Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:13 AM - Re: Re: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics (James Kilford)
2. 06:08 AM - Re: Re: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics (Walter Fellows)
3. 06:12 AM - Re: Com antenna (Bill Boyd)
4. 06:55 AM - IVO Electronic CB report (Glaeser, Dennis)
5. 09:15 AM - Re: IVO Electronic CB report (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 09:35 AM - Re: Re: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 10:44 AM - twisted pairs -- turns per inch (Lincoln Keill)
8. 10:50 AM - Re: Re: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 10:56 AM - Re: twisted pairs -- turns per inch (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 10:59 AM - Re: Re: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 11:41 AM - Re: IVO Electronic CB report (Glaeser, Dennis)
12. 01:05 PM - Re: Re: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics (BobsV35B@aol.com)
13. 04:01 PM - Re: Re: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics (Bob Lee)
14. 05:16 PM - Re: labeling panel (bob noffs)
15. 06:01 PM - Re: twisted pairs -- turns per inch (Ralph & Maria Finch)
16. 07:34 PM - Re: twisted pairs -- turns per inch (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: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics |
Stan,
I don't think for a second that the system should be idiot-proof.
I've been designing software for a long time, and as soon as you try
and make it idiot-proof, all sorts of idiots start breaking the
system!
However, it makes perfect sense to me to have a known fallback
position. That's all. If things go pop in the cockpit, there's a
known mode for the system to operate in that has some redundancy, has
known limitations, but at the end of the day is just a battery and a
few devices, and that really appeals to me, a low hours pilot.
One thing that does come across in your messages, and in Bob's, is
that thinking about things in advance is obviously the best thing.
Perhaps I need to take more of a Bob-centric approach to other systems
in the plane, e.g. what happens if I lose my xyz instrument? Or some
other system.
James
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 5:42 AM, <Speedy11@aol.com> wrote:
> Bob,
> I'll attempt to explain myself inthe fewest words.
> I meant no offense to you. Your concepts are excellent and your
> contribution to aviation and aviation safety is renowned. We all owe you -
> some of us in treasury and others for our lives.
> 1. I say, yes, DEPEND on electrical information while airborne. I do DEPEND
> on cockpit information whileairborne - whether it is electrical
> information, or something else, such as airspeed indication. I analyze
> presented information (electrical or otherwise) to determine if the system
> is properly functioning. If my airspeed indicationappears to beerroneous,
> I have several backup plans. If my electrical indications are non-normal, I
> have several backup plans. The backup plans are not crisis management in
> the cockpit nor are they devised "on the fly."
> 2. I concur that investigation, deduction, design and planning are best done
> on the ground. Crisis management should not be done in the cockpit.
> Management of a crisis is preplanned - detailed thought in advance is
> vital. Having a detailed plan of action for all of the situations you can
> expect allows you to adjust when an unplanned situation presents itself.
> That has happened to me several times - once when a never-happened-before
> malfunction occurred and forced me to eject. Ground preparation is critical
> to success in a non-normal situation and cockpit information is critical to
> assessing the situation and making the correct decision.
> 3. I can guarantee you that my desire for cockpit information is not due to
> "a lack of confidence in understanding the system." I, and I suspect all
> pilots, study our aircraft systems in detail and have a plan of attack in
> the event of systems failures. Implementation of your electrical concepts,
> say Z-11,should not preclude having electrical information in the cockpit.
> Furthermore, that information can help the pilotanalyze the malfunction -
> whichwill lead to a better decision.
> 4. I'll bet a dollar that if the membership of this list were polled, the
> consensus perception would be as James described - that is, your
> electricalplan B is intended to make airborne decisions simpler - or put
> another way,more "idiot-proof." So,if I havemisinterpreted your
> offerings, others likely have, too. You profess that fuses and/or circuit
> breakers should not be reachable by the pilot. You profess that pilots do
> not need electrical data in the cockpit for fear they may try to analyze
> that data instead of defaulting to plan B. Your concepts are well thought
> out, but the result (or perception) is that the pilot is removed from the
> decision process in the event of an electrical non-normal. Thus, the
> airplane is made more "idiot-proof."
> I have the highest regard forthe depth of your electrical knowledge. My
> decades of flying knowledge have proven to me that having information in the
> cockpit is important.
> As you have stated, analysisis best doneon the ground - I call that
> preparation. But, application must be done in the air. Information in the
> cockpit is important in any non-normal situation - even electrical.
> Regards,
> Stan Sutterfield
>
> He indicates that pilots should
> not use information about their electrical system to make assessments
> or decisions while airborne.
>
> No. Not DEPEND on information while airborne . . .
>
> Bob advocates having an electrical plan B that removes the PIC from
> the airborne decision process.
>
> No. The effective Plan-B MUST be crafted and understood by
> that same PIC. The PIC is very much in the loop. The task
> is to do all the investigation, deduction, design and
> planning ON THE GROUND. The cockpit is a lousy classroom
> for crisis management.
>
> By the way, these are not ideas unique to me. They have
> been handed down by generations of thoughtful
> students/teachers of the art and science of elegant
> systems design. What I've offered is not mere opinion
> but fact demonstrated by our ancestors.
>
> As you clearly explained, the intent is to make electrical problems
> idiot-proof. Nothing wrong with that as it can make aviation safer
> and simpler.
>
> I think you have mis-interpreted my offerings.
> "Idiot proof" was never a design goal.
>
> When one crafts a complex system wherein the
> smallest of failures represents a major operational
> problem (like a speck of rust clogging your carburetor
> jet) the prudent designer strives for failure tolerance.
>
> I have produced an analysis of the accident that
> totaled an expensive airplane, injured some folks
> and now plagues the lives of individuals who would
> MUCH rather be flying, water skiing, or reading
> a good book. All this expense, inconvenience,
> pain and taxation of $time$ came about because
> some individuals didn't know what they didn't know.
> They stacked extra goodies together with some
> notion of adding "safety" while in fact, crafting
> a system guaranteed to fail. Poor application of
> a $3 worth of components set the stage for $millions$
> of misery. This pilot had perhaps 30 seconds to do all
> the multi-tasking that was demanded of him before
> the inevitable came to pass.
>
> Adequate and accurate information about system operation
> and behavior in both normal and failure modes is necessary
> for REDUCING probability of failure, REDUCING the effects
> of any given failure and crafting a PLAN-B for comfortable
> management of said failure.
>
> But, the pilot in me wants information. For me, more information is better
>
> Absolutely . . . but a desire for lots of lights and
> dials in the cockpit and plans to sift offered
> data in flight suggests a lack of confidence
> in understanding the system.
>
>
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: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics |
I would be interested in the accident report for the situation Bob
describes, $3 or so of parts causing loss of life and so many $$ of damage.
On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 3:46 AM, <BobsV35B@aol.com> wrote:
> Good Morning Stan,
>
> Here I am a couple of days late getting to my mail, but I would like to
> comment. Just one low time pilot to another low time pilot. <G>
>
> I like having the data for my personal perusal. My reasoning is about the
> same as yours. Thanks for the posting.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
> Do Not Archive
>
> In a message dated 6/4/2010 12:34:34 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
> Speedy11@aol.com writes:
>
>
> James,
> Design your electrical system to make you comfortable. If you are happy
> with Z-11, then use it.
> Realize that you can monitor amps and volts and still rely on your plan B.
> Personally, (17k hours in mil, airline, GA (owned 9-built 1), 98% of time
> in VMC) I prefer having information in my cockpit. I cannot make decisions
> without information. Any plan B, whether electric-related or not, cannot
> make decisions for me. As PIC, I have to make decisions - and I need
> information to make decisions.
> In my RV-8A, I display and monitor amps at two locations and voltage on the
> main and standby busses. I guess I'm a control freak, but when it comes to
> being PIC, that could be a good thing.
> Bob N has bucket loads of electrical knowledge and my hat is off to him for
> sharing with and educating ignorant people like myself. But, when it comes
> to operating an airplane, I differ with his opinion. I prefer to have more,
> not less, information in my cockpit.
> What one does with that information is another story - and that is where
> Bob's concept comes into play. He indicates that pilots should not use
> information about their electrical system to make assessments or decisions
> while airborne. Bob advocates having an electrical plan B that removes the
> PIC from the *airborne* decision process. As you clearly explained, the
> intent is to make electrical problems idiot-proof. Nothing wrong with that
> as it can make aviation safer and simpler.
> But, the pilot in me wants information. For me, more information
> is better.
> You can build Z-11 and still display electrical information in the
> cockpit. The displayed electrical information may do nothing more
> than confirm what the flashing LV/OV light is telling you.
> Build it how you like it.
> Regards,
> Stan Sutterfield
> www.rv-8a.net
> do not archive
>
> Is this approach a good one? It makes sense to me, a
> daytime-VFR-for-the-foreseeable-future pilot, not to be trying to
> fathom electrical problems in-flight. Am I missing something though?
> Any thoughts you might have on the subject would be greatly
> appreciated.
>
> *
>
> ===================================
> List href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> ====================================ms.matronics.com/">http://forums.matronics.com
> ===================================
> tp://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> ===================================
> *
>
> *
>
> *
>
>
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 |
|
Yeah, until the transmitter power amp stage folds-back at higher SWR to
protect the output transistor - that's a performance-killer, sometimes.
Bandwidth can matter...
>>Don't worry about bandwidth. Proximity effects
of conductors for de-tuning and/or pattern
modification are profoundly more hazardous to
performance than SWR.<<
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 12:50 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>
>
> The winglet height is adequate for the 20.3 inch vertical limb. I would use
> the Miracle Whip, but it is too long for the winglet height.
>
> I considered extending it along the outer wing foam with the last 1/2 of
> the tip in the vertical part of the winglet, but that would require quite a
> bit of surgery to bury the base load box in the wing foam near the center of
> the wing and might compromise the foam-skin stress structure of the wing( a
> definite no go there option).
>
> Agreed.
>
>
> I could go to an external whip antenna with a ground plane of wire or
> aluminum, but I would prefer not to add parasitic drag. The wingtip idea is
> less invasive surgery.
>
> Okay. How about a 1/4 wave with 'half' a ground
> plane? Run a 21 inch piece of copper up the winglet
> and two to five radials into the foam toward the
> fuselage. Connect all the radials together at the
> coax shield, center conductor to the winglet radiator
> and ditch the donuts.
>
> Don't worry about bandwidth. Proximity effects
> of conductors for de-tuning and/or pattern
> modification are profoundly more hazardous to
> performance than SWR.
>
>
> 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 |
|
Subject: | IVO Electronic CB report |
Bob,
I had the opportunity to put a scope on the circuit this past weekend. I sent
a photo of the screen (jpg) file to your AeroElectric email address, because sending
attachments to the Matronics list doesn't work. But I don't know if your
email accepts attachments either. I can put the photo up on a website if necessary,
let me know.
When the motor is running, the collector of Q103 sees 5V. When the limit current
is reached, the voltage at the gate of Q114 drops in about 200ms.
Dennis Glaeser
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: IVO Electronic CB report |
At 08:55 AM 6/8/2010, you wrote:
><dennis.glaeser@hp.com>
>
>Bob,
>
>I had the opportunity to put a scope on the circuit this past
>weekend. I sent a photo of the screen (jpg) file to your
>AeroElectric email address, because sending attachments to the
>Matronics list doesn't work. But I don't know if your email accepts
>attachments either. I can put the photo up on a website if
>necessary, let me know.
>
>When the motor is running, the collector of Q103 sees 5V. When the
>limit current is reached, the voltage at the gate of Q114 drops in about 200ms.
Yes, I saw your picture. I thought I had replied
and thanked you for the effort. In any case, you've
validated the paper-work that went into the design.
How do you plan to package the accessory? Others
on the List might find value in seeing how it
goes together.
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: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics |
One thing that does come across in your messages, and in Bob's, is
that thinking about things in advance is obviously the best thing.
Perhaps I need to take more of a Bob-centric approach to other systems
in the plane, e.g. what happens if I lose my xyz instrument? Or some
other system.
Exactly! . . . except that the processes I've been
recommending have nothing to do with any original
material or thought processes on my part. Failure Modes
Effects Analysis is an armchair exercise that brightly
illuminates . . .
(1) the evaluator's understanding of the system
design goals . . .
(2) the simple-ideas that went into fabrication . . .
(3) effectiveness of the design in meeting design
goals . . .
(4) the potential effects on outcome of a flight
by failure of any single part. See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Failure%20Modes%20Effects%20Analysis.pdf
Every system aboard a type-certificated aircraft
gets this microscopic analysis during the
certification process. After a few FMEA
experiences, a designer tends to incorporate
the FMEA thought processes throughout the design,
development and testing processes.
The goal is to minimize complexity, weight, cost
of ownership, and hazards due to inevitable failures.
A huge benefit can be realized by designs so
elegant that the pilot can deal with ANY single
failure with an absolute minimum of distraction
-OR- hazard for having reacted to a failure event
based on an erroneous deduction.
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: | twisted pairs -- turns per inch |
I'm now installing a roll servo in the right wing of my RV-7A and I know I
read this somewhere in the AEC but can't find it now -- how many twists per
inch (or per foot) should there be for a twisted pair of 22 AWG wires (doe
s this vary by wire size?)? -Also, is grounding the negative lead for the
servo out at the wing going to possibly create problems that could be elim
inated by running the ground back to the firewall grounding block? -Thank
s.
Do not archive
Lincoln KeillRV-7A
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: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics |
At 11:42 PM 6/7/2010, you wrote:
Bob,
I'll attempt to explain myself in the fewest words.
I meant no offense to you. Your concepts are excellent and your
contribution to aviation and aviation safety is renowned. We all owe
you - some of us in treasury and others for our lives.
No offense taken. 1800 other folks have an opportunity
to read this exchange and I'm only attempting to
maximize the benefits for taking the time to do
it . . .
1. I say, yes, DEPEND on electrical information while airborne. I do
DEPEND on cockpit information while airborne - whether it is
electrical information, or something else, such as airspeed
indication. I analyze presented information (electrical or
otherwise) to determine if the system is properly functioning. If my
airspeed indication appears to be erroneous, I have several backup
plans. If my electrical indications are non-normal, I have several
backup plans. The backup plans are not crisis management in the
cockpit nor are they devised "on the fly."
But you're speaking of data important to
the OPERATION of the airplane where missing or
bad data increases risk. One does have a
dependence on the quality of such data.
2. I concur that investigation, deduction, design and planning are
best done on the ground. Crisis management should not be done in the
cockpit. Management of a crisis is pre-planned - detailed thought in
advance is vital. Having a detailed plan of action for all of the
situations you can expect allows you to adjust when an unplanned
situation presents itself. That has happened to me several times -
once when a never-happened-before malfunction occurred and forced me
to eject. Ground preparation is critical to success in a non-normal
situation and cockpit information is critical to assessing the
situation and making the correct decision.
Here is where we may have a disconnect. I'm suggesting
that there is NO situation where the artfully crafted
and maintained electrical system offers ANY risk
for an 'unplanned' situation.
3. I can guarantee you that my desire for cockpit information is not
due to "a lack of confidence in understanding the system." I, and I
suspect all pilots, study our aircraft systems in detail and have a
plan of attack in the event of systems failures. Implementation of
your electrical concepts, say Z-11, should not preclude having
electrical information in the cockpit. Furthermore, that information
can help the pilot analyze the malfunction - which will lead to a
better decision.
Which goes to my question as to what single failure
in Z-13/8 where informing the pilot of any voltage
or current ANYWHERE in the system would aid in-flight
analysis of the situation and encourage an action
DIFFERENT than a prearranged Plan-B?
4. I'll bet a dollar that if the membership of this list were polled,
the consensus perception would be as James described - that is, your
electrical plan B is intended to make airborne decisions simpler - or
put another way, more "idiot-proof." So, if I have misinterpreted
your offerings, others likely have, too. You profess that fuses
and/or circuit breakers should not be reachable by the pilot. You
profess that pilots do not need electrical data in the cockpit for
fear they may try to analyze that data instead of defaulting to plan
B. Your concepts are well thought out, but the result (or
perception) is that the pilot is removed from the decision process in
the event of an electrical non-normal. Thus, the airplane is made
more "idiot-proof."
I prefer to call it free of distraction and
attendant risks for being distracted. I.e.,
no problems that are not comfortably handled
by Plan-B. Simplicity is part and parcel of
that goal.
I have the highest regard for the depth of your electrical
knowledge. My decades of flying knowledge have proven to me that
having information in the cockpit is important. As you have stated,
analysis is best done on the ground - I call that preparation. But,
application must be done in the air. Information in the cockpit is
important in any non-normal situation - even electrical.
Reliable OPERATIONAL information is not a component
of this discussion. DIAGNOSTIC information cannot
be utilized in flight without causing the observer
to be something other than a pilot. Do you not agree
that the elegant design offers a high probability for
comfortable termination of flight without taxing
the pilot with a decision making study based on
diagnostic data?
If this IS a noble and just cause, then what potential
failures does an architecture like Z-13/8 have that
would render any Plan-B ineffective and force the
pilot into a diagnostic mode? If any such failure
is identified, what voltage or current data points would
you add to the panel displays to isolate the failure?
What words would you add to emergency procedures in the
POH to assist in gathering, evaluating, and making a
useful decision based on available data?
To my way of thinking, the emergency procedures page
for the elegant electrical system is perhaps one
simple paragraph that requires NO analysis of data.
This has always been a design goal of the Z-figures
and the thrust of recipes for success offered in
Chapter 17.
As soon as we add data to the panel displays, there's
an implication of value. If that data has value
for reducing risk, then there is a presumption
that the pilot already knows how to use the
data. Alternatively you write more paragraphs into the
emergency procedures section.
This isn't about anyone's personal preferences to
put LOTS of numbers on the panel. It's about
the simple-idea that the numbers MEAN something.
If that meaning has anything to do with OPERATION
of the airplane, then it's part of the transition
training into the aircraft. If it's part of the
DIAGNOSTICS, then how do we confirm that the pilot
knows the significance of the numbers AND will
make good decisions therefrom?
I've had dozens of conversations with builders
over the counter at OSH where we considered his/
her decision to spend $killo$ on really nice
glass that puts LOTS of numbers on the panel.
My questions of that builder were always the same.
What numbers? What do they mean in terms of
operation or diagnostics? How do you plan to
use those numbers in flight? Are you going to
write and practice procedures for making
the correct decisions and taking the correct
actions? Most didn't have answers. This suggests
that the value of lots-of-numbers was not
known. This makes it almost a certainty that
during non-normal operations, availability
of lots of numbers will add to risk.
Of course, those are the extreme examples.
The question that started this thread was
an inquiry into what electrical system voltages
and/or currents are of greatest value to a pilot.
My question of ANYONE on the List remains: "Where
do we find value in knowing the numbers for more
voltages and currents and how would they
be used?"
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: twisted pairs -- turns per inch |
At 12:42 PM 6/8/2010, you wrote:
>I'm now installing a roll servo in the right wing of my RV-7A and I
>know I read this somewhere in the AEC but can't find it now -- how
>many twists per inch (or per foot) should there be for a twisted
>pair of 22 AWG wires (does this vary by wire size?)?
For the most part, twisting is a physical convenience
for bundling a group of wires while minimizing the
numbers of string-ties or tie-wraps necessary to
keep the wires in close proximity. 5 turns per
foot are enough, 10/ft are probably too tight.
> Also, is grounding the negative lead for the servo out at the wing
> going to possibly create problems that could be eliminated by
> running the ground back to the firewall grounding block? Thanks.
What do the manufacturer's drawings say? If I were
manufacturing an autopilot system, the servos
would get power from, signals from, and grounds
returned to the black box that holds the servo
drive electronics.
In other words, keep ALL wires to the servo
in close proximity bundle for full length of
the run. Ground the servo to assigned pin in
a connector or to the SAME ground as electronics
in black box that drives the servo.
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics |
At 08:06 AM 6/8/2010, you wrote:
>I would be interested in the accident report for the situation Bob
>describes, $3 or so of parts causing loss of life and so many $$ of damage.
There was no loss of life . . . only enduring injury.
This is a case in litigation where I'm a participant.
I'll publish a report on my findings when the case
is decided.
Bob . . .
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: IVO Electronic CB report |
Yes, I saw your picture. I thought I had replied and thanked you for the effort.
In any case, you've validated the paper-work that went into the design. How
do you plan to package the accessory? Others on the List might find value in seeing
how it goes together.
Bob . . .
----------------------
Great! I hadn't gotten a response (I'll have to check my junk filter) so I just
wanted to be sure the picture hadn't disappeared into the ether. Murphy's Law
has not yet been repealed.
The components were assembled on a Radio Shack circuit board. I bought a Radio
Shack Project Box to put it in, thinking (foolishly, as it turns out) that the
board would fit their box. I had to chop the board down to fit, so my previously
nice and neat circuit board now looks rather ugly, but it still works. I
will put some pictures up on a website in the near future showing what I did.
Dennis
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: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics |
Good Afternoon 'Lectric Bob,
I tend to be on Stan's side in this discussion though I find nothing wrong
with your viewpoint.
For one thing. I do not possess enough knowledge to really make an
intelligent decision on the subject.
However, after many decades guarding an autopilot while millions of miles
were flown, I do realize that I have often experienced operational modes
that were not covered by any of the well thought out and well engineered
systems I was charged with operating. There are always situations of
unintended consequences where we just don't have an applicable plan B.
I guess that is why we older folks tend to want a little bit of analytical
capability. There have been a number of cases where I spent an hour or two
talking to engineers who designed the system before a decision was made as
to how best to handle the situation.
As Always, It All Depends! <G>
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Do Not Archive
In a message dated 6/8/2010 12:52:04 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com writes:
At 11:42 PM 6/7/2010, you wrote:
Bob,
I'll attempt to explain myself in the fewest words.
I meant no offense to you. Your concepts are excellent and your
contribution to aviation and aviation safety is renowned. We all owe you - some
of
us in treasury and others for our lives.
No offense taken. 1800 other folks have an opportunity
to read this exchange and I'm only attempting to
maximize the benefits for taking the time to do
it . . .
1. I say, yes, DEPEND on electrical information while airborne. I do
DEPEND on cockpit information while airborne - whether it is electrical
information, or something else, such as airspeed indication. I analyze presented
information (electrical or otherwise) to determine if the system is
properly functioning. If my airspeed indication appears to be erroneous, I have
several backup plans. If my electrical indications are non-normal, I have
several backup plans. The backup plans are not crisis management in the
cockpit nor are they devised "on the fly."
But you're speaking of data important to
the OPERATION of the airplane where missing or
bad data increases risk. One does have a
dependence on the quality of such data.
2. I concur that investigation, deduction, design and planning are best
done on the ground. Crisis management should not be done in the cockpit.
Management of a crisis is pre-planned - detailed thought in advance is vital.
Having a detailed plan of action for all of the situations you can expect
allows you to adjust when an unplanned situation presents itself. That has
happened to me several times - once when a never-happened-before
malfunction occurred and forced me to eject. Ground preparation is critical to
success in a non-normal situation and cockpit information is critical to
assessing the situation and making the correct decision.
Here is where we may have a disconnect. I'm suggesting
that there is NO situation where the artfully crafted
and maintained electrical system offers ANY risk
for an 'unplanned' situation.
3. I can guarantee you that my desire for cockpit information is not due
to "a lack of confidence in understanding the system." I, and I suspect all
pilots, study our aircraft systems in detail and have a plan of attack in
the event of systems failures. Implementation of your electrical concepts,
say Z-11, should not preclude having electrical information in the
cockpit. Furthermore, that information can help the pilot analyze the malfunction
- which will lead to a better decision.
Which goes to my question as to what single failure
in Z-13/8 where informing the pilot of any voltage
or current ANYWHERE in the system would aid in-flight
analysis of the situation and encourage an action
DIFFERENT than a prearranged Plan-B?
4. I'll bet a dollar that if the membership of this list were polled, the
consensus perception would be as James described - that is, your electrical
plan B is intended to make airborne decisions simpler - or put another
way, more "idiot-proof." So, if I have misinterpreted your offerings, others
likely have, too. You profess that fuses and/or circuit breakers should
not be reachable by the pilot. You profess that pilots do not need
electrical data in the cockpit for fear they may try to analyze that data instead
of defaulting to plan B. Your concepts are well thought out, but the result
(or perception) is that the pilot is removed from the decision process in
the event of an electrical non-normal. Thus, the airplane is made more
"idiot-proof."
I prefer to call it free of distraction and
attendant risks for being distracted. I.e.,
no problems that are not comfortably handled
by Plan-B. Simplicity is part and parcel of
that goal.
I have the highest regard for the depth of your electrical knowledge. My
decades of flying knowledge have proven to me that having information in
the cockpit is important. As you have stated, analysis is best done on the
ground - I call that preparation. But, application must be done in the air.
Information in the cockpit is important in any non-normal situation - even
electrical.
Reliable OPERATIONAL information is not a component
of this discussion. DIAGNOSTIC information cannot
be utilized in flight without causing the observer
to be something other than a pilot. Do you not agree
that the elegant design offers a high probability for
comfortable termination of flight without taxing
the pilot with a decision making study based on
diagnostic data?
If this IS a noble and just cause, then what potential
failures does an architecture like Z-13/8 have that
would render any Plan-B ineffective and force the
pilot into a diagnostic mode? If any such failure
is identified, what voltage or current data points would
you add to the panel displays to isolate the failure?
What words would you add to emergency procedures in the
POH to assist in gathering, evaluating, and making a
useful decision based on available data?
To my way of thinking, the emergency procedures page
for the elegant electrical system is perhaps one
simple paragraph that requires NO analysis of data.
This has always been a design goal of the Z-figures
and the thrust of recipes for success offered in
Chapter 17.
As soon as we add data to the panel displays, there's
an implication of value. If that data has value
for reducing risk, then there is a presumption
that the pilot already knows how to use the
data. Alternatively you write more paragraphs into the
emergency procedures section.
This isn't about anyone's personal preferences to
put LOTS of numbers on the panel. It's about
the simple-idea that the numbers MEAN something.
If that meaning has anything to do with OPERATION
of the airplane, then it's part of the transition
training into the aircraft. If it's part of the
DIAGNOSTICS, then how do we confirm that the pilot
knows the significance of the numbers AND will
make good decisions therefrom?
I've had dozens of conversations with builders
over the counter at OSH where we considered his/
her decision to spend $killo$ on really nice
glass that puts LOTS of numbers on the panel.
My questions of that builder were always the same.
What numbers? What do they mean in terms of
operation or diagnostics? How do you plan to
use those numbers in flight? Are you going to
write and practice procedures for making
the correct decisions and taking the correct
actions? Most didn't have answers. This suggests
that the value of lots-of-numbers was not
known. This makes it almost a certainty that
during non-normal operations, availability
of lots of numbers will add to risk.
Of course, those are the extreme examples.
The question that started this thread was
an inquiry into what electrical system voltages
and/or currents are of greatest value to a pilot.
My question of ANYONE on the List remains: "Where
do we find value in knowing the numbers for more
voltages and currents and how would they
be used?"
Bob . . .
(http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List)
(http://www.matronics.com/contribution)
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: | Re: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics |
Bob, wrote:
<< Reliable OPERATIONAL information is not a component of this
discussion. DIAGNOSTIC information cannot be utilized in flight without
causing the observer to be something other than a pilot. Do you not agree
that the elegant design offers a high probability for comfortable
termination of flight without taxing the pilot with a decision making study
based on diagnostic data? >>
I have a friend that has an EIS and GPS system in his homebuilt. Each time
he takes a flight the EIS and GPS are connected to his laptop to gather data
every couple of seconds for every parameter monitored by these instruments.
When there is a problem he focuses on flying the airplane. Afther he has
landed safely, the data is in his laptop to go back and look at what
happened. There is a time for flying and a time for figuring out root cause
of problems. As I hear Bob, these are both important duties but only flying
is important while airborne. With all the digital equipment we are putting
in our airplanes, it is not a big step to connect it up to your laptop and
log all kinds of information to be used if and when we need it later to
solve a problem. If we look at this thread as finding ways to "log" all the
data we can during a flight rather than "displaying" all the information we
can during the flight, we will be the safest we can be; Design goal #1 for
everybody
Regards,
Bob Lee
Message 14
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: labeling panel |
thanks to all the input. i can't imagine getting my list right for all the
labels to be made at once. and one change or scratch and i would have to
order more labels. so i am going with the brothers labeler with white
letters on clear.
bob noffs
On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 7:33 PM, James Kilford <james@etravel.org> wrote:
> Bob,
>
> If you're not already committed to panel labelling... I've had really
> neat results using custom Letraset. I don't know if you have this
> stuff where you are -- it's rub-on lettering in sheets. Anyway, they
> also do custom sheets. You upload your artwork and they send you a
> sheet of transfers. Brilliant stuff.
>
> It's not cheap -- about =A375 for an A4 sheet -- but then again it's
> probably a lot cheaper than custom engraving, say. I fitted all the
> panel lettering, warnings, reference speeds, lines, boxes, placards,
> etc. onto one sheet.
>
> http://www.letraset.com/design/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=130&cat=Col
our
>
> (Photo of switch panel attached FYI)
>
> Once you've applied the lettering, etc., a coat of lacquer fixes the
> transfers.
>
> James
>
> On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 2:56 AM, bob noffs <icubob@gmail.com> wrote:
> > hi all,
> > i am ready to label switches etc. on my grey panel. i am using white
> > letters on a clear tape. what works best to keep the tapes ''level''?
> > masking tape or a light pencil mark maybe? how far below the switch as
a
> > rule of thumb? and the best way to remove the pencil line if that is th
e
> way
> > to go?
> > any info appreciated. bob noffs
> >
> ===========
> ===========
> ===========
> ===========
> >
> >
>
Message 15
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: | twisted pairs -- turns per inch |
Bob, if the twisted pair is shielded, where would you ground the shield?
Locally at the servo, or same place as the electronics?
Ralph Finch
Davis, California
RV-9A QB-SA
<nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
> Also, is grounding the negative lead for the servo out at the wing
> going to possibly create problems that could be eliminated by
> running the ground back to the firewall grounding block? Thanks.
What do the manufacturer's drawings say? If I were
manufacturing an autopilot system, the servos
would get power from, signals from, and grounds
returned to the black box that holds the servo
drive electronics.
In other words, keep ALL wires to the servo
in close proximity bundle for full length of
the run. Ground the servo to assigned pin in
a connector or to the SAME ground as electronics
in black box that drives the servo.
Bob . . .
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
database 5183 (20100608) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
Message 16
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: | twisted pairs -- turns per inch |
At 07:59 PM 6/8/2010, you wrote:
><ralphmariafinch@gmail.com>
>
>Bob, if the twisted pair is shielded, where would you ground the shield?
>Locally at the servo, or same place as the electronics?
Unless the instructions call for something different,
one end only and at the same end as the electronics
box.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
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! --
|