---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 06/19/09: 29 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:41:57 AM PST US From: Pete Hunt Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:07:28 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Homemade handheld antenna From: Richard Girard 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:43:38 AM PST US From: Harley Subject: AeroElectric-List: Just a test =======AVGMAIL-32A90303=======-- ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 06:53:39 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:57:38 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:00:21 AM PST US From: Harley Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Just a test Well, that settles that! For the message copied below () 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! Harley ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Harley wrote: > =======AVGMAIL-32A90303=======-- > > > ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 07:12:37 AM PST US From: Harley Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Just a test 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 () 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! > > Harley > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Harley wrote: >> =======AVGMAIL-32A90303=======-- >> >> >> > * > > > * ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 07:16:40 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" 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 9 _____________________________________ Time: 08:55:30 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Just a test From: Dj Merrill 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:14:01 AM PST US From: Harley Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Just a test 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:20:57 AM PST US From: "glen matejcek" Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:39:00 AM PST US From: "Bill Bradburry" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 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 --> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:24:29 AM PST US From: Steve Thomas Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Just a test 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:53:23 AM PST US From: Ralph Finch Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Borescopes and sparkplug holes Quoting glen matejcek : > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:11:43 PM PST US From: John Morgensen Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:45:49 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Borescopes and sparkplug holes From: "Matt Prather" 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- > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:55:39 PM PST US From: Ron Quillin Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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: >> > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:03:45 PM PST US From: "David M." Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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: > > > Quoting glen matejcek : > >> >> >> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:05:02 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Borescopes and sparkplug holes From: "Matt Prather" 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- > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:12:39 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: Borescopes and sparkplug holes From: "Matt Prather" 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- > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:21:50 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Borescopes and sparkplug holes From: "Thruster87" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:13:35 PM PST US From: "Ralph Finch" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 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 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:18:59 PM PST US From: Bob Meyers Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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: >>> > >>> >> >> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:42:31 PM PST US From: "John" Subject: Re: Fw: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:12:15 PM PST US From: "Mike Pienaar" Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:47:04 PM PST US From: "kuffel@cyberport.net" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:59:45 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Antenna and Balun dimensions At 12:09 AM 6/20/2009, you wrote: >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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:12:19 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:13:06 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message aeroelectric-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.