Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:41 AM - Wire Protection Question (Pete Hunt)
2. 03:07 AM - Re: Homemade handheld antenna (Richard Girard)
3. 06:43 AM - Just a test (Harley)
4. 06:53 AM - Re: Wire Protection Question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 06:57 AM - Re: Homemade handheld antenna (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 07:00 AM - Re: Just a test (Harley)
7. 07:12 AM - Re: Just a test (Harley)
8. 07:16 AM - Re: Fw: Shower of Sparks Help (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 08:55 AM - Re: Just a test (Dj Merrill)
10. 09:14 AM - Re: Just a test (Harley)
11. 09:20 AM - Re: Borescopes and sparkplug holes (glen matejcek)
12. 09:39 AM - Re: Re: Borescopes and sparkplug holes (Bill Bradburry)
13. 10:24 AM - Re: Just a test (Steve Thomas)
14. 11:53 AM - Re: Re: Borescopes and sparkplug holes (Ralph Finch)
15. 01:11 PM - Re: Re: Borescopes and sparkplug holes (John Morgensen)
16. 01:45 PM - Re: Re: Borescopes and sparkplug holes (Matt Prather)
17. 01:55 PM - Re: Wire Protection Question (Ron Quillin)
18. 02:03 PM - Re: Re: Borescopes and sparkplug holes (David M.)
19. 02:05 PM - Re: Re: Borescopes and sparkplug holes (Matt Prather)
20. 02:12 PM - Re: Re: Borescopes and sparkplug holes (Matt Prather)
21. 03:21 PM - Re: Borescopes and sparkplug holes (Thruster87)
22. 04:13 PM - Re: Re: Borescopes and sparkplug holes (Ralph Finch)
23. 04:18 PM - Re: Wire Protection Question (Bob Meyers)
24. 08:42 PM - Re: Fw: Shower of Sparks Help (John)
25. 10:12 PM - Antenna and Balun dimensions (Mike Pienaar)
26. 10:47 PM - Re: Tyco Breakers (kuffel@cyberport.net)
27. 10:59 PM - Re: Antenna and Balun dimensions (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
28. 11:12 PM - Re: Wire Protection Question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
29. 11:13 PM - Re: Tyco Breakers (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
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: | Wire Protection Question |
I am rebuilding the "Fat Wire" portion of my purchased RV-6A, moving the
battery and contactors to the engine side of the firewall.
Fig Z-11 does not show any protection on the 6AWG wire going from the
Battery Contactor to supply the Main Power Distribution Bus. In my case,
I am using a 12AWG wire, which passes through the firewall. Seems to me
this wire needs protection of some sort, such as a fusible link, or an
in-line fuse on the engine side of the firewall.
Looking for suggestions/recommendations, thanks!
Pete Hunt
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: | Re: Homemade handheld antenna |
Bob, My apologies for missing part of you question last night. My primary
concern with the rubber ducky was its performance at low altitudes (200 to
500 feet) where I normally fly.
Rick
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 10:04 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 09:58 AM 6/18/2009, you wrote:
>
>> Bob, Just got through mounting my A-22 handheld in my trike. Now I'm
>> wondering about a better antenna than the rubber ducky that it came with.
>> Calculated length for a 1/4 wave centered on 127Mhz is 23.25". I'm thinking
>> of nothing more than a piece of 1/16" SS welding wire shoved into a BNC
>> connector. Any input by radio heads will be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Rick
>>
>
> Rick, how are you sir! Long time no speak!
> How well "exposed" is the rubber duck? Unless
> your mounting situation masks the antenna with
> nearby conductive structure, I don't think you
> would benefit much from a more optimized antenna.
> Your mission profile just doesn't call for getting
> weather reports from an RCO that 100 miles out
> on the horizon.
>
> Have you encountered communications issues that
> you thought might be improved by a better antenna?
>
>
> 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 |
|
=======AVGMAIL-32A90303=======--
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: | Re: Wire Protection Question |
At 02:31 AM 6/19/2009, you wrote:
>
>I am rebuilding the "Fat Wire" portion of my purchased RV-6A, moving
>the battery and contactors to the engine side of the firewall.
>Fig Z-11 does not show any protection on the 6AWG wire going from
>the Battery Contactor to supply the Main Power Distribution Bus. In
>my case, I am using a 12AWG wire, which passes through the firewall.
>Seems to me this wire needs protection of some sort, such as a
>fusible link, or an in-line fuse on the engine side of the firewall.
>
>Looking for suggestions/recommendations, thanks!
A 12AWG wire is probably too small to be
a bus feeder. When wiring with truly "fat"
wires (6AWG or larger) they're not at high
risk for burning due to shorts or overloads.
Take a look at the wiring diagrams for any
single engine TC aircraft and you'll find
that few if any will incorporate fuses or
current limiters in these pathways. This
philosophy is echoed in the FARS . . .
Sec. 23.1357 Circuit protective devices.
(a) Protective devices, such as fuses or circuit breakers, must be
installed in all electrical circuits other than--
(1) Main circuits of starter motors used during starting only; and
(2) Circuits in which no hazard is presented by their omission.
(b) A protective device for a circuit essential to flight safety may not be
used to protect any other circuit.
(c) Each resettable circuit protective device ("trip free" device in which
the tripping mechanism cannot be overridden by the operating control) must be
designed so that--
(1) A manual operation is required to restore service after tripping; and
(2) If an overload or circuit fault exists, the device will open the
circuit regardless of the position of the operating control.
(d) If the ability to reset a circuit breaker or replace a fuse is
essential to safety in flight, that circuit breaker or fuse must be so
located and identified that it can be readily reset or replaced in flight.
(e) For fuses identified as replaceable in flight--
(1) There must be one spare of each rating or 50 percent spare fuses of
each rating, whichever is greater; and
(2) The spare fuse(s) must be readily accessible to any required pilot.
In particular, paragraph 12.1357(a)(2) applies here.
Faulted robust wires generally arc to ground and
burn their faults clear. Further, they're easily
installed with attention to mechanical details such
that faults to ground are as probable as loosing
one's propeller due to bolt failure.
The Z-figures are crafted with this philosophy
in mind supported by a confidence in nearly 100
years of field history. I'll suggest that none
of your fat wires should be smaller than 6AWG
and that protection beyond what is illustrated
in the Z-figures is no-value-added weight, cost
and complexity.
Bob . . .
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: Homemade handheld antenna |
At 05:05 AM 6/19/2009, you wrote:
>Bob, My apologies for missing part of you question last night. My
>primary concern with the rubber ducky was its performance at low
>altitudes (200 to 500 feet) where I normally fly.
Understand. Given that your radio horizon is so
close compared to most airplanes, I'm doubtful
that improving antenna efficiency over that
of the rubber-duck will yield any improved
"range". In fact, depending on how well the
radio noise is controlled from your ignition
system, you might want to keep the antenna as
far from the engine as practical.
It's an easy test. Rig a temporary antenna
in your remote location of choice. We could
do some extreme range testing with the two
antennas to see if the extra effort has a
return on investment.
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 |
|
Well, that settles that! For the message copied below (<G>) I turned on
my outgoing email scanner in AVG...and, voila! You couldn't see it!
So, AVG is the problem! And, oh, yeah...I turned it back off! <G>
Harley
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harley wrote:
> =======AVGMAIL-32A90303=======--
>
>
>
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 |
|
The interesting thing is that I sent the same message to two other
accounts that I have (agelesswings and Frontiernet), and in both of
those, it came through fine???
So something in Aeroelectric might be "interacting" with it.
Harley
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harley wrote:
> Well, that settles that! For the message copied below (<G>) I turned
> on my outgoing email scanner in AVG...and, voila! You couldn't see it!
>
> So, AVG is the problem! And, oh, yeah...I turned it back off! <G>
>
> Harley
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Harley wrote:
>> =======AVGMAIL-32A90303=======--
>>
>>
>>
> *
>
>
> *
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: Shower of Sparks Help |
At 11:45 PM 6/18/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob
>
>The link you referenced below is the one I used to wire my SOS
>system (Key Switch Controlled). The GRD to R jumper was checked and
>is in place. The way that I know both mags are active is that, as a
>test before first start, I pulled a plug wired to each mag and
>cranked the starter to check for spark. . I don't know whether the
>vibrator was working at the time.
What kind of spark did you get? A magneto is
capable of delivering but a single spark per
ignition even. If the shower of sparks vibrator
system is working, the left magneto should
be delivering a continuous stream of sparks
during engine cranking. Should should also
be able to hear the vibrator "buzzing".
If the key switch is bad, then the mags
are NEVER being shut off . . . not a good
thing. Be sure your shield grounds are
properly and robustly wired as shown. It
could be that you're not getting the right
mag grounded because the shield is improperly
terminated at one end or both ends.
>
>
>Is there a way to check the keyed ignition switch to make sure it is
>working properly? Could a faulty shield connection on the Right Mag
>at either the switch or mag terminal cause the problem?
Sure. Leave the master switch off. Disconnect
the p-lead from the R mag and put an ohmmeter
between center conductor and shield.
Turn the key switch and watch ohmmeter. You should
read less than 1 ohm in all key switch positions
except "R" and "BOTH". In particular, you're
interested in seeing the R mag get shorted in the
START position which is what the jumper does for
you. If this doesn't happen, then the switch is
probably bad . . . but check the shield grounds
first. Check out this shield termination process
if you've not already seen it.
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/shldwire/shldwire.html
I believe these key switches can be disassembled,
cleaned and lubricated. An alternative is to
use toggle switches as shown in the third
diagram. Much less expensive and easier to
maintain.
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 |
|
On 6/19/2009 10:09 AM, Harley wrote:
> The interesting thing is that I sent the same message to two other
> accounts that I have (agelesswings and Frontiernet), and in both of
> those, it came through fine???
>
> So something in Aeroelectric might be "interacting" with it.
Hi Harley,
I've seen this happen with other mailing lists (non-Matronics), as well
as direct person to person. Sometimes the messages go through fine,
sometimes they don't. It has to do with the way that AVG modifies the
mail headers, which sometimes are okay, and more often are not. AVG
obviously has a bug in their software that they have not tracked down yet.
FWIW, while scanning incoming e-mail has definite merits for protecting
your computer, scanning outgoing e-mail has little value, so there
really is no significant harm in turning that function off.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ
http://deej.net/sportsman/
"Many things that are unexplainable happen during the construction of an
airplane." --Dave Prizio, 30 Aug 2005
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 |
|
Dj Merrill wrote:
>
> On 6/19/2009 10:09 AM, Harley wrote:
>
>> The interesting thing is that I sent the same message to two other
>> accounts that I have (agelesswings and Frontiernet), and in both of
>> those, it came through fine???
>>
>> So something in Aeroelectric might be "interacting" with it.
>>
>
> Hi Harley,
> I've seen this happen with other mailing lists (non-Matronics), as well
> as direct person to person. Sometimes the messages go through fine,
> sometimes they don't. It has to do with the way that AVG modifies the
> mail headers, which sometimes are okay, and more often are not. AVG
> obviously has a bug in their software that they have not tracked down yet.
>
> FWIW, while scanning incoming e-mail has definite merits for protecting
> your computer, scanning outgoing e-mail has little value, so there
> really is no significant harm in turning that function off.
>
Yeah...I thought the same thing...guess that's why I turned it off in
the first place, then promptly forgot about it!
H.
> -Dj
>
>
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: Borescopes and sparkplug holes |
The camera just starts into a plug hole and binds. I bet one could
slightly shave the camera dia to get it in just fine. I don't yet have the
unit charged or AA's on hand, so I don't know how good a view of the piston
and valves you can get from the plug hole or with the mirror.
glen matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.net
Message 12
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | RE: Borescopes and sparkplug holes |
Wouldn't it would be great if you could get it all the way in there and get
it stuck! :>)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of glen
matejcek
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 12:18 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: RE: Borescopes and sparkplug holes
--> <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
The camera just starts into a plug hole and binds. I bet one could slightly
shave the camera dia to get it in just fine. I don't yet have the unit
charged or AA's on hand, so I don't know how good a view of the piston and
valves you can get from the plug hole or with the mirror.
glen matejcek
aerobubba@earthlink.net
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 |
|
If your email client has the capability, you can select "View Message
Raw Source" (that is what my Mac Mail program calls it) and you will
be able to read the blank messages. The problem is a mis-formed HTML
tag at the beginning of the message. By reading the raw source, you
can pick out the message OK from the HTML tags, which are all present.
Steve Thomas
________________________________________________________________________
On Jun 19, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Harley wrote:
>
>
> Dj Merrill wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 6/19/2009 10:09 AM, Harley wrote:
>>
>>> The interesting thing is that I sent the same message to two other
>>> accounts that I have (agelesswings and Frontiernet), and in both of
>>> those, it came through fine???
>>>
>>> So something in Aeroelectric might be "interacting" with it.
>>>
>>
>> Hi Harley,
>> I've seen this happen with other mailing lists (non-Matronics), as
>> well
>> as direct person to person. Sometimes the messages go through fine,
>> sometimes they don't. It has to do with the way that AVG modifies
>> the
>> mail headers, which sometimes are okay, and more often are not. AVG
>> obviously has a bug in their software that they have not tracked
>> down yet.
>>
>> FWIW, while scanning incoming e-mail has definite merits for
>> protecting
>> your computer, scanning outgoing e-mail has little value, so there
>> really is no significant harm in turning that function off.
>>
> Yeah...I thought the same thing...guess that's why I turned it off
> in the first place, then promptly forgot about it!
>
> H.
>> -Dj
>>
>>
>
>
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: | Re: RE: Borescopes and sparkplug holes |
Quoting glen matejcek <aerobubba@earthlink.net>:
> <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
>
> The camera just starts into a plug hole and binds. I bet one could
> slightly shave the camera dia to get it in just fine. I don't yet have the
> unit charged or AA's on hand, so I don't know how good a view of the piston
> and valves you can get from the plug hole or with the mirror.
>
> glen matejcek
> aerobubba@earthlink.net
Can those experienced in close inspection of cylinders and corrosion
comment on
the potential of this dental camera? http://tinyurl.com/m5kscj It would seem
to offer detailed, closeup, remote inspection, but never having used any
borescope I don't trust my own judgment.
Ralph Finch
Davis, CA USA
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
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: RE: Borescopes and sparkplug holes |
This seems to be a week of internet problems. I cannot use tinyurl
successfully on this or any other link in a message. Can I ask that you
post the raw link instead of going through the Netherlands?
John Morgensen
Ralph Finch wrote:
>
> Can those experienced in close inspection of cylinders and corrosion
> comment on
> the potential of this dental camera? http://tinyurl.com/m5kscj It
> would seem
> to offer detailed, closeup, remote inspection, but never having used any
> borescope I don't trust my own judgment.
>
> Ralph Finch
> Davis, CA USA
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: RE: Borescopes and sparkplug holes |
This may look terrible:
http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-HOME-USE-DENTAL-INTRA-ORAL-CAMERA-USB-Connection_W0QQitemZ370206256373QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item5632032cf5&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=65%3A15|66%3A2|39%3A1|240%3A1318|301%3A1|293%3A1|294%3A50#ebayphotohosting
If it's broken, you can cut each little piece of the URL from this message
into the address window and it should work.
I had to chuckle about "130,000,0" Mega pixels.. Below, it does state a
more reasonable 1.3 Mega pixels.
Matt-
> <john@morgensen.com>
>
> This seems to be a week of internet problems. I cannot use tinyurl
> successfully on this or any other link in a message. Can I ask that you
> post the raw link instead of going through the Netherlands?
>
> John Morgensen
>
> Ralph Finch wrote:
>>
>> Can those experienced in close inspection of cylinders and corrosion
>> comment on
>> the potential of this dental camera? http://tinyurl.com/m5kscj It
>> would seem
>> to offer detailed, closeup, remote inspection, but never having used any
>> borescope I don't trust my own judgment.
>>
>> Ralph Finch
>> Davis, CA USA
>
>
Message 17
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Wire Protection Question |
At 06:52 6/19/2009, you wrote:
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wire Protection Question
>
>At 02:31 AM 6/19/2009, you wrote:
>><snip>
>
> A 12AWG wire is probably too small to be
> a bus feeder. When wiring with truly "fat"
> wires (6AWG or larger) they're not at high
> risk for burning due to shorts or overloads.
> Take a look at the wiring diagrams for any
> single engine TC aircraft and you'll find
> that few if any will incorporate fuses or
> current limiters in these pathways. This
> philosophy is echoed in the FARS . . .
>
>
>Sec. 23.1357 Circuit protective devices.
>
>(a) Protective devices, such as fuses or circuit breakers, must be
>installed in all electrical circuits other than--
>(1) Main circuits of starter motors used during starting only; and
>(2) Circuits in which no hazard is presented by their omission.
Bob,
Trying to turn this into a learning/understanding moment, the above
leaves me a bit puzzled as to exactly when the omission of a
protective device would be considered to pose no hazard. Say one has
an AWG-6 feeder connected to the switched side of the master relay
and the conductor or a terminal faults to airframe. Alternator
current would be limited by the alternator breaker, good; but battery
current would only be limited by conductor, termination, device and
internal battery resistances. At first estimate this would seem to
be capable of generating a current well above the safe capacity of the AWG-6.
While my scope of knowledge is limited to but a small spectrum of
TC's aircraft, all have had some form of protection on large gauge
feeders. Specifically, for a PA-46-350, the only unprotected
unswitched circuit is termed the battery bus and supplies lights,
clock and ground clearance com.
This topic is of particular interest to me as we are currently
working on electrical system modifications for a Bellanca BL-17 and
found the local, SAN, FSDO and inspectors have conflicting thoughts
with what you have stated.
Appreciate any additional insight you may be able to provide.
Thanks
Ron Q.
Message 18
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: RE: Borescopes and sparkplug holes |
Ralph, you might have to be the guinea pig and let us know how it works
out. It doesn't look practical to me but I have very little experience
with borescopes in general.
Ralph Finch wrote:
> <rgf@dcn.davis.ca.us>
>
> Quoting glen matejcek <aerobubba@earthlink.net>:
>
>> <aerobubba@earthlink.net>
>>
>> The camera just starts into a plug hole and binds. I bet one could
>> slightly shave the camera dia to get it in just fine. I don't yet
>> have the
>> unit charged or AA's on hand, so I don't know how good a view of the
>> piston
>> and valves you can get from the plug hole or with the mirror.
>>
>> glen matejcek
>> aerobubba@earthlink.net
>
> Can those experienced in close inspection of cylinders and corrosion
> comment on
> the potential of this dental camera? http://tinyurl.com/m5kscj It
> would seem
> to offer detailed, closeup, remote inspection, but never having used any
> borescope I don't trust my own judgment.
>
> Ralph Finch
> Davis, CA USA
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
>
Message 19
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: RE: Borescopes and sparkplug holes |
BTW,
There are other places to buy similar cameras:
http://foxtor.com/product_info.php?products_id=1432
I searched on Google for "dental oral usb camera".
Matt-
> <john@morgensen.com>
>
> This seems to be a week of internet problems. I cannot use tinyurl
> successfully on this or any other link in a message. Can I ask that you
> post the raw link instead of going through the Netherlands?
>
> John Morgensen
>
> Ralph Finch wrote:
>>
>> Can those experienced in close inspection of cylinders and corrosion
>> comment on
>> the potential of this dental camera? http://tinyurl.com/m5kscj It
>> would seem
>> to offer detailed, closeup, remote inspection, but never having used any
>> borescope I don't trust my own judgment.
>>
>> Ralph Finch
>> Davis, CA USA
>
>
Message 20
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: RE: Borescopes and sparkplug holes |
Maybe an even better one(?):
http://www.armatexx.eu/consumerelectronics/product_info.php?info=p2407_Tubular-Inspection-Camera---USB-Wand-Digital-Camera-with-Lights.html
I searched for "usb inspection camera -microscope"
Matt-
> <john@morgensen.com>
>
> This seems to be a week of internet problems. I cannot use tinyurl
> successfully on this or any other link in a message. Can I ask that you
> post the raw link instead of going through the Netherlands?
>
> John Morgensen
>
> Ralph Finch wrote:
>>
>> Can those experienced in close inspection of cylinders and corrosion
>> comment on
>> the potential of this dental camera? http://tinyurl.com/m5kscj It
>> would seem
>> to offer detailed, closeup, remote inspection, but never having used any
>> borescope I don't trust my own judgment.
>>
>> Ralph Finch
>> Davis, CA USA
>
>
Message 21
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Borescopes and sparkplug holes |
When doing cylinder wall inspections using a boroscope it's best to look at the
wall at 90deg.Spark plug holes may not be in the center of the cylinder it is
nice to have a flexible probe / pivoting mirror /camera view at least 90deg
to probe shaft as this allows you to see the valves. Cheers
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=249163#249163
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Borescopes and sparkplug holes |
That's partly why the before-mentioned dental usb camera seemed it might
work: it's mounted at a right angle to the probe, fairly high magnification,
made for close work...and cheap.
Another one with 4 million pixels is at http://tinyurl.com/mcvhw8 $159
including shipping from China. Connect to a $400 laptop and you've got a
nice inspection device. Our manufacturing doesn't have a chance.
http://cgi.ebay.com/4-0MEGA-PIXELS-DENTAL-INTRA-ORAL-CAMERA-USB-CONNECTION_W
0QQitemZ320385953075QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_DefaultDomain_0?hash=item4a987dad3
3&_trksid=p4634.m332.l1262
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Thruster87
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 3:19 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Borescopes and sparkplug holes
<alania@optusnet.com.au>
When doing cylinder wall inspections using a boroscope it's best to look at
the wall at 90deg.Spark plug holes may not be in the center of the cylinder
it is nice to have a flexible probe / pivoting mirror /camera view at least
90deg to probe shaft as this allows you to see the valves. Cheers
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=249163#249163
Message 23
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Wire Protection Question |
Did you miss this paragraph in Bob's message.
> In particular, paragraph 12.1357(a)(2) applies here.
Faulted robust wires generally arc to ground and
burn their faults clear. Further, they're easily
installed with attention to mechanical details such
that faults to ground are as probable as loosing
one's propeller due to bolt failure.
>
Robust mounting keeps that arcing end from moving so it burns the
fault clear. You just end up with a hole were the fault was.
Bob Meyers
Building Sonex 982SX Web Site Index http://meyersfamily.org/Sonex982.html
On Jun 19, 2009, at 3:53 PM, Ron Quillin wrote:
> At 06:52 6/19/2009, you wrote:
>> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Wire Protection Question
>>
>> At 02:31 AM 6/19/2009, you wrote:
>>> >
>>> <snip>
>>
>> A 12AWG wire is probably too small to be
>> a bus feeder. When wiring with truly "fat"
>> wires (6AWG or larger) they're not at high
>> risk for burning due to shorts or overloads.
>> Take a look at the wiring diagrams for any
>> single engine TC aircraft and you'll find
>> that few if any will incorporate fuses or
>> current limiters in these pathways. This
>> philosophy is echoed in the FARS . . .
>>
>>
>> Sec. 23.1357 Circuit protective devices.
>>
>> (a) Protective devices, such as fuses or circuit breakers, must be
>> installed in all electrical circuits other than--
>> (1) Main circuits of starter motors used during starting only; and
>> (2) Circuits in which no hazard is presented by their omission.
>
> Bob,
> Trying to turn this into a learning/understanding moment, the above
> leaves me a bit puzzled as to exactly when the omission of a
> protective device would be considered to pose no hazard. Say one
> has an AWG-6 feeder connected to the switched side of the master
> relay and the conductor or a terminal faults to airframe.
> Alternator current would be limited by the alternator breaker, good;
> but battery current would only be limited by conductor, termination,
> device and internal battery resistances. At first estimate this
> would seem to be capable of generating a current well above the safe
> capacity of the AWG-6.
>
> While my scope of knowledge is limited to but a small spectrum of
> TC's aircraft, all have had some form of protection on large gauge
> feeders. Specifically, for a PA-46-350, the only unprotected
> unswitched circuit is termed the battery bus and supplies lights,
> clock and ground clearance com.
>
> This topic is of particular interest to me as we are currently
> working on electrical system modifications for a Bellanca BL-17 and
> found the local, SAN, FSDO and inspectors have conflicting thoughts
> with what you have stated.
>
> Appreciate any additional insight you may be able to provide.
>
> Thanks
> Ron Q.
>
>
Message 24
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: Shower of Sparks Help |
Thanks again Bob for sharing your expertise... I'll confirm that the
vibrator is working and troubleshoot the system as suggested, but before
I do, could you please help me with a couple more questions I have
about the SOS system? With reference to the wire between the LR
terminal on the switch and the retard breaker on the left mag, is this
suppose to be a shielded wire with the shield running to GND the same as
the L & R p-lead? If not, what would be the consequences of using a
shielded wire with the shield running to the switch ground. I know I
used shielded wire for the retard breaker, but can't recall if I ran the
shield to ground. I haven't had a chance to pull the switch yet to
check.
Regards,
John
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: AeroElectric-List: Shower of Sparks Help
At 11:45 PM 6/18/2009, you wrote:
Bob
The link you referenced below is the one I used to wire my SOS
system (Key Switch Controlled). The GRD to R jumper was checked and is
in place. The way that I know both mags are active is that, as a test
before first start, I pulled a plug wired to each mag and cranked the
starter to check for spark. . I don't know whether the vibrator was
working at the time.
What kind of spark did you get? A magneto is
capable of delivering but a single spark per
ignition even. If the shower of sparks vibrator
system is working, the left magneto should
be delivering a continuous stream of sparks
during engine cranking. Should should also
be able to hear the vibrator "buzzing".
If the key switch is bad, then the mags
are NEVER being shut off . . . not a good
thing. Be sure your shield grounds are
properly and robustly wired as shown. It
could be that you're not getting the right
mag grounded because the shield is improperly
terminated at one end or both ends.
Is there a way to check the keyed ignition switch to make sure it is
working properly? Could a faulty shield connection on the Right Mag at
either the switch or mag terminal cause the problem?
Sure. Leave the master switch off. Disconnect
the p-lead from the R mag and put an ohmmeter
between center conductor and shield.
Turn the key switch and watch ohmmeter. You should
read less than 1 ohm in all key switch positions
except "R" and "BOTH". In particular, you're
interested in seeing the R mag get shorted in the
START position which is what the jumper does for
you. If this doesn't happen, then the switch is
probably bad . . . but check the shield grounds
first. Check out this shield termination process
if you've not already seen it.
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/shldwire/shldwire.html
I believe these key switches can be disassembled,
cleaned and lubricated. An alternative is to
use toggle switches as shown in the third
diagram. Much less expensive and easier to
maintain.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
Message 25
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: | Antenna and Balun dimensions |
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/BALUN/Balun_Fabrication.html
Saw the dimensions for this VOR antenna on the website. What would the
dimensions for a COM's antenna be and would I also use a balun
Thanks
Mike
Message 26
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: Tyco Breakers |
Bob Nuckolls said:
<< switch breakers force
the builder to fabricate a distribution bus on
the panel . . . not unlike the breaker panels typical
of TC aircraft even today. >>
<< Breakers that assuage concerns for aircraft designers
have terminal bosses compatible with bus bars that
tie multiple devices together. >>
Which is exactly what I did with my previous amateur built
aircraft using these breakers, connected all the breakers
together with one buss bar connected directly to the
terminals.
<< If one is favorably impressed with fuse blocks, >>
But I am not, which is the source of our differing approach.
My friend, the rich man's chief pilot, has just spent a
large part of the last seven years fighting with the maker
of their new model $47 million private jet over the fact
they wanted to make all the fuses totally inaccessible in
flight. Manufacturer lost the argument. Same principle
applies to single pilot small aircraft with the automobile
style fuse block.
All I'm saying is if you are among those of us who are
uncomfortable without access to our circuit protection
devices, the Snapak magnetic-hydraulic R11-1 style circuit
breaker/switch rated for use in life critical medical
devices (albeit not mil-spec) is a viable, lower cost,
simpler and possibly more reliable alternative to the TC
common practice of acres of breakers way over there and
switches way over here.
Tom Kuffel
Message 27
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: Antenna and Balun dimensions |
At 12:09 AM 6/20/2009, you wrote:
><http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/BALUN/Balun_Fabrication.html>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/BALUN/Balun_Fabrication.html
>
>
>Saw the dimensions for this VOR antenna on the website. What would
>the dimensions for a COM's antenna be and would I also use a balun
Is your comm antenna a vertical half wave dipole?
How do you get this much vertical disposition of
the elements on a small aircraft?
The dimensions would simply be reduced by about
10% to favor the comm band. 23" would be fine.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
Message 28
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: Wire Protection Question |
>Bob,
>Trying to turn this into a learning/understanding moment, the above
>leaves me a bit puzzled as to exactly when the omission of a
>protective device would be considered to pose no hazard. Say one
>has an AWG-6 feeder connected to the switched side of the master
>relay and the conductor or a terminal faults to
>airframe. Alternator current would be limited by the alternator
>breaker, good; but battery current would only be limited by
>conductor, termination, device and internal battery resistances. At
>first estimate this would seem to be capable of generating a current
>well above the safe capacity of the AWG-6.
>
>While my scope of knowledge is limited to but a small spectrum of
>TC's aircraft, all have had some form of protection on large gauge
>feeders. Specifically, for a PA-46-350, the only unprotected
>unswitched circuit is termed the battery bus and supplies lights,
>clock and ground clearance com.
>
>This topic is of particular interest to me as we are currently
>working on electrical system modifications for a Bellanca BL-17 and
>found the local, SAN, FSDO and inspectors have conflicting thoughts
>with what you have stated.
>
>Appreciate any additional insight you may be able to provide.
The style of "protection" one might add to
fat wires in an array of battery/bus/cranking
feeders are like the ANL "current limiters"
found in the power distribution systems of
many larger aircraft.
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Fuses/Fuses/ANL-ANN_Current_Limiter.jpg
Fusing characteristics for these puppies are
shown here . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Fuses_and_Current_Limiters/Bussman/ANL_Specs.pdf
Suppose you decided to put an ANL200 in the
battery feeder for your project. Note in
the fusing plots above the ANL200 will carry
300A without breathing hard.
Now, what kind of fault can you imagine
that ties your feeders down so firmly to
the airframe that you'd expect battery fault
currents of 1000+ amps to flow? You're
going to rub off some insulation and have
some low pressure, flying fault that
arcs a lot and intermittently draws hundreds
of amps . . . but is unlikely to open the
ANL limiter. In facdt, you'll find that
the copper is barely damaged compared to
adjacent aluminum that simply burns clear
without even warming up your feed wire.
Have your skeptics research the wiring
diagrams for the host of S.E. aircraft
produced in the hundreds of thousands
for nearly 100 years and they'll note
a not so curious absence of fuses/breakers
in the fat wire feeders . . .
These wires seldom get faulted and when
they do, the event is so benign that
the current protection doesn't operate
before arcing burns the fault clear.
It's a lot of careful design and hard work
to bring two conductors together to be
an efficient conductor of hundreds of amps.
It just doesn't happen accidently.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
Message 29
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: Tyco Breakers |
>All I'm saying is if you are among those of us who are
>uncomfortable without access to our circuit protection
>devices, the Snapak magnetic-hydraulic R11-1 style circuit
>breaker/switch rated for use in life critical medical
>devices (albeit not mil-spec) is a viable, lower cost,
>simpler and possibly more reliable alternative to the TC
>common practice of acres of breakers way over there and
>switches way over here.
To each his own. Fly comfortably sir!
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( . . . a long habit of not thinking )
( a thing wrong, gives it a superficial )
( appearance of being right . . . )
( )
( -Thomas Paine 1776- )
---------------------------------------
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! --
|