Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:52 AM - Question on Z-13 in revision 12A (Jason Beaver)
2. 02:59 AM - Re: Z-19 question (Dennis & Anne Glaeser)
3. 04:05 AM - Re: Re: Knuckolls Z-12 Power Grid Questions (Valin & Allyson Thorn)
4. 06:24 AM - Re: Firewall penetration (Richard O Carden)
5. 06:24 AM - Re: Knuckolls Z-12 Power Grid Questions (user9253)
6. 06:57 AM - Re: Question on Z-13 in revision 12A (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 07:28 AM - RV ballscrew flap actuator performance (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 09:27 AM - How to tighten switch ring without scratching? (rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us)
9. 10:21 AM - Re: How to tighten switch ring without scratching? (George, Neal E Capt USAF ACC 505 TRS/DOJ)
10. 11:07 AM - Re: How to tighten switch ring without scratching? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 11:29 AM - Re: How to tighten switch ring without scratching? (RGent1224@aol.com)
12. 06:31 PM - Re: Slowing down the trim (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 11:04 PM - Question about plumbing air, not electrons (rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us)
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: | Question on Z-13 in revision 12A |
I noticed that the e-bus alternate feed design changed from revision 11 to revision
12A. In revision 11, the alternate feed path used a 7A fuse and was wired
with 16AWG and a 20AWG fuselink. In 12A, it uses an 15A fuse and is wired with
14AWG, but still uses a 20AWG fuselink. Is this correct, or should it now
use an 18AWG fuselink?
Also at 7A, the formally specified 16AWG wire will already have a 10C temp rise,
and the 20AWG fuselink would have a 35C temp rise. If we size the wires for
a 15A feed at the same temperature rise, shouldn't we use a 10AWG wire with a
14AWG fuselink? At 15A, the currently specified 14AWG already has a 35C temp
rise and have no idea how hot an 18AWG or 20AWG fuselink would be.
Am I missing something?
thanks,
jason
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: Z-19 question |
I have a cigarette lighter receptacle for each battery, fused off each
battery's hot bus, on my IP.
I made up a "Y" for my battery charger with lighter plugs, so when I want to
charge the batteries, I just plug it into the receptacle(s).
Dennis Glaeser
------------------------------------------------------
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
undesirable 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 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: Knuckolls Z-12 Power Grid Questions |
Thanks Joe. Bob and you have convinced me that the Z-12 with the E-Bus
set up this way is optimized. BTW, my AeroElectric Connection Rev 11
book doesn't have a Z-11 design in it. Guess yours is older...?
The process of thinking through the logic behind the architecture, with
yours and Bob's help, has been very helpful.
Thanks again,
Valin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
user9253
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 6:26 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Knuckolls Z-12 Power Grid Questions
<fran4sew@banyanol.com>
> "On the avionics contactor relay, I thought the diode was for if it
was switching inductive loads to prevent back EMF. Is a diode still
recommended for an avionics bus with resistive loads? Do I misunderstand
the diodes role here?"
A relay has two (or more) circuits. The coil is one circuit and the
relay contacts are in another circuit. The two circuits can be
completely isolated from each other. The purpose of a diode connected
across a relay (or contactor) coil is to protect the controlling switch
from high voltage spark generated by the relay coil when it is shut off
by the switch. That high voltage has nothing to do with the load on the
relay contacts, whether that load is inductive or resistive. In fact, a
relay coil will produce a high voltage when it is shut off, even if
nothing at all is connected to the relay contacts. The bigger the coil,
the bigger the spark. A relay coil will not make as big of a spark as a
contactor coil. Connecting a diode across a relay coil will prolong the
life of the switch that controls it. The diode arrow should point
towards positive.
> "Thanks for pointing out that the avionics relay is a single point
failure. What do you guys think about getting one fault tolerant by
having two avionics bus relays/switches in parallel
-=C3=A2=82=AC=9C maybe one passing power from the Battery Bus
and one from the System Bus?"
Yes, that will work. What you are proposing is similar to the E-Bus.
And it is similar to what I proposed in my previous post, although I
might not have explained it clearly. Even if you do use two relays, the
diode must still be used to prevent high current from flowing from the
avionics bus (AKA E-Bus) to the system bus.
> "I'm not yet convinced that the Essential/Endurance Bus adds that much
value."
The important feature of an E-Bus is that is has two independent current
paths. It would be easy to turn your avionics bus into an E-Bus by
adding the alternate feed path from the battery bus and a diode to
prevent back-feeding the system bus.
> "It seems, though, that it might improve reliability more for Z-12 to
have dual parallel battery contactors."
Yes, that will work, but will cost more and weigh more than using a
relay and diode along with an E-Bus that will accomplish the same thing.
It can be satisfying to design one's own electrical system. However,
there could be failure modes that you might not be aware of. The big
advantage of using one of Bob's drawings is that they have been proven
over time and scrutinized by many eyes. Any bugs have been worked out.
Your schematic looks great in colors. After a couple of minor changes,
it will be similar to Z-11.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=290394#290394
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/e_bus_106.jpg
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: | Re: Firewall penetration |
Tony Bingelis shows how to make firewall penetration shields out of scrap firewall
material, see "Firewall Forward", p. 66-67. I made a handful of the two-piece
design out of left-over/scrap galvanized firewall material. Once you have
a pattern, the process goes quickly. Dick Carden
On Mar 17, 2010, at 2:55 AM, AeroElectric-List Digest Server wrote:
> *
>
> =================================================
> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> =================================================
>
> Today's complete AeroElectric-List Digest can also be found in either of the
> two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
> in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
> and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
> of the AeroElectric-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
> such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>
> HTML Version:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=html&Chapter 10-03-16&Archive=AeroElectric
>
> Text Version:
>
> http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter 10-03-16&Archive=AeroElectric
>
>
> ===============================================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ===============================================
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> 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" <lrsecaldwell@earthlink.net>
> 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"<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 _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 07:16:49 AM PST US
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
> 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>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 <grosseair@comcast.net>
> 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" <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 5 _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 01:56:41 PM PST US
> From: "William Slaughter" <william_slaughter@att.net>
> 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 <sam.hoskins@gmail.com>
>
> 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 _____________________________________
>
>
> 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" <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 _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 03:08:44 PM PST US
> From: John Grosse <grosseair@comcast.net>
> 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"<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 _____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 03:27:38 PM PST US
> From: Richard Tasker <retasker@optonline.net>
> 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:
>> <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 ____________________________________
>
>
> Time: 04:08:59 PM PST US
> From: ray <raymondj@frontiernet.net>
> 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: <robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
> 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" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
> 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 . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Re: Knuckolls Z-12 Power Grid Questions |
You are welcome, Valin
You can get an update to your book here: http://www.matronics.com/aeroelectric/R12A/AppZ_12A4.pdf
It includes Z-11.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=290592#290592
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: Question on Z-13 in revision 12A |
At 02:11 AM 3/17/2010, you wrote:
>
>I noticed that the e-bus alternate feed design
>changed from revision 11 to revision 12A. In
>revision 11, the alternate feed path used a 7A
>fuse and was wired with 16AWG and a 20AWG
>fuselink. In 12A, it uses an 15A fuse and is
>wired with 14AWG, but still uses a 20AWG
>fuselink. Is this correct, or should it now use an 18AWG fuselink?
>
>Also at 7A, the formally specified 16AWG wire
>will already have a 10C temp rise, and the
>20AWG fuselink would have a 35C temp rise. If
>we size the wires for a 15A feed at the same
>temperature rise, shouldn't we use a 10AWG wire
>with a 14AWG fuselink? At 15A, the currently
>specified 14AWG already has a 35C temp rise and
>have no idea how hot an 18AWG or 20AWG fuselink would be.
>
>Am I missing something?
Sort of. The Z-figures are NOT detailed wiring diagrams for
your airplane. They're suggestions for architectures that
offer failure tolerant solutions to design goals.
The sizes of batteries, alternators, wires, breakers, contactors,
relays, switches and the quantities of such things are dependent
on your particular suite of components.
While strict observance of any suggested wire sizes in a Z-figure
will yield a 'functional' system, it may not conform to the
best we know how to do. Check out examples of e-bus architectures
across the various Z-figures, they're not identical. And don't
get wrapped around the AC43-13 wire-sizing exercise axle. Suggest
you size wires using suggested current ratings in the chart
on page 8-8. Keep in mind too that the 'ratings' are EXCEEDINGLY
conservative. 20A through a 22AWG wire doesn't smoke it. See:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wire/22AWG_20A.pdf
Finally, if a fusible link is to FUNCTION as a fusible
link, then it MUST be thermally stressed at some level
much greater than the feeder it protects, so yes, it
will run warmer than the feeder.
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: | RV ballscrew flap actuator performance |
At 06:49 AM 3/16/2010, you wrote:
>Caldwell" <lrsecaldwell@earthlink.net>
>
>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).
The "slip clutch" on commonly used ball-screw actuators
are a bit deceiving. When one holds an unmounted actuator
in hand, the ball-nut seems to magically "disconnect" and
spins freely at each end of travel. This type of nut
features non-circulating balls held in a cage. The grooves
in the nut are not matched to the screw (helical) but
are instead circular raceways. See:
http://tinyurl.com/ylkv85l
When the ballscrew is working in the normal mode between
stroke limits, the cage is driven by the balls and rotates
at 1/2 the velocity as the nut. But at the end of travel,
the cage hits a stop pin which locks it to the screw.
The balls now slip in their circular raceways.
When the nut-screw junction is not axially loaded, the
'freewheeling' effect is quite pronounced. One gets
the impression that there's a near total disconnect
for energy from the motor. However, when the actuator
is loaded (like at end of travel for extending flaps),
the load shedding to the motor is not so pronounced.
In fact, when operating the actuator at it's full
load capabilities (which is probably many hundreds
of pounds) there IS a sharp INCREASE in load on the
motor as the actuator hits the stop.
Yes, the 'slip clutch' does a nice job of replacing
limit switches in terms of setting absolute limits
on system stroke but there are electrical considerations
driven by how much the current spikes at end of travel.
Obviously, retracting flaps has very low force on the ball-
nut at up-limit. Further, exercising flaps on the
ground suggests that the end-of-travel event
for flaps extension is pretty benign too. AND IT
MAY BE no big deal in flight . . . if real force
is say 200 pounds out of a 1000 pound rated ball-screw.
The point is, until somebody puts the gauges on
it to go find out, we can debate the DESIGN of
flap system circuits for a long time. I suspect
the extend-limit spike is rather benign given that
many folks have told us they're flying with 10A
or even 5A fuses to protect the motor circuit.
Just be aware that until you actually fly the
airplane to load the flaps -AND- depending on how
long you hold the flap switch in the DOWN position
after the system reaches the limit is what sizes
the fuse.
It would be interesting and most useful if we
could get some in-flight current measurements
on extend-limit current draw with the airplane
flying at the IAS limit (top of the white arc)
for full flap extension.
Bob . . .
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: | How to tighten switch ring without scratching? |
I have some nice knurled threaded switch rings I purchased from B+C. How
do i tighten without scratching off the black finish?
Thx.
Ron
Parigoris
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: | How to tighten switch ring without scratching? |
Set the knurled ring to give the desired projection on the front of the
panel, and tighten the hex nut on the back side.
Neal
====================
I have some nice knurled threaded switch rings I purchased from B+C. How do
i tighten without scratching off the black finish?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
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 |
|
| Subject: | How to tighten switch ring without scratching? |
That works. I've ground wrenches down to VERY thin cross-section
for just that purpose. Of course, this pre-supposes that you
can get enough "swing" on the wrench between .8" spaced switches
to do the job.
There ARE nut-drivers specific to this task. I've not looked for one
in many years and I had some difficulty finding it then. Don't
recall now where I located it. There is RISK too that the knurled
nuts you have on hand are not fabricated to the same dimensions
as the driver you purchase. There is no doubt a standard practice
form factor for nuts made in the US over the years. But then,
EVERYBODY thinks they can build nuts nowadays. One fewer or greater
peaks in the knurl and the driver won't fit.
This is one reason why I abandoned the use of the decorative
nuts some years ago and went 100% to hex nuts. I have some special
nut drivers which I have smoothed, put radii on sharp corners,
and otherwise polished so that they cannot scratch a panel.
Bob . . .
At 12:15 PM 3/17/2010, you wrote:
Set the knurled ring to give the desired projection on the front of the
panel, and tighten the hex nut on the back side.
Neal
====================
I have some nice knurled threaded switch rings I purchased from B+C. How do
i tighten without scratching off the black finish?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
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: How to tighten switch ring without scratching? |
Put electrical tape on the jaws of your pliers/wrench
Dick
In a message dated 3/17/2010 11:28:15 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
rparigor@suffolk.lib.ny.us writes:
I have some nice knurled threaded switch rings I purchased from B+C. How
do i tighten without scratching off the black finish?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
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: Slowing down the trim |
>I realize that most people will not want to bother installing a
>separate 9 volt supply but it does work.
>For those interested the shack 5 amp regulator has a schematic and
>parts list on the back of the package.
>Contact me off-line for my trim schematic. It is in autocad format.
There was some discussion about trim speed control
here on the List some years back. The discussion
prompted (or grew out of) these two postings to
the website . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS//Flight/Trim/Two_Speed_Trim_2.pdf
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Trim_System_Failures.pdf
Bob . . .
Message 13
| 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: | Question about plumbing air, not electrons |
What sealant if any should I be using on 1/8" NPT connections for
pitot, static and AOA on instruments?
*Brass female and Brass male
*Brass female and Aluminum male
*Brass female and Nylon male
*Aluminum female and Nylon male
Is it acceptable to
use.250" OD .125" ID Tygone tubing going over .1875"
OD(before single barb) nipple for pitot, static and AOA
plumbing? A little heat on tubing from a heat gun and it slides right
on.Would it be worth it to put a double wrap of .020" safty
wire on Tygon tubng near root to act as a clamp?
I have a two
pneumatic switches, one to select between static and total energy for Ilec
variometer and one to function to allowalternate static. these
switches have a stainless body with female 10-32 straight threaded ports.
The .1875' ODnipplesI want to use are male straight threaded
10-32 that come with a flat sealing washer. What if anything shouldI
be putting on threads as a sealant?
Thx.
Ron Parigoris
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! --
|