---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 03/16/10: 12 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:55:59 AM PST US From: "Lapsley R. and Sandra E. Caldwell" Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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" > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:16:49 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 > >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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:51:59 AM PST US From: John Grosse 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 4 _____________________________________ Time: 12:12:12 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Z-19 question From: "Mark R. Supinski" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 01:56:41 PM PST US From: "William Slaughter" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:29:31 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z-19 question From: Sam Hoskins 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:29:32 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Continued: Preferred Method for Redundant Power Sources to Single Input From: jon@finleyweb.net =0ASuper - Thanks Bob!=0A =0AJon=0A =0ADO NOT ARCHIVE=0A=0A-----Original Me ssage-----=0AFrom: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" =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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:08:44 PM PST US From: John Grosse Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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" > > 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 > > 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: >>> >>> 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:27:38 PM PST US From: Richard Tasker Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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: > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 04:08:59 PM PST US From: ray Subject: AeroElectric-List: OT: vacuum pump 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:03:10 PM PST US From: Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:44:28 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.