Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:55 AM - Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 03/15/10 (Lapsley R. and Sandra E. Caldwell)
2. 07:16 AM - Re: Continued: Preferred Method for Redundant Power Sources to Single Input (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 07:51 AM - Re: Running Big Battery Wire Through Firewall (John Grosse)
4. 12:12 PM - Z-19 question (Mark R. Supinski)
5. 01:56 PM - Re: Running Big Battery Wire Through Firewall (William Slaughter)
6. 02:29 PM - Re: Z-19 question (Sam Hoskins)
7. 02:29 PM - Re: Continued: Preferred Method for Redundant Power Sources to Single Input (jon@finleyweb.net)
8. 03:08 PM - Re: Running Big Battery Wire Through Firewall (John Grosse)
9. 03:27 PM - Re: Running Big Battery Wire Through Firewall (Richard Tasker)
10. 04:08 PM - OT: vacuum pump (ray)
11. 07:03 PM - Re: Running Big Battery Wire Through Firewall ()
12. 08:44 PM - Re: Running Big Battery Wire Through Firewall (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: | Re: AeroElectric-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 03/15/10 |
Fred
It would be interesting if you could remember if you could remember id
the position of the flaps about blowing the fuse was fully up or down.
Also keep in mind that there have been at least two versions of the Flap
drive mechanism.
As to the clutch, if you operate the flaps without the engine running
you can hear the flap clutch slip at the fully up or down position (if
you don have any limit switches installed).
Roger
On 3/16/2010 2:55 AM, AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote:
> Time: 04:53:31 AM PST US
> From: "Fred Stucklen"<wstucklen1@cox.net>
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: : Re: Flap motor draw for Rv-7A
>
> Interesting. I've tried 5 AMP fuses on three different RV's to date, and
> all blew the fuses while
>
> Trying to deploy the flaps during the first flight. Installing a 10 Amp
> fuse always solved the problem.
>
>
> Frederic Stucklen
>
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: Continued: Preferred Method for Redundant Power |
Sources to Single Input
At 07:18 PM 3/15/2010, you wrote:
>Hi Bob,
>
>Regarding this archive
>thread:
><http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272463#272463>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=272463#272463
>
>I am interested to know the answer to the final question. It was
>also the first question that came into my head after reading your
>response. I'm not sure whether or not the answer matters but suspect
>that knowing the answer will answer that question!! ;-)
>
>Gordon Smith wrote:
>"In this case when the two always-on sources differ by a volt or
>two, for whatever reason, Do the sources provide power
>proportionally to their voltage or will it be a 100% feed from the
>highest voltage source?"
The two either-or sources feeding a pair of diodes
need differ by only a few hundred millvolts for the
HIGHER of the two to pick up all loads downstream
of the diodes.
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: Running Big Battery Wire Through Firewall |
I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding something. The devices below look
more secure to me than a wire through a hole in the firewall filled with
fire putty. I can see that the bolt could conduct heat from a fire, but
then so could a wire. The concept with these devices seems the same to
me as a bulkhead fitting for hydraulic lines which is apparently okay.
So could someone explain why these electrical fittings are incompatible
with firewall security.
Thanks.
John Grosse
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 08:37 AM 3/10/2010, you wrote:
>>
>> David,
>>
>> I can tell you there is more than one way to skin a cat, but if you look
>> at one of the gazillion Piper Cherokees out there, the cable runs from
>> under the back seat along the left panel through the generally dry
>> rotted grand-daddy grommet to the contactor mounted on the firewall.
>> Size does matter but for 2 or 4 GA that won't make a difference. Good
>> enough for Piper...
>
> I don't think I've yet seen a commercial-off-the-shelf firewall
> feedthru where the insulating material would have stood off
> Jack Thermin's "puff the magic dragon" test. Electrically
> and mechanically, these critters function as advertised.
> The price is low and they seem adequately robust.
>
> However, if one subscribes to the notion of protecting
> firewall integrity with processes like . . .
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Firewall_Penetration/firewall.html
>
> then devices like . . .
>
> Emacs!
>
>
> and . . .
>
> Emacs!
> Are incompatible with the design goal cited in the
> article. So if your design goals include attention
> to details of fire-wall integrity, then perhaps
> single fat-wires are best brought through grommets
> with fire-shields and application of fire-putty
> per Tony B's writings.
>
> Bob . . .
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Hello all-
I have implemented Z-19 (dual battery, redundant main and engine
busses) for my bird. I would like to add the ability to easily hook
up a float trickle charger to the aircraft to keep both batteries
topped up while sitting in the hangar. Due to the design of Z-19,
however, I can't see a simple way to accomplish this that doesn't
result in the batteries being tied together in what would likely be an
undesireable way.
Is there a straight-forward way to do this? (without having to float
charge the batteries separately, thus requiring 2 chargers).
Thanks,
Mark
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: | Running Big Battery Wire Through Firewall |
The plastic insulator portion would be incinerated within seconds, leaving a
hole in the firewall for the fire to pass through to the cockpit.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Grosse
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Running Big Battery Wire Through Firewall
I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding something. The devices below look
more secure to me than a wire through a hole in the firewall filled with
fire putty. I can see that the bolt could conduct heat from a fire, but
then so could a wire. The concept with these devices seems the same to
me as a bulkhead fitting for hydraulic lines which is apparently okay.
So could someone explain why these electrical fittings are incompatible
with firewall security.
Thanks.
John Grosse
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 08:37 AM 3/10/2010, you wrote:
>>
>> David,
>>
>> I can tell you there is more than one way to skin a cat, but if you look
>> at one of the gazillion Piper Cherokees out there, the cable runs from
>> under the back seat along the left panel through the generally dry
>> rotted grand-daddy grommet to the contactor mounted on the firewall.
>> Size does matter but for 2 or 4 GA that won't make a difference. Good
>> enough for Piper...
>
> I don't think I've yet seen a commercial-off-the-shelf firewall
> feedthru where the insulating material would have stood off
> Jack Thermin's "puff the magic dragon" test. Electrically
> and mechanically, these critters function as advertised.
> The price is low and they seem adequately robust.
>
> However, if one subscribes to the notion of protecting
> firewall integrity with processes like . . .
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Firewall_Penetration/firewall.html
>
> then devices like . . .
>
> Emacs!
>
>
> and . . .
>
> Emacs!
> Are incompatible with the design goal cited in the
> article. So if your design goals include attention
> to details of fire-wall integrity, then perhaps
> single fat-wires are best brought through grommets
> with fire-shields and application of fire-putty
> per Tony B's writings.
>
> Bob . . .
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: Z-19 question |
Mark,
Yes there is. Simply connect a 16 gauge wire to the positive terminals of
each battery, and connected to a regular panel-type switch. When charging
the batteries, simply flip the switch on and both will charge.
It's working well in my setup.
Sam
www.samhoskins.blogspot.com
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 9:26 PM, Mark R. Supinski
<mark.supinski@gmail.com>wrote:
> mark.supinski@gmail.com>
>
> Hello all-
>
> I have implemented Z-19 (dual battery, redundant main and engine
> busses) for my bird. I would like to add the ability to easily hook
> up a float trickle charger to the aircraft to keep both batteries
> topped up while sitting in the hangar. Due to the design of Z-19,
> however, I can't see a simple way to accomplish this that doesn't
> result in the batteries being tied together in what would likely be an
> undesireable way.
>
> Is there a straight-forward way to do this? (without having to float
> charge the batteries separately, thus requiring 2 chargers).
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark
>
>
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: Continued: Preferred Method for Redundant Power |
Sources to Single Input
=0ASuper - Thanks Bob!=0A =0AJon=0A =0ADO NOT ARCHIVE=0A=0A-----Original Me
ssage-----=0AFrom: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com
>=0ASent: Tuesday, March 16, 2010 8:14am=0ATo: aeroelectric-list@matronics.
com=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Continued: Preferred Method for Redun
dant Power Sources to Single Input=0A=0AAt 07:18 PM 3/15/2010, you wrote:
=0AHi Bob,=0A =0ARegarding this archive thread: [http://forums.matronics.c
om/viewtopic.php?p=272463#272463] http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p
hp?p=272463#272463=0A =0AI am interested to know the answer to the final
question. It was also the first question that came into my head after readi
ng your response. I'm not sure whether or not the answer matters but suspec
t that knowing the answer will answer that question!! ;-) =0A =0AGordon
Smith wrote:=0A"In this case when the two always-on sources differ by a vol
t or two, for whatever reason, Do the sources provide power proportionally
to their voltage or will it be a 100% feed from the highest voltage source?
" =0A=0A The two either-or sources feeding a pair of diodes=0A need diffe
r by only a few hundred millvolts for the=0A HIGHER of the two to pick up
tp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List] http://www.matronics.co
=========
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: Running Big Battery Wire Through Firewall |
Okay, I get that. I thought that was a metal part. Guess I should have
checked the specs.
John
William Slaughter wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Slaughter"<william_slaughter@att.net>
>
> The plastic insulator portion would be incinerated within seconds, leaving a
> hole in the firewall for the fire to pass through to the cockpit.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
> Grosse
> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 7:19 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Running Big Battery Wire Through Firewall
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Grosse<grosseair@comcast.net>
>
> I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding something. The devices below look
> more secure to me than a wire through a hole in the firewall filled with
> fire putty. I can see that the bolt could conduct heat from a fire, but
> then so could a wire. The concept with these devices seems the same to
> me as a bulkhead fitting for hydraulic lines which is apparently okay.
> So could someone explain why these electrical fittings are incompatible
> with firewall security.
>
> Thanks.
>
> John Grosse
>
> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>> At 08:37 AM 3/10/2010, you wrote:
>>
>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by:<longg@pjm.com>
>>>
>>> David,
>>>
>>> I can tell you there is more than one way to skin a cat, but if you look
>>> at one of the gazillion Piper Cherokees out there, the cable runs from
>>> under the back seat along the left panel through the generally dry
>>> rotted grand-daddy grommet to the contactor mounted on the firewall.
>>> Size does matter but for 2 or 4 GA that won't make a difference. Good
>>> enough for Piper...
>>>
>> I don't think I've yet seen a commercial-off-the-shelf firewall
>> feedthru where the insulating material would have stood off
>> Jack Thermin's "puff the magic dragon" test. Electrically
>> and mechanically, these critters function as advertised.
>> The price is low and they seem adequately robust.
>>
>> However, if one subscribes to the notion of protecting
>> firewall integrity with processes like . . .
>>
>> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Firewall_Penetration/firewall.html
>>
>> then devices like . . .
>>
>> Emacs!
>>
>>
>> and . . .
>>
>> Emacs!
>> Are incompatible with the design goal cited in the
>> article. So if your design goals include attention
>> to details of fire-wall integrity, then perhaps
>> single fat-wires are best brought through grommets
>> with fire-shields and application of fire-putty
>> per Tony B's writings.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>>
>
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Running Big Battery Wire Through Firewall |
Because the plastic holder melts/burns/disappears in a fire, leaving a
hole for fumes (and possibly creating fumes), flames and a short from
the "bolt" to the firewall.
Dick Tasker
John Grosse wrote:
> <grosseair@comcast.net>
>
> I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding something. The devices below look
> more secure to me than a wire through a hole in the firewall filled
> with fire putty. I can see that the bolt could conduct heat from a
> fire, but then so could a wire. The concept with these devices seems
> the same to me as a bulkhead fitting for hydraulic lines which is
> apparently okay. So could someone explain why these electrical
> fittings are incompatible with firewall security.
>
> Thanks.
>
> John Grosse
>
> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>> At 08:37 AM 3/10/2010, you wrote:
>>>
>>> David,
>>>
>>> I can tell you there is more than one way to skin a cat, but if you
>>> look
>>> at one of the gazillion Piper Cherokees out there, the cable runs from
>>> under the back seat along the left panel through the generally dry
>>> rotted grand-daddy grommet to the contactor mounted on the firewall.
>>> Size does matter but for 2 or 4 GA that won't make a difference. Good
>>> enough for Piper...
>>
>> I don't think I've yet seen a commercial-off-the-shelf firewall
>> feedthru where the insulating material would have stood off
>> Jack Thermin's "puff the magic dragon" test. Electrically
>> and mechanically, these critters function as advertised.
>> The price is low and they seem adequately robust.
>>
>> However, if one subscribes to the notion of protecting
>> firewall integrity with processes like . . .
>>
>> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Firewall_Penetration/firewall.html
>>
>> then devices like . . .
>>
>> Emacs!
>>
>>
>> and . . .
>>
>> Emacs!
>> Are incompatible with the design goal cited in the
>> article. So if your design goals include attention
>> to details of fire-wall integrity, then perhaps
>> single fat-wires are best brought through grommets
>> with fire-shields and application of fire-putty
>> per Tony B's writings.
>>
>> Bob . . .
>
>
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 |
|
Hope some of you composite builders can help me. I just dug out a
vacuum pump I got a while ago. It didn't have any instructions with it.
I'm hoping for some info on the 2 jars on the inlet/outlet. Any info or
web site I can can find info on would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN.
do not archive
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: | Running Big Battery Wire Through Firewall |
The plastic from which they're made=2C (at least most of them) melts=2C the
n burns leaving you with flames on the "wrong" side of the firewall and an
open hole admitting more smoke and flames. Also you now have a bare=2C unin
sulated=2C live heavy wire=2C (stud) arcing like crazy against the firewall
sheetmetal. Doesn't seem like a "safe" penetration to me. The intumescent
caulk idea swells up with heat keeping the hole sealed and insulating the i
nterior from flames and smoke and preventing the wires=2C even if they them
selves are compromised=2C from shorting to the firewall.
Bob McC
> Date: Mon=2C 15 Mar 2010 19:18:30 -0500
> From: grosseair@comcast.net
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Running Big Battery Wire Through Firewall
>
et>
>
> I'm sorry=2C but I'm not understanding something. The devices below look
> more secure to me than a wire through a hole in the firewall filled with
> fire putty. I can see that the bolt could conduct heat from a fire=2C but
> then so could a wire. The concept with these devices seems the same to
> me as a bulkhead fitting for hydraulic lines which is apparently okay.
> So could someone explain why these electrical fittings are incompatible
> with firewall security.
>
> Thanks.
>
> John Grosse
>
> Robert L. Nuckolls=2C III wrote:
> > At 08:37 AM 3/10/2010=2C you wrote:
> >>
> >> David=2C
> >>
> >> I can tell you there is more than one way to skin a cat=2C but if you
look
> >> at one of the gazillion Piper Cherokees out there=2C the cable runs fr
om
> >> under the back seat along the left panel through the generally dry
> >> rotted grand-daddy grommet to the contactor mounted on the firewall.
> >> Size does matter but for 2 or 4 GA that won't make a difference. Good
> >> enough for Piper...
> >
> > I don't think I've yet seen a commercial-off-the-shelf firewall
> > feedthru where the insulating material would have stood off
> > Jack Thermin's "puff the magic dragon" test. Electrically
> > and mechanically=2C these critters function as advertised.
> > The price is low and they seem adequately robust.
> >
> > However=2C if one subscribes to the notion of protecting
> > firewall integrity with processes like . . .
> >
> > http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Firewall_Penetration/firewall.html
> >
> > then devices like . . .
> >
> > Emacs!
> >
> >
> > and . . .
> >
> > Emacs!
> > Are incompatible with the design goal cited in the
> > article. So if your design goals include attention
> > to details of fire-wall integrity=2C then perhaps
> > single fat-wires are best brought through grommets
> > with fire-shields and application of fire-putty
> > per Tony B's writings.
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
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: Running Big Battery Wire Through Firewall |
At 07:18 PM 3/15/2010, you wrote:
>
>I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding something. The devices below
>look more secure to me than a wire through a hole in the firewall
>filled with fire putty. I can see that the bolt could conduct heat
>from a fire, but then so could a wire. The concept with these
>devices seems the same to me as a bulkhead fitting for hydraulic
>lines which is apparently okay. So could someone explain why these
>electrical fittings are incompatible with firewall security.
The legacy wire penetration technique calls for
bringing the wire through a standard grommet which
is then all but totally covered on the engine side
with a two-piece stainless steel shield. See:
http://tinyurl.com/ycx9dv9
This combination of hardware provides for physical
security of the firewall penetration and a good deal
of protection for the grommet against fuel-fed fire.
The final touch is addition of the fire-putty fillet
around the wire and to cover about half the surface
area of the grommet on the engine side. This
adds relative gas-tightness for CO and protection
of the exposed insulation/grommet from fire.
Bob . . .
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! --
|