Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:22 AM - isispower (Gordon or Marge)
2. 09:06 AM - Re: isispower (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 01:38 PM - Re: Re: Dan's Switches (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 03:24 PM - CHT update (Ralph E. Capen)
5. 09:29 PM - Re: CHT update (David LLoyd)
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 |
|
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of nuckollsr
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Preferred Method for Redundant Power Sources
to Single Input
Bob: Check out isispower. I would appreciate your comments.
Gordon Comfort
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 |
|
At 07:19 AM 11/23/2009, you wrote:
>
>
>Bob: Check out isispower. I would appreciate your comments.
>
>Gordon Comfort
Hi Gordon! Good to hear from you. I've had several folks
send me the link on this line of product. Thanks to all
for the heads-up.
Let's consider the words and images used to induce
customers to purchase this product . . .
http://www.isispower.com/V8_interview.php
There's also a library of installation and
user's manuals at:
http://www.isispower.com/isis-installation.html
I didn't go through these in detail but at no
time did I see any sort of block diagram or
all-up wiring diagram that describes an exemplar
installation. But questions to be asked and
answered:
(a) does the proposed system reduce numbers of
switches or controls on panel along with wiring
and real estate allotted to those components?
(b) how many devices in your proposed airplane
project require you to switch a current level
that places the switch at risk for extra-ordinary
rates of failure. Careful here . . . don't mix
service life (expected wear out) with reliability
(failure due to poor design or choice of component).
(c) how many devices or systems in the airplane
cannot be handled by this product? This includes
things like legacy magnetos, audio switches, etc.
(d) how does inclusion of this product in your
airplane change your failure modes effects analysis
for the purpose of crafting Plan-A/Plan-B responses
to failure of any one system?
(e) how does inclusion of this product affect
probability of single points of failure for
multiple systems?
(f) does your comfortable incorporation of this
or any similar system depend on some notion of
super-reliability or exemplar service life. I.e,
"THIS gizmo is NEVER going to malfunction".
(g) some lengths of wire between control switches and
controlled devices are replaced by data bus
conductors between "smart modules". What is the
weight savings for these conductors as compared
to the weight of the proposed "smart modules"?
(h) when and if problems do happen, what is the
likelihood that YOU as a system integrator will
be tooled and skilled in fixing the problem . . .
or will you be dependent upon outside support
or canned diagnostics?
(i) how does incorporation of this product make
your installation task any simpler than running
a conductor path from fuse to switch to accessory?
If your design goals include buffering stresses
on the switch by inclusion of a power relay, how
much $time$ is expended in the installation of
the relay, one extra wire and allocation of one
extra fuse to the task?
(j) you still have to run SOME gage and length of
wire from each control device to a smart module
at the head-end. You still have to run the SAME
gage of wire to each accessory from the smart
module at the tail-end. If you have only one tail-end
smart module where actual power handling takes
place, is this not about the same situation as
the fabrication of a breaker panel or array of
fuse blocks?
(k) think hard about this "weight reduction"
thing. If you're using fuse blocks and the SAME
or perhaps slightly smaller switches. What is
the likelihood that the combination of smart
modules comes out lighter than the sum total
of wire weight eliminated?
(l) finally, assuming consideration of all the
above produces conclusions consistent with your
design goals. Suppose you spend under $100
for all switches, relays, wire, and fuse
blocks to handle the tasks we've accepted
and lived with for nearly 100 years of operating
airplanes. What is the return on investment
for delta-dollars need to acquire this system?
Would the difference buy you a nice hand-held
GPS or radio for the flight bag?
It would be best if you did this exercise for yourselves
with input from your brothers here on the List. It's
best that the make/buy decision is made from a position
of understanding and meeting personal design goals than
to rely on anybody's advice.
Bob . . .
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: Dan's Switches |
At 04:21 PM 11/21/2009, you wrote:
>
>
> > ???? how was the plastic on the PIDG terminal being
> > compromised???
>
>
>The metal insulation closure when pinched down poked through the
>outer preinsulation. I thought I was getting a decent device when I
>bought the Crimpmaster. I found that terminals don't fit well in it,
>both in the direction of the wire and in the direction of the
>handle. I tried a few different adjustments and gave up. I have done
>almost all of my crimping with a GB cheapo I have and pull tested
>enough to know when it's good.
Are you sure you have the right die-set
for the Crimpmaster? As I recall, there's
a suite of interchangeable dies offered
for that tool. I'd be interested in seeing
what you have. I'll pay the postage back
if you pay the postage to me. Send me some
of the terminals you're using too.
>Thanks for the link to the article, Bob. In it, however, there are a
>couple jpg links that were broken.
Yeah, I saw that but didn't have time to fix it then.
I've got a major overhaul of the website in the works
and hope to get the majority of bugs squashed then . . .
>And the pic in the article of the bond stud shows what looks like a
>nylon P clamp. They're okay to use?
That figure illustrates the idea and implementation of
po-man's bond studs. Except for specifics pertaining to
the procurement and installation of studs, anything else
you see needs to be filtered through the cookbook for
recipes for success. The parts shown here:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/Lightening_Hole_Wiring.jpg
are another illustration of technique and not a recommendation
for parts/materials.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------
( It's MATRONICS FUND RAISER MONTH! )
( Do your part to keep this marvelous )
( tool sharp and available to all our )
( brothers in the OBAM aviation )
( community. )
---------------------------------------
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 |
|
As many of you may know, I have been obsessing a bit about my CHT's...to
get them consistent.
Here's the setup:
IO360B1F6
9.2:1 pistons
AFP Fuel Injection
LASAR Ignition with CHT sender relocated to allow for testing
Vetterman Dual Crossover Heater/Mufflers
SamJames cowl and plenum
Advanced Flight Systems 3400 Engine Monitor
Oil Cooler mounted behind #4 cylinder
Air for both Heater/Mufflers behind #3 cylinder
For constant power setting, here's the consistency that I have achieved:
#1 and #3 cylinders run within three degrees (avg) of each other
#2 and #4 cylinders run within three degrees (avg) of each other
The #1/#3 cylinders run 8.5 degrees hotter (avg) than the #2/#4
cylinders
With the members of the sets of cylinders running this close each other,
I'm thinking that I have the balance (front to rear) for each side
pretty well matched.
I'm trying to wrap my head around what could be causing the right side
to run hotter than the left. Here's some of what I'm thinking...: With
this plenum set-up, I'm thinking that the pressure/volume should
equalize from left to right. This would leave me with not much to
change to cause more cooling air to go from the left to the right -
meaning that I probably have to live with the differences.
Alternatively, maybe it's not really hotter...the two sets of CHT wires
for the left side (both equal length) are about three feet longer than
the ones for the right side (again, both equal length). Could the
difference in the lengths of the wires account for the reported
temperature difference?
I'm pretty close to thinking that this is as good as it gets...but I
would really like to know why...
Thanks,
Ralph
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 |
|
Ralph,
You have got to be kidding about the tiny CHT temp. difference......!!
In the air-cooled world that is incredibly consistent. Just running
different power settings will cause a larger delta than what you
described. Go fly it.... you did everything right...
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Ralph E. Capen
To: rv-list@matronics.com ; LycomingEngines-list@matronics.com ;
AeroElectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 3:22 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: CHT update
As many of you may know, I have been obsessing a bit about my
CHT's...to get them consistent.
Here's the setup:
IO360B1F6
9.2:1 pistons
AFP Fuel Injection
LASAR Ignition with CHT sender relocated to allow for testing
Vetterman Dual Crossover Heater/Mufflers
SamJames cowl and plenum
Advanced Flight Systems 3400 Engine Monitor
Oil Cooler mounted behind #4 cylinder
Air for both Heater/Mufflers behind #3 cylinder
For constant power setting, here's the consistency that I have
achieved:
#1 and #3 cylinders run within three degrees (avg) of each other
#2 and #4 cylinders run within three degrees (avg) of each other
The #1/#3 cylinders run 8.5 degrees hotter (avg) than the #2/#4
cylinders
With the members of the sets of cylinders running this close each
other, I'm thinking that I have the balance (front to rear) for each
side pretty well matched.
I'm trying to wrap my head around what could be causing the right side
to run hotter than the left. Here's some of what I'm thinking...: With
this plenum set-up, I'm thinking that the pressure/volume should
equalize from left to right. This would leave me with not much to
change to cause more cooling air to go from the left to the right -
meaning that I probably have to live with the differences.
Alternatively, maybe it's not really hotter...the two sets of CHT wires
for the left side (both equal length) are about three feet longer than
the ones for the right side (again, both equal length). Could the
difference in the lengths of the wires account for the reported
temperature difference?
I'm pretty close to thinking that this is as good as it gets...but I
would really like to know why...
Thanks,
Ralph
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! --
|