Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 08:05 AM - Re: Re: Wiring / Relay Question (Henry Trzeciakowski)
2. 09:48 AM - Anti-rotation washers for thermocouple switch? (Steve Stearns)
3. 10:05 AM - Re: ACS's Lightsaver gadget (Steve Stearns)
4. 12:43 PM - Wingtip Nav question (Tim Olson)
5. 01:13 PM - Re: Wingtip Nav question (Richard E. Tasker)
6. 01:13 PM - Re: ACS's Lightsaver gadget (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 01:16 PM - Re: Re: Wiring / Relay Question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 01:42 PM - Re: Wingtip Nav question (Etienne Phillips)
9. 01:48 PM - Re: Anti-rotation washers for thermocouple switch? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 01:48 PM - Re: Anti-rotation washers for thermocouple switch? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 04:03 PM - Re: Wingtip Nav question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 04:48 PM - Re: Plasma III Wiring Again! ()
13. 05:55 PM - Re: Wingtip Nav question (Richard E. Tasker)
14. 07:58 PM - Looking for cover photo . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
15. 08:22 PM - Re: What is a ON-ON-ON switch used for? (rparigor@SUFFOLK.LIB.NY.US)
16. 10:08 PM - Re: Wingtip Nav question (Etienne Phillips)
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: | Re: Wiring / Relay Question |
Bob:
Sorry for the confusion:
My battery bus IS firewall forward under the cowl. Looking at your Z-32
(Heavy Duty E-Bus Feed), I missed the "*" that represents the 6 inch rule.
My mounting is :
Battery Bus (under cowl)------(14awg )---FIREWALL ---- (14 awg)----s704-1
relay----to E-bus switch & E-Bus
( this run is about 2 1/2 feet from
Battery Bus to Relay)
I just need to ask the question - what harm would it be if I just left my
runs as depicted above. I am fused (15 amp) on the Battery side, so my
firewall penetration is protected. Or am I missing some other caveat ??
Henry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 5:59 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Wiring / Relay Question
<nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 02:50 PM 3/1/2009, you wrote:
> ><hammer408@comcast.net>
> >
> >Bob
> >
> >I've placed my Battery Bus Firewall forward next to the Battery
Contactor,
> >just above the 60 amp current limiter. I have a 14 g (15 amp) wire going
> >from battery bus thru firewall to a 7104 relay, as per the Heavy Duty E
bus
> >configuration.
>
> I'm not sure I'm seeing a good mental image of
> your installation. I presume the 60A limiter is
> your b-lead protection, normally this goes next
> to the starter contactor which is usually on
> the upper port corner of the firewall co-located
> with a loadmeter shunt (if you have one).
>
>
> >My question, should I use an additional relay or "something" between the
> >Battery Bus (15amp - 14 g wire)-firewall forward - and the relay which
is
> >next to my E-Bus - mounted on sub-panel - for added safety?
>
> If you have a relay mounted next to the e-bus
> inside the aircraft, then you have it on the wrong
> end of the wire. The purpose of the e-bus
> alternate feed relay is to serve as a sort of
> mini-battery contactor for this feed line . . .
> it should be mounted as close as practical
> to the battery bus fuse that feeds it.
>
> Do I interpret correctly that your battery bus
> is under the cowl?
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ----------------------------------------)
> ( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
> ( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
> ( appearance of being right . . . )
> ( )
> ( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
> ----------------------------------------
>
>
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: | Anti-rotation washers for thermocouple switch? |
Bob and Group,
I'm using a pair of Grayhill GH5602s for thermocouple switching (per a
link from Bob) and they will be mounted onto a foam-core panel
(Longeze...). I could really use a couple anti-rotation washers (a tab
on the O.D. and two flats on the ID with a nominal 1/4" ID) but haven't
found a source for them. I have tried similar washers with only a
single flat on the ID and they do not constrain the switch rotation.
Any suggestions?
Steve Stearns
Boulder/Longmont, Colorado
CSA,EAA,IAC,AOPA,PE,ARRL,BARC (but ignorant none-the-less)
Restoring (since 1/07): N45FC O235 Longeze Cothern/Friling CF1 (~1000 Hrs)
Flying (since 9/86): N43732 A65 Taylorcraft BC12D
Message 3
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: ACS's Lightsaver gadget |
Interesting traces Bob,
What do you think would have the better reliability in the field for a
150W halogen landing light (without a surge suppressor), A S704-1 relay
with an ~16V transient suppressor for the catch diode, or a S701-1
switch connecting directly to the lamp?
I'm not sure how to trade off the bigger contacts, but they bounce
longer, dilemma...
Steve Stearns
Boulder/Longmont, Colorado
CSA,EAA,IAC,AOPA,PE,ARRL,BARC (but ignorant none-the-less)
Restoring (since 1/07): N45FC O235 Longeze Cothern/Friling CF1 (~1000 Hrs)
Flying (since 9/86): N43732 A65 Taylorcraft BC12D
> At 02:11 PM 3/7/2009, you wrote:
>
>> ><rv-9a-online@telus.net>
>> >
>> >If you look at switch ratings, when they are connected to a lamp
>> >load, the rating is greatly reduced. This is because of the large
>> >inrush currents when filaments are cold. The inrush current
>> >limiters will help limit this current, boosting switch life.
>> >
>> >Vern
>>
>
> Great point! . . . I missed this thought in my earlier posting.
> Consider that when you "close" a switch, the contacts bounce
> many times. See:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/switch_transition_S700-1.jpg
>
> This bounce and transition trace on a Carling toggle
> shows about 1.8 mS to travel from one condition to the
> other. When I spread that bounce out to count the closures
> there was about 6-7 as I recall. Relays can be even worse.
> The heavier their contacts, the worse they bounce. See:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/S704-1_Contact_Bounce_without_Diode.jpg
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/S704-1_Contact_Bounce_with_Diode.jpg
>
> These two traces are for the contacts of the plastic 30A
> relay (S704). These things bounce like Tigger at a
> birthday party.
>
> What's more, all the bouncing happens in that very
> tiny interval of high inrush for warming up the incandescent
> lamp filament. This means that an 10A switch controlling
> an 8A lamp sees perhaps a dozen or more 40A "hits"
> every time you turn on a cold lamp.
>
> That's why lamp ratings on switches are so heavily
> de-rated. If you want to put an inrush limiter on
> you landing lights, do it for the switch . . . not
> the lamp.
>
> Thanks for the heads-up Vern.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
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: | Wingtip Nav question |
In the Bob archer antenna install guide, it says that:
"If two VOR receivers are being installed one antenna
should be installed in each wing tip and each antenna
connected to a receiver. This type of installation
would produce twice as much signal into each receiver
and this much signal increase would mean an increase
of about 25% increase in VOR range."
Can someone explain how this could be so? Currently
I have one in a wingtip and one on the tail, but due
to some new antenna needs I may be moving my tail
antenna. I don't understand how having one in each
wingtip would affect performance, considering they're
being connected to separate receivers, and each receiver
may be tuned to whole separate VOR's.
I just don't get how it could be.
--
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD
Message 5
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Wingtip Nav question |
What it is saying is to use two antennas (one per receiver), rather than
one antenna with a splitter.
Dick Tasker
Tim Olson wrote:
>
> In the Bob archer antenna install guide, it says that:
>
> "If two VOR receivers are being installed one antenna
> should be installed in each wing tip and each antenna
> connected to a receiver. This type of installation
> would produce twice as much signal into each receiver
> and this much signal increase would mean an increase
> of about 25% increase in VOR range."
>
> Can someone explain how this could be so? Currently
> I have one in a wingtip and one on the tail, but due
> to some new antenna needs I may be moving my tail
> antenna. I don't understand how having one in each
> wingtip would affect performance, considering they're
> being connected to separate receivers, and each receiver
> may be tuned to whole separate VOR's.
>
> I just don't get how it could be.
>
>
--
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
--
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: | Re: ACS's Lightsaver gadget |
At 01:03 PM 3/8/2009, you wrote:
>
>Interesting traces Bob,
>
>What do you think would have the better reliability in the field for
>a 150W halogen landing light (without a surge suppressor), A S704-1
>relay with an ~16V transient suppressor for the catch diode, or a
>S701-1 switch connecting directly to the lamp?
>I'm not sure how to trade off the bigger contacts, but they bounce
>longer, dilemma...
Gee . . . you noticed! It's a credit to your curiosity
combined with an awareness of the need for trade-offs.
I an my contemporaries were faced with thousands of
such questions over our careers . . . with input from
a host of special interests that included marketing,
purchasing, inventory management, manufacturing
engineers and other systems guys who regarded every
one else's specialty as witchcraft.
Going for lower parts count is always a good lick.
The 150W lamp presents a problem of sorts. It takes
right at 9.5A in normal operation. But given what
we know of a switch's ability to CARRY current after
the bouncing is over, I'd bet that an S701 combined
with a Cantherm MF72-3D25 inrush limiter (3 ohms
cold) will limit your inrush to under 5 amps and toss
off only 9 x .044 = 0.37 volts in operation.
See:
http://www.cantherm.com/products/thermistors/cantherm_mf72.pdf
and
http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=317-1234-ND
This would be the lowest parts count solution I can
deduce and I think it has a fair shot at satisfactory
performance.
I'll do some thinking about practical ways to mount
the inrush limiter so that it is well supported,
well connected, but not thermally deprived of the
ability to warm up.
In the GP-180, one of the guys crimped flexible
leadwires to the part, wrapped it with a couple
of layers of fiberglas door gasket for a wood
burning stove and clamped the assembly into the
inside surface of the Grimes lamp fixture housing.
Kinda clumsy but it worked. Their first efforts
took too much heat out of the thing which caused
catastrophic stresses from power dissipation.
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: Wiring / Relay Question |
At 01:08 PM 3/8/2009, you wrote:
><hammer408@comcast.net>
>
>Bob:
>
>Sorry for the confusion:
>
>My battery bus IS firewall forward under the cowl. Looking at your Z-32
>(Heavy Duty E-Bus Feed), I missed the "*" that represents the 6 inch rule.
>My mounting is :
>
>Battery Bus (under cowl)------(14awg )---FIREWALL ---- (14 awg)----s704-1
>relay----to E-bus switch & E-Bus
> ( this run is about 2 1/2 feet from
>Battery Bus to Relay)
>
>I just need to ask the question - what harm would it be if I just left my
>runs as depicted above. I am fused (15 amp) on the Battery side, so my
>firewall penetration is protected. Or am I missing some other caveat ??
It would probably cause a bureaucrat with a rulebook
to fuss but the risks are low for doing as you've
suggested. I presume you have other wires coming through
the firewall along with the e-bus feeder that are
receiving due diligence with respect to wire protection
and firewall integrity?
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: Wingtip Nav question |
2 antennae on one receiver and transmitter is not as easy as it seems.
You need to match the distance between the antennae to the frequency,
and direction you expect to be receiving from...
The length of cable inbetween the antennae is also important. Not for
the faint of heart... Best case is a signal strength that is about
80% as good as 1 antenna from all directions. Worst case is that it's
twice as potent in one direction, and completely dead 90 degrees out.
Unless you're trying to make a directional antennae array in which
case the best and worst cases swap around!
For navigation, I like non-directional antennae :-)
With this in mind, I have no idea what the install guide is referring
to. It may be that placing two non-connected VOR antennae right next
to each other causes them to interfere with one another, and by
mounting them as far apart as possible (on either wingtip) the
detrimental effects are halved.
On 08 Mar 2009, at 10:10 PM, Richard E. Tasker wrote:
> <retasker@optonline.net>
>
> What it is saying is to use two antennas (one per receiver), rather
> than one antenna with a splitter.
>
> Dick Tasker
>
Message 9
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Anti-rotation washers for thermocouple switch? |
>I'm using a pair of Grayhill GH5602s for thermocouple switching
>(per a link from Bob) and they will be mounted onto a foam-core
>panel (Longeze...). I could really use a couple anti-rotation
>washers (a tab on the O.D. and two flats on the ID with a nominal
>1/4" ID) but haven't found a source for them. I have tried similar
>washers with only a single flat on the ID and they do not constrain
>the switch rotation.
>
>Any suggestions?
Sure. Page 13 of
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Switches/Grayhill/56_Rotary.pdf
shows part number 50J1066 as suited to this purpose.
Digikey has the part in the catalog at:
http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=50J1066-ND
but currently out of stock. Expected ship date later
this month.
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Anti-rotation washers for thermocouple switch? |
>I'm using a pair of Grayhill GH5602s for thermocouple switching
>(per a link from Bob) and they will be mounted onto a foam-core
>panel (Longeze...). I could really use a couple anti-rotation
>washers (a tab on the O.D. and two flats on the ID with a nominal
>1/4" ID) but haven't found a source for them. I have tried similar
>washers with only a single flat on the ID and they do not constrain
>the switch rotation.
>
>Any suggestions?
Sure. Page 13 of
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Switches/Grayhill/56_Rotary.pdf
shows part number 50J1066 as suited to this purpose.
Digikey has the part in the catalog at:
http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=50J1066-ND
but currently out of stock. Expected ship date later
this month.
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: Wingtip Nav question |
At 02:43 PM 3/8/2009, you wrote:
>
>In the Bob archer antenna install guide, it says that:
>
>"If two VOR receivers are being installed one antenna
>should be installed in each wing tip and each antenna
>connected to a receiver. This type of installation
>would produce twice as much signal into each receiver
>and this much signal increase would mean an increase
>of about 25% increase in VOR range."
I think he's trading off the options for numbers
of antennas installed versus the number of radios.
One antenna and a splitter drops energy to both
radios by 50% which translates into approximately
30% drop in range for BOTH receivers.
Each receiver having its own antenna recovers that
drop in range.
Having said that, know that under controlled flight
using the airways, VORs used and prescribed
changeover points along those airways insures a
healthy signal to the radios . . . irrespective of
relatively small losses in range alluded to by Bob's
statement.
>Can someone explain how this could be so? Currently
>I have one in a wingtip and one on the tail, but due
>to some new antenna needs I may be moving my tail
>antenna. I don't understand how having one in each
>wingtip would affect performance, considering they're
>being connected to separate receivers, and each receiver
>may be tuned to whole separate VOR's.
>
>I just don't get how it could be.
Everything we do in life is ultimately grounded in the
economics of energy management. Assuming all other
things equal, two antennas will deliver 2x the energy
to each radio versus one antenna and a splitter.
In real life, antenna patterns around the aircraft
will have more profound effects on range than numbers
of antennas versus radios. Wing-tip mounted antennas
cannot even come close to the overall performance of
a clear-field antenna either for gain or patterns.
In practice, they work just fine for the increasingly
rare instances that VOR navigation is truly useful.
Haven't turn a VOR receiver ON since I wrote this article
for Sport Aviation Article almost 12 years ago:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/nailgun.pdf
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
Message 12
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Plasma III Wiring Again! |
Bruce,
"Why
would the power wire have to be shielded? ". Because it's there. It's
designed to use the shield as the ground and the center wire as the
power. Simply parts reduction. No reason it couldn't be extended with a
standard wire.
I wired mine via the positive side of the battery contactor (does not
pass through it) to a nice power terminal connector strip from Stein.
This allows an individual connection to each plasma box.
I used two 5 amp Potter breaker switches on the panel and two in-line
fuses rated at 30 amps right at the terminal strip (Bob's suggestion).
This allows me to step down the wire size running to the 5 amp breakers.
Unless the cable drops off the battery or the contactor falls off the
firewall it should provide a solid connection.
I am using Z-13/8 without a mag switch. Instead I use two of Stein's 1/4
indicator lights as shown by Lightspeed's diagram to indicate
operational modes of each Plasma box. Further parts reduction.
I intend to incorporate the optional output display from Lightspeed to
show status of the system.
I am also considering the addition of the potentiometer to rev it up.
I'll drop some pictures next week.
Glenn
Do Not Archive
________________________________
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com on behalf of Bruce
Bell
Sent: Fri 3/6/2009 3:47 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Plasma III Wiring Again!
<brucebell74@sbcglobal.net>
I have installed my Plasma III on the hot side of the fire wall. I have
a
shield around it with air from the rear engine baffle. Has anyone just
ran a
ground wire from pin 15 to ground and pin 8 direct to the Mag switch and
then to the battery buss? The pull able breaker would be a 5A fuse. Why
would the power wire have to be shielded? Thanks! Bruce Bell RV-4 N23BB
65
hours so far. You got to love it! DO NOT ARCHIVE!
<https://exc03wwp.corp.ds.pjm.com/f5-w-687474703a2f2f666f72756d732e6d6174
726f6e6963732e636f6d$$>
Message 13
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Wingtip Nav question |
They are VOR antennas for NAV radios. Last I knew the only VOR/NAV
transmissions come from the ground...
Dick Tasker
Etienne Phillips wrote:
> <etienne.phillips@gmail.com>
>
> 2 antennae on one receiver and transmitter is not as easy as it seems.
>
> You need to match the distance between the antennae to the frequency,
> and direction you expect to be receiving from...
>
> The length of cable inbetween the antennae is also important. Not for
> the faint of heart... Best case is a signal strength that is about 80%
> as good as 1 antenna from all directions. Worst case is that it's
> twice as potent in one direction, and completely dead 90 degrees out.
>
> Unless you're trying to make a directional antennae array in which
> case the best and worst cases swap around!
>
> For navigation, I like non-directional antennae :-)
>
> With this in mind, I have no idea what the install guide is referring
> to. It may be that placing two non-connected VOR antennae right next
> to each other causes them to interfere with one another, and by
> mounting them as far apart as possible (on either wingtip) the
> detrimental effects are halved.
>
>
> On 08 Mar 2009, at 10:10 PM, Richard E. Tasker wrote:
>
>> <retasker@optonline.net>
>>
>> What it is saying is to use two antennas (one per receiver), rather
>> than one antenna with a splitter.
>>
>> Dick Tasker
>>
>
>
--
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
--
Message 14
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Looking for cover photo . . . |
Revision 12A update pages have been posted. Individuals
with Revision 11 books are invited to update their documents
with printouts of these .pdf files.
http://aeroelectric.com/whatsnew.html
I'm looking for a photo of a homebuilt for the front
cover of the paper version of R12. It needs to be pretry
high resolution especially if the picture is
oriented landscape (long dimension horizontal)
mode 'cause of how it needs to get cropped.
This is sorta what I have in mind. The shot can be
on the ground but background for the inserted text
can't be too cluttered.
Emacs!
If anyone has an image they'd like to have considered
I'd be pleased to see it.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------)
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
----------------------------------------
Message 15
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: What is a ON-ON-ON switch used for? |
Hi Bob
Thx. for the reply.
>>(What is a
ON-ON-ON switch used for?)<<
"ON-ON-ON is
progressive transfer as described in detail in the chapter on
switches.The 4-pole device can be wired to emulate a two-pole,
three-position switch."
The switch I have is 4 pole,
double throw but is an on-on-on switch.
Unlike the switch you
depict in your book where although 2 positions are on-on, the second pole
has the two on positions at the opposite end of throw compared to the
first pole. I understand this switch can be wired to accomplish a tripple
throw function.
The switch I have has all four poles being
exactly the same, top and middle toggle position has com and one side
connected.I forget if it was the top or bottom row, dosen't matter
all the poles are the same row. Then when you put toggle in the bottom
position it connects com to the other side, again all poles are the
same.
My original question stands, what would a switch like
this be used for with two positions doing exactly the same thing?
Or perhaps the switch was built wrong and should have two of the four
poles assembled where the two on positions are opposite each other?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
>
Message 16
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Wingtip Nav question |
You are correct - but when dealing with aerials and radiation
patterns, it doesn't matter if you're talking about transmitting or
receiving...
As a side-note, if you have a DME instrument then you do transmit,
but it's a completely different frequency range (and therefore I'm
guessing has it's own antenna).
I agree with Bob Nuckolls though, having a single antenna, mounted in
a clear spot, is by far the best way of improving signal quality!
Good luck with your installation...
On 09 Mar 2009, at 2:54 AM, Richard E. Tasker wrote:
> <retasker@optonline.net>
>
> They are VOR antennas for NAV radios. Last I knew the only VOR/NAV
> transmissions come from the ground...
>
> Dick Tasker
>
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! --
|