AeroElectric-List Digest Archive

Tue 06/08/10


Total Messages Posted: 16



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
    Time: 02:13:26 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics
    From: James Kilford <james@etravel.org>
    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
    Time: 06:08:32 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Ammeter, voltmeter and other diagnostics
    From: Walter Fellows <walter.fellows@GMAIL.COM>
    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
    Time: 06:12:09 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Com antenna
    From: Bill Boyd <sportav8r@gmail.com>
    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
    Time: 06:55:34 AM PST US
    From: "Glaeser, Dennis" <dennis.glaeser@hp.com>
    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
    Time: 09:15:18 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    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
    Time: 09:35:28 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    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
    Time: 10:44:04 AM PST US
    From: Lincoln Keill <airlincoln@sbcglobal.net>
    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
    Time: 10:50:47 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    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
    Time: 10:56:54 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    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
    Time: 10:59:48 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    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
    Time: 11:41:33 AM PST US
    From: "Glaeser, Dennis" <dennis.glaeser@hp.com>
    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
    Time: 01:05:49 PM PST US
    From: BobsV35B@aol.com
    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
    Time: 04:01:43 PM PST US
    From: "Bob Lee" <flyboybob1@gmail.com>
    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
    Time: 05:16:14 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: labeling panel
    From: bob noffs <icubob@gmail.com>
    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
    Time: 06:01:29 PM PST US
    From: "Ralph & Maria Finch" <ralphmariafinch@gmail.com>
    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
    Time: 07:34:04 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    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

  • 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
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse AeroElectric-List 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.

    -- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --