>>> attenuator of magnetic effects. I forget the
>>> exact relationship but I'm thinking that effects
>>> of a wire at 1" are reduced by a factor of more
>>> than 100 at 10".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob . . .
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------)
>>> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
>>> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
>>> ( appearance of being right . . . )
>>> ( )
>>> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
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: What's thoughts on Cool Amp? |
At 05:05 PM 1/5/2009, you wrote:
>Anyone have any thoughts on using Cool Amp on buss and other high
>amperage connections?
>
><http://www.cool-amp.com/>http://www.cool-amp.com/
>
>It is a wipe on with damp cloth application.
There's a host of elixers and potions intended to improve
the quality of electrical connections . . . particularly
those that are not permanently gas-tight (soldered/crimped).
A few examples . . .
http://www.stabilant.com.au/body_what_is_stabilant_22_.html
http://urgentcomm.com/mag/radio_electrical_contact_enhancer/
http://www.dedicatedaudio.com/inc/sdetail/19153
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue17/xtremequicksilver.htm
http://www.deoxit.com/
Each of these products claims some capabilities to
remove impediments to good connection (corrosion/
contaminants), fill the voids between mating surfaces
with some conductor usually in liquid suspension of
some kind (silver flakes?), finally some feature that
protects a made up joint from environmental attack.
We had a processes guru look at several products while
I was a Beech years ago. Most of the products evaluated
went to failures of manufacturing process. Consistency
of manufacturing process is one of the reasons that
crimped joints won out over soldered joints. I forget
how many different products were looked at but in the
final analysis, the legacy processes that had evolved
over decades of military and type certified experience
was shown not to benefit from any of magic juices.
I guess there was one exception . . . the Stabilant 22
was evaluated by our brothers at Raytheon Mass and
found useful for the rapidly disappearing gold fingers
on card edges which were never very popular with the
aircraft guys.
Short answer is if the pieces are clean and then joined
up gas-tight, there's no need for further treatment.
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: Ground Power |
At 07:24 PM 1/3/2009, you wrote:
>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/90Electrical/RV10WireBookPage2.pdf>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?
It's a toss up. It's being done both ways on TC
aircraft since day one. All biz-jets at H-B can
be operated from ground power with the battery
switch off.
The architecture described in your cited link was crafted
by someone who marches to his/her own drum. Set up your
own design goals and drive toward them. When I crafted . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/grndpwr.pdf
I was coming from a background of having a line boy
hitting my 14v airplane with a 28v ground power
cart. That got me to thinking about the fact that
the C172XP offered no way for the pilot to have
absolute control over external power. It also
occurred to me that I could be hit with a reversed
polarity. I wanted to KNOW when ground power was
available before it was actually connected to
the airplane. Ov protection was a pretty
good thing too. Finally, I wanted to charge a
battery externally without powering up the
whole airplane.
The architecture you cited was crafted to different
goals. I'm mildly curious as to why the fuses
were added . . . but then, one builder's goals
are another builder's conundrum.
The lesson to be learned here that ANY architecture
crafted to rational design goals is fine. The risks
are that some features are driven my irrational
concerns. Other features may be driven by incorrect
deductions. Nobody's rationale is "golden". Decide
what you want to do, make it happen and understand
its limitations.
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 |
|
Subject: | Fuel pressure sender testing |
Hi Sheldon,
Take another look at the EIS instruction manual, including any
documentation you got with the fuel pressure sensor itself. You need to
change the offset value (I think, it's been two years since I did this)
in order to get a zero psi when there is no pressure. It's in the
instruction manual, but you may have to hunt for it. You can also call
EIS; they have always been eager to help whenever I called.
Good luck,
Dennis
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: | Will other wiring interfere with Magnetometer? |
Thank you Peter. Easier still!!
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>>>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On
>>>Behalf Of Peter
>>>Pengilly
>>>Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 12:35 PM
>>>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Will other wiring interfere with
>>>Magnetometer?
>>>
>>>
>>><peter@sportingaero.com>
>>>
>>>Allen,
>>>
>>>A few years ago I worked on an airplane that was the first
>>>of type to have a
>>>magnetic anomaly detector in the fuselage. The thing could cope with
>>>constant magnetic fields - that is circuits that were always
>>>on or off, but
>>>not with variable ones. We learnt that shielded wires have
>>>no effect on the
>>>magnetic influence of current carrier, and that a simple
>>>twisted pair is by
>>>far better (I think the reason why was explained on the list
>>>a week or two
>>>ago). So don't bother with the shielded wire, just twist up
>>>a pair of 22g
>>>wires yourself - something like 5 to 10 twists per foot
>>>should be adequate.
>>>
>>>Peter
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>>>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On
>>>Behalf Of Allen
>>>Fulmer
>>>Sent: 06 January 2009 18:05
>>>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>>>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Will other wiring interfere with
>>>Magnetometer?
>>>
>>><afulmer@charter.net>
>>>
>>>Thank you, Bob!
>>>
>>>That will be easy to do now as I am just pulling wires.
>>>
>>>Stein Air has a two conductor shielded cable: MIL-27500
>>>Tefzel AWG22 - 2
>>>Conductor Shielded Cable
>>>
>>>Would this be "the best" even if a little more expensive?
>>>(LED Nav lights
>>>only draw .3 amp or so per wing.)
>>>
>>>And if shielded is fine then ground one end of the shield at
>>>forest of tabs
>>>on firewall?
>>>
>>>Thanks again for all you do for us.
>>>
>>>Allen Fulmer
>>>
>>>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>>>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>>>>>>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On
>>>>>>Behalf Of Robert
>>>>>>L. Nuckolls, III
>>>>>>Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 9:26 AM
>>>>>>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>>>>>>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Will other wiring interfere with
>>>>>>Magnetometer?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>At 07:49 AM 1/6/2009, you wrote:
>>>>>><afulmer@charter.net>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Okay, so it would be okay to run all the wires and cables
>>>>>>thorough the same
>>>>>>>conduit but the current carrying ones "(such as navigation
>>>>>>or landing light
>>>>>>>wires)" would still need to pass at least 12" from the
>>>magnetometer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>With the magnetometer 18" forward of the rear spar (and
>>>>>>thus the aileron
>>>>>>>steel mass balance tube) the wires for Nav and strobes will
>>>>>>have to be
>>>>>>>routed 12" forward of that on their way to forward end of
>>>>>>wingtip. That
>>>>>>>should be consistent with Bob Archer's antenna design.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Magnetometer installation is a good example of
>>>>>> a case where careful paralleling and perhaps
>>>>>> twisting of outbound/return current paths as they
>>>>>> pass by the magnetometer. I had a builder who
>>>>>> reported a compass swing of several degrees when
>>>>>> he turned on nav lights. Seems he grounded the lamp
>>>>>> locally and had a single power lead running only
>>>>>> a few inches from the remote compass sensor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He fixed the problem by running a twisted pair
>>>>>> for power and ground past the compass sensor.
>>>>>> Strobe and antenna wiring generally have no risk
>>>>>> to magnetometer calibration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Only those bundles/wires with significant unidirectional
>>>>>> DC currents flowing in them have a potential for
>>>>>> problems. Of course, DISTANCE is also a strong
>>>>>> attenuator of magnetic effects. I forget the
>>>>>> exact relationship but I'm thinking that effects
>>>>>> of a wire at 1" are reduced by a factor of more
>>>>>> than 100 at 10".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob . . .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------)
>>>>>> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
>>>>>> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
>>>>>> ( appearance of being right . . . )
>>>>>> ( )
>>>>>> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
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: | Re: What's thoughts on Cool Amp? |
Hi Bob
Thx. for the reply.
"> Short answer
is if the pieces are clean and then joined
> up gas-tight,
there's no need for further treatment."
Keeping my parts
clean and creating an absolute gas tight seal using 6-32 screws to hold
components together I think can be a challenge.
The product I
spoke of is simple pure silver plating.
Do you see a
problem depositing about 1/10,000 inch of pure silver on the areas of buss
bar where it will meet tin plated terminals?
Do you see a
problem depositing about 1/10,000 inch of pure silver on the areas
of my .032" thick and .75" wide thin wire where it meet silver
plated copper buss?
Do you see a problem depositing about
1/10,000 inch of pure silver on theinside of my buss bypass (picture
#31) so it will be ready to crimp, then solder to copper clad #4 aluminium
wire?
See pictures #31 to #34:
http://www.europaowners.org/modules.php?set_albumName=album266&id=bb8&op=modload&name=gallery&file=index&include=view_photo.php
I fooled with soldering to silver plated copperand brass with
60-40 and 63-37 and it works great.
I want to try a silver
bearing solder:
Tin/Lead/Silver/Antimony with Rosin
Flux— Composed of 62% tin, 35.75% lead, 2% silver, and
0.25% antimony. For use on silver-plated surfaces and heat-sensitive
components and near previously soldered joints. Meets Fed. Spec. QQ-S-571E
and J-STD-006.
this solder has a lower melting point than
63-37, and I believe becauers it has some silver, it will be easier on
silver plating??
Whats your thought on using this solder on
silver plating?
I think it will also be good for soldering
surface mounted components that I need to do on occasion?It is 5
core rosin flux solder part #
7687A63
from McMaster.
Ron Parigoris
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! --
|