Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:35 AM - Re: Fat feed confusion (William Slaughter)
2. 05:05 AM - Re: Fuseblock drawings (Sam Hoskins)
3. 05:18 AM - Re: Fat feed confusion (bob noffs)
4. 09:03 AM - Fuel Flow - Hoskins FT 101 Fuel Flow not working (rogrbal)
5. 10:24 AM - Fuselinks & breakers (Sam Hoskins)
6. 11:54 AM - Re: Situational awareness as an instrument of flight redux (erinoff@comcast.net)
7. 02:52 PM - Re: Grounding question (Gilles Thesee)
8. 06:13 PM - Re: glass fuses (Ernest Kells)
9. 08:21 PM - Re: glass fuses (Tim Andres)
10. 08:54 PM - (Jim Baker)
11. 09:56 PM - Re: Icom A-210 intercom (Thruster87)
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: | Fat feed confusion |
A 10 AWG wire is smaller than a 6 AWG, not larger. In wire gauge notation a
low number is a big wire, a higher number is a smaller wire.
William Slaughter
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
Barrow
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 10:03 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Fat feed confusion
I note in a June post that Bob Nuckolls said that "fat feed" wires (6 AWG or
larger) do not need a fuse or current limiter. I understand the logic behind
that.
However I note in the Nuckolls Z14 architecture that the wire between the
Crossfeed Contactor and the Auxiliary Bus is 10 AWG and has no protection.
Why is this an exception to the rule.
_____
Make ninemsn your homepage! Get
<http://windowslive.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=813730> the latest news,
goss and sport
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: Fuseblock drawings |
Thank you, Dick. I can modify them to suit.
Sam
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Richard Tasker <retasker@optonline.net>wrote:
> Here are the two sizes that I use in AutoCAD ver14 dwg format.
>
> If you need them in another format, let me know.
>
> Dick Tasker
>
> Sam Hoskins wrote:
>
>> Is there a .dwg file of the fuseblocks, besides the isometric view? I am
>> looking for a 2-D version that I can use to label for easy I.D. of the fuse
>> size, and the wire that attaches to it.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Sam Hoskins
>> www.samhoskins.blogspot.com <http://www.samhoskins.blogspot.com>
>>
>
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: Fat feed confusion |
william,
since 10 ga is smaller than 6ga that is why the question ''why no
protection''.
bob noffs
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 6:32 AM, William Slaughter <
william_slaughter@att.net> wrote:
> A 10 AWG wire is smaller than a 6 AWG, not larger. In wire gauge
> notation a low number is a big wire, a higher number is a smaller wire.
>
>
> William Slaughter
>
>
> *From:* owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Bob Barrow
> *Sent:* Friday, July 17, 2009 10:03 PM
> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* AeroElectric-List: Fat feed confusion
>
>
> I note in a June post that Bob Nuckolls said that "fat feed" wires (6 AWG
> or larger) do not need a fuse or current limiter. I understand the logic
> behind that.
>
> However I note in the Nuckolls Z14 architecture that the wire between the
> Crossfeed Contactor and the Auxiliary Bus is 10 AWG and has no protection.
>
> Why is this an exception to the rule.
> ------------------------------
>
> Make ninemsn your homepage! Get the latest news, goss and sport<http://windowslive.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=813730>
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
>
> **
>
> * *
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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: | Fuel Flow - Hoskins FT 101 Fuel Flow not working |
Hoskins FT 101 Fuel Flow not working:
1. Lights stay on - all zeros
2. Unplugging connector in rear gets it working for a while, then it goes to #1
state again.
3. Resetting by doing #2 does not carry forward any fuel used between resets.
4. If reset it every time it goes to state #1, it will accumulate all the fuel
used while working. Only missing that used while in state #1.
Since it always shows some power applied, I do not think this is an intermittent
power problem.
Since it accumulates, I do not think this is a problem in the wire going to the
battery for residual power to retain accumulated fuel.
The transducer has three wires to it, maybe one of them is the problem.
Since doing #2 always fixes it, maybe the problem is in or near this plug?
Any ideas help??
Wiring diagram is available at
http://www.instrumenttech.com/productsupport.shtml
Look in the POH for the FT101A. It shows the plug pin diagram. Although I have
a 101 the only difference I can tell, is that the type reading - gallons, pounds,
etc. - is user resetable vice manufacturer set.
Thanks for your ideas. Need to fix it tomorrow - Sunday 7/19/09
Roger
--------
Thanks for the help.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=253624#253624
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/ft_101a_fuelflow_poh_160.pdf
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: | Fuselinks & breakers |
Bob, in several of your Z drawings, you show a fuselink in series with a
breaker. For instance, Z-18. You also have a fuselink and a breaker
separated only by a relay in Z-18RB.
What is the rationale behind this seemingly redundant layout?
Thanks
Sam Hoskins
(Not related to Hoskins fuel systems)
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: Situational awareness as an instrument of flight |
redux
Bob,
Don't rely on MAC address filtering for security. It is very easy to defeat. Sniffers
show the MAC addresses in use and most wireless network interface cards
allow you to change the MAC address. Don't use WEP either. Only WPA encryption
is (reasonably) secure.
Mark
Sonex 713
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 8:49:10 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Situational awareness as an instrument of flight
redux
>>> . . . . I further demonstrated
>>> that if the horizon is visible over the nose, you cannot
>>> be too slow. After that, paying attention to power settings
>>> pretty much covers the bases for not having an unhappy day
>>> in the pattern.
>>That instrument only works for people of the same height. It has
>>to be recalibrated for some of us 8*)
>
> Yeah . . . that's why I was happy the thing averaged
> 80 . . .
>
> Short guys IAS was a little slower,
Got that backwards! Must have been too much
hauling furniture in the 100+ heat for two
days! Obviously, if the individual is shorter
then for any given deck angle, his response
would be to LOWER the nose to bring it back
into alignment with the horizon, i.e. IAS
will he HIGHER for the same gross weight,
and power setting. Had hard time getting
to sleep last night thinking about it and
discovering my brain-f#@t . . .
Probably need to avoid heavy thinking for a
few days. We got Dr. Dee's office spaces
90% moved (probably 1000 pounds of books
and another 500 pounds of filing cabinets.
I'm trying whole-house wi-fi to avoid
stringing lots of cat-5 cable. After an
arm wrestling match with "Network Magic"
I tossed it out and studied the semi-lame
instructions for the router. Got it to
come up nicely with the MAC address filtering
mode for security so the ground has been
prepared for expanding the network to the
house and shop.
When Dad built this house, I strung hundreds
of feet of of twin-lead antenna and twisted-pair phone
lines around. Today, none of those wires
are in use. A single strand of glass comes to
the back of the house to deliver telephone,
high speed Internet, and soon to be TV. Both
Internet and telephone are hardwired from the
fiber modem to network nodes that move
all data around the house over spread-
spectrum radio.
My Dad would be fascinated with all that is
changing with the house he built in 4 years
of "spare" time 44 years ago.
Bob . . .
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: Grounding question |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III a crit :
>
> The short answer is, I recommend you stay with the architecture
> described in Z-16.
>
Bob,
Thank you for your response.
Sorry for answering late, but I've been with no Internet connection for
several weeks.
Thanks again,
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
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 |
|
Bob: I understand our differences. I am using Bob's system, using fuse
blocks. My system is completely installed using his approach. I use
four of his B & C fuse blocks (10 sockets each). It's great. However,
the "live" circuit for the Ignition is an exception. It requires
"close" circuit protection. I did not want to run the hot circuit to a
fuse block near the instrument panel. Any change could be problematic.
What if I removed the instrument panel??? I just wanted NUTTIN
affecting this hot circuit. I looked at the in-line fuse holder
installed very close to the battery as a conservitive situation. I
think that it is totally safe. I don't know anything safer (I am
electronics challenged).
Ernest; I did originally read your post carefully and still wonder why
you would retain the "ONE" glass fuse. Why not use an ATO here as well??
That was the point of my post, not that you didn't use ATO for all
others, just why retain the single glass one when you are obviously
aware of the superiority of the ATO style? Is the justification that
it's already there and hard to replace?? Thus the most difficult to
access fuse is also the least reliable and most likely to fail?? Not
meaning to be critical, just not understanding the logic.
Bob McC
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Ernest Kells
Bob: Please reread my post. I said that I have only ONE glass fuse -
all others are ATO fuses - with fuse busses. I stated that there is
only ONE case whereby the glass fuse is justified - in my opinion. I
still believe it - and I have given away my in-line fuse holders and all
of the glass fuses.
Ernest Kells
Ernest;
Why an inline "glass" fuse???? The ATO style fuse is a much better
choice with its one piece design, high pressure contacts etc. All the
same reasons that the automotive world went blade style to replace the
"old technology" "glass" fuses. No soldered end caps to come loose, no
low pressure contacts to corrode and fail. ATO/ATC is a much more
reliable choice.
This holder is even waterproof. Good for 30A.
http://tinyurl.com/l4eaae Similar holders are available for the Maxi
series as well if you require higher ratings.
Bob McC
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Ernest Kells
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:04 PM
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: glass fuses
Rich and others:
Actually. Rick I ended up deciding there was ONE application for an
in-line "glass" fuse. That is the always LIVE when the Master Switch is
ON. I put my only in-line glass fuse immediately behind the top of the
firewall. It's hard to replace - but the hot wire is only several inches
long - with no chance to rub anything.
Ernest Kells RV-9A
- The AeroElectric-List Email Forum --->
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List -
MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - - List Contribution Web Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
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 |
|
I think you guys are missing each others point. You could have your inline
fuse "inline" anywhere you want it and still use an ATO. They make inline
ATO holders. http://tinyurl.com/lcvcjq
HTH, Tim Andres
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest
Kells
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2009 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: glass fuses
Bob: I understand our differences. I am using Bob's system, using fuse
blocks. My system is completely installed using his approach. I use four of
his B & C fuse blocks (10 sockets each). It's great. However, the "live"
circuit for the Ignition is an exception. It requires "close" circuit
protection. I did not want to run the hot circuit to a fuse block near the
instrument panel. Any change could be problematic. What if I removed the
instrument panel??? I just wanted NUTTIN affecting this hot circuit. I
looked at the in-line fuse holder installed very close to the battery as a
conservitive situation. I think that it is totally safe. I don't know
anything safer (I am electronics challenged).
Ernest;I did originally read your post carefully and still wonder why you
would retain the "ONE" glass fuse. Why not use an ATO here as well?? That
was the point of my post, not that you didn't use ATO for all others, just
why retain the single glass one when you are obviously aware of the
superiority of the ATO style? Is the justification that it's already there
and hard to replace?? Thus the most difficult to access fuse is also the
least reliable and most likely to fail?? Not meaning to be critical, just
not understanding the logic.
Bob McC
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest
Kells
Bob: Please reread my post. I said that I have only ONE glass fuse - all
others are ATO fuses - with fuse busses. I stated that there is only ONE
case whereby the glass fuse is justified - in my opinion. I still believe it
- and I have given away my in-line fuse holders and all of the glass fuses.
Ernest Kells
Ernest;
Why an inline "glass" fuse???? The ATO style fuse is a much better choice
with its one piece design, high pressure contacts etc. All the same reasons
that the automotive world went blade style to replace the "old technology"
"glass" fuses. No soldered end caps to come loose, no low pressure contacts
to corrode and fail. ATO/ATC is a much more reliable choice.
This holder is even waterproof. Good for 30A. http://tinyurl.com/l4eaae
Similar holders are available for the Maxi series as well if you require
higher ratings.
Bob McC
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ernest
Kells
Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: glass fuses
Rich and others:
Actually. Rick I ended up deciding there was ONE application for an in-line
"glass" fuse. That is the always LIVE when the Master Switch is ON. I put my
only in-line glass fuse immediately behind the top of the firewall. It's
hard to replace - but the hot wire is only several inches long - with no
chance to rub anything.
Ernest Kells RV-9A
- The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
<>--> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
- MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
- List Contribution Web Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matro
nics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
270.13.19/2245 - Release Date: 07/18/09 05:57:00
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 |
|
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.41)
X-SpamReason %%SpamReason%%:
http://www.michigan.gov/aero/0,1607,7-145-14493-29639--,00.html
Jim Baker
580.788.2779
405. 426.5377 cell
Elmore City, OK
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: Icom A-210 intercom |
Just installed the icom 210a as per the diagram Bob posted earlier.It receives
just fine but the mics are dead.Using 2 x Ray Allen grips [601xl Y grips] with
the PTT switches and 2 place phone and mic wired in parallel.Should pin 10 be
grounded via a switch for the intercom to work as well???? Thank you
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=253689#253689
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! --
|