Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:09 AM - Re: Careful on the Google link garmin 195 (Werner Schneider)
2. 05:24 AM - Re: Careful on the Google link garmin 195 (Ed Anderson)
3. 08:02 AM - Re: Lithium batteries redux (Eric M. Jones)
4. 08:15 AM - Re: Lithium batteries redux (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 09:23 AM - Ok to bend uninsulated ring terminals? (plevyakh)
6. 11:41 AM - Re: Ok to bend uninsulated ring terminals? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 12:28 PM - Re: Ok to bend uninsulated ring terminals? (Ron Quillin)
8. 02:08 PM - Re: Ok to bend uninsulated ring terminals? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 03:06 PM - Re: Ok to bend uninsulated ring terminals? (plevyakh)
10. 08:37 PM - Re: Lithium batteries redux (Stuart Hutchison)
11. 08:43 PM - Is phenolic essentially fireproof? (Stuart Hutchison)
12. 09:13 PM - Re: Is phenolic essentially fireproof? (Tim Olson)
13. 11:15 PM - Re: Is phenolic essentially fireproof? (Dave Saylor)
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 |
|
Hello Ed,
Indeed but strange that that page still exists on the Garmin Web.
Going step by step on the page I edn up here:
<https://buy.garmin.com/shop/store/downloadsUpdates.jsp?product=010-00083-00&cID=169&pID=6412>
which tells no Software available.
Trying the the link to map updates fails as well....
For my good old 196 I still get updates.........
Werner
On 13.05.2011 17:40, Ed Anderson wrote:
> <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
>
> I would be careful about this garmin 195 update link on Google
>
> (http://www8.garmin.com/products/gpsmap195/download.html).
>
> The text indicates the last Garmin 195 SW update is listed as 2002, but
> more importantly if you go to the download charts from that link, you
> will find they have Updates but they are apparently not for the Garmin
> 195 as implied. They appear to be for the marine GSPMAP 400 series if
> you check the compatible units they list.
>
> Ed
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> From: "Werner Schneider" <glastar@gmx.net>
> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 10:44 AM
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: garmin 195
>
>> <glastar@gmx.net>
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>> google is your best friend (update garmin 195)
>>
>> http://www8.garmin.com/products/gpsmap195/download.html
>>
>> On 13.05.2011 13:02, bob noffs wrote:
>>> a little off topics but.........i just acquired a garmin 195 to use for
>>> a backup . works fine. i cant figure out if any updates for unit
>>> software or database are available. anyone have recent experience with
>>> this unit? as it is vfr backup not much of a deal if no updates are
>>> available.
>>> bob noffs
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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 |
|
Yes, Werner, I found the same webpage, indeed indicating that there is NO
software available and I presume that also means the data uploads. I may be
wrong about the exact date, but when I had my old 195 upgraded at Sun & Fun,
the vendor told me the last data update was somewhere around 2006- 2008 and
that there would be no more for it (at least out of Garmin)
Ed
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Werner Schneider" <glastar@gmx.net>
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 7:05 AM
Subject: Re: Careful on the Google link AeroElectric-List: garmin 195
> <glastar@gmx.net>
>
> Hello Ed,
>
> Indeed but strange that that page still exists on the Garmin Web.
>
> Going step by step on the page I edn up here:
>
> <https://buy.garmin.com/shop/store/downloadsUpdates.jsp?product=010-00083-00&cID=169&pID=6412>
>
> which tells no Software available.
>
> Trying the the link to map updates fails as well....
>
> For my good old 196 I still get updates.........
>
> Werner
>
> On 13.05.2011 17:40, Ed Anderson wrote:
>> <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
>>
>> I would be careful about this garmin 195 update link on Google
>>
>> (http://www8.garmin.com/products/gpsmap195/download.html).
>>
>> The text indicates the last Garmin 195 SW update is listed as 2002, but
>> more importantly if you go to the download charts from that link, you
>> will find they have Updates but they are apparently not for the Garmin
>> 195 as implied. They appear to be for the marine GSPMAP 400 series if
>> you check the compatible units they list.
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "Werner Schneider" <glastar@gmx.net>
>> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 10:44 AM
>> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: garmin 195
>>
>>> <glastar@gmx.net>
>>>
>>> Bob,
>>>
>>> google is your best friend (update garmin 195)
>>>
>>> http://www8.garmin.com/products/gpsmap195/download.html
>>>
>>> On 13.05.2011 13:02, bob noffs wrote:
>>>> a little off topics but.........i just acquired a garmin 195 to use for
>>>> a backup . works fine. i cant figure out if any updates for unit
>>>> software or database are available. anyone have recent experience with
>>>> this unit? as it is vfr backup not much of a deal if no updates are
>>>> available.
>>>> bob noffs
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
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: Lithium batteries redux |
> Capacity to weight is fine but I think there are other considerations... ...
Planes work best when the weight is held at a minimum. Each owner has to justify
the cost of a high tech lithium battery for himself.
> Noel
Noel et al: See the brilliant note on this in Bob's archives:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/economics_of_weight_reduction.html
You can do your own calculation on this but I'd guess that the Lithium Battery
is well worth using, and time will make this decision even easier.
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones@charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=339843#339843
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: | Lithium batteries redux |
At 12:22 AM 5/14/2011, you wrote:
G'day,
www.batteryuniversity.com is a useful resource. Isidor Buchmann is
very well regarded as an expert in these technologies.
Li-ion or Li-Po secondary cells (rechargeables) do not behave the
same way as older technologies like NiCd or NiMH or Lead
Acid. Lithium technologies have upper and lower voltage limits,
otherwise the battery is ruined. In other words, if you load a
Lithium battery and let it run down below the minimum voltage limit
(about 3V per cell), the battery will be ruined the first time you
use it. Therefore, these batteries must be connected to electronic
devices to control voltage. The correct chargers must also be
used. When used correctly, this also means that there is a LOT of
energy left in the battery even after the 'power meter' says the
battery is flat (such as on your computer) - enough to start a fire
if short circuited.
To be sure, the lithium batteries are not drop-in
replacements for your grandpa's tractor battery.
In spite of their relatively attractive energy/
weight/volume ratios, they are also fragile by
legacy standards.
There's been more than one tense discussion between
individuals-who-know-more-about-airplanes-than-we-do
and wannabe suppliers of lithium products to aviation.
When you put any battery in an airplane, the legacy
consensus is that the pilot should be allowed to
drag every watt-second of energy out in case of
an 'emergency'. The lithium wannabes were intent upon
shutting the battery off before the terminal voltage
dropped below a level that was damaging to the battery.
Never mind that either scenario happens with perhaps 5% of
the battery capacity remaining. Those who dictate
management of emergencies would rather that your
radios fade gracefully during the last few minutes of
your emergency as opposed to going dark " just to protect
a battery". Never mind that either scenario was but
a handful of minutes before total darkness.
Both factions were honorably driven by noble ideas
. . . and both were missing the whole point of
designing failure tolerant systems supported by
thoughtful preventative maintenance programs. The
idea that we can design systems that never put a
pilot into that situation seldom occurs. Except,
of course, for cases of maintenance neglect or
bad operational decisions.
Successful and comfortable integration of lithium
batteries into the plain-vanilla GA aircraft will
require some re-adjustment of attitudes and
demand more attention from the owner/operator to
compensate for the lithium battery's unique
limits.
. . . and yes, the writings of Isidor Buchmann are
a wealth of solid information and understanding of
battery function and performance.
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: | Ok to bend uninsulated ring terminals? |
Bob,
I'm installing my L-60 alternator and have an issue with clearance of the B-lead
nut and trying to install an uninsulated Ring Terminal (4AWG, .25" Stud).
The standard flat terminal directs the wire 90 degrees from the B-lead nut.
I need the wire to run AFT or parallel to the B-Lead post to be able to feed it
through my front right engine baffle and then towards the starter contactor sitting
on the firewall.
Is it acceptable to bend the uninsulated ring terminal 75 to 90 degrees? Or is
there a different #4AWG terminal I could use that would allow the wire to come
off the B-Lead post pointing AFT instead of perpendicular to the post?
Thanks,
Howard
--------
Howard Plevyak
GlaStar / North Bend, Ohio
hplevyak@mac.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=339847#339847
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: Ok to bend uninsulated ring terminals? |
At 12:20 PM 5/14/2011, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>I'm installing my L-60 alternator and have an issue with clearance
>of the B-lead nut and trying to install an uninsulated Ring Terminal
>(4AWG, .25" Stud). The standard flat terminal directs the wire 90
>degrees from the B-lead nut.
>
>I need the wire to run AFT or parallel to the B-Lead post to be able
>to feed it through my front right engine baffle and then towards the
>starter contactor sitting on the firewall.
>
>Is it acceptable to bend the uninsulated ring terminal 75 to 90
>degrees? Or is there a different #4AWG terminal I could use that
>would allow the wire to come off the B-Lead post pointing AFT
>instead of perpendicular to the post?
Sure. But one bend only. After all, the barrel
of a ring terminal is "bent" to form the barrel.
There are terminals with factory-bent flags that
accommodate the functionality you're needing. Those
products might be heat-treated after the bending
operation for stress relief . . . but not necessarily
so.
All metals have a relatively predictable behavior
with respect to stresses in the material and the
number of times that stress can be applied before
failure occurs.
I'm told that this characteristic gave rise to
an early-on requirement for running an engine
for 75 hours on a test stand as part of the
certification process. Not that 75 hours of 'service
life' was good enough. It was based on the premise
that if a ferrous (iron based) parts did not fail
in 10 million cycles at rated stresses, it wasn't
going to fail during service life due to overstress.
That didn't mean the engine wouldn't wear out in
200 hours . . . it just meant that it wasn't going
suffer breakage at those stress levels.
Non-ferrous parts (copper, alum, etc) behave a bit
differently. They DO have a stress-to-cycles service
life. Furthermore, it's a non-linear curve. For example:
You might bend your copper terminal over a 90 degree
flex say 10 times before it cracks. Change that
to 45 degrees and the number goes up markedly . . .
say 50 times. Change that to a vibratory oscillation
that deflects it just a fraction of a degree, and the
number might be in the millions of cycles . . . BUT IT
WILL break eventually, even at that small level of
deflection.
This is why wings have been known to fall off and cabin
tops have blown out of venerable airplanes. The
phenomenon can usually be traced to an error of analysis
for the stress-to-events ratio of the part that failed.
So you're safe in forming the flag on your terminals
as needed to accommodate the installation but strive
minimize the number of events for this very severe
stress on the material. Know that by doing this one
bend, you have reduced the service life by some
large but probably insignificant number (1 billion
down to 800 million????) for the as-installed
condition.
This is why it's a good idea to limit the stress
applied to such terminals by supporting the wire
as close as practical to the terminal or perhaps
fabricating the wire from some very flexible material
(like welding cable) to minimize that wire's ability
to apply a lever-moment (length x mass) to the
terminal.
Taking the b-lead wire immediately away from the
alternator to attach at some point on the airframe
does not offer much means for near-terminal support
of that wire. In fact, the terminal end will be
shaking with the amplitude of engine vibration
while the airframe end is much more stationary.
Can you leave the terminal flat, support the wire
close to the terminal and then route off to the
airframe?
The same admonition applies to bolting fat-wires to
the lead posts on many of the RG batteries we're
so fond of. Lead posts have a similarly non-linear
s/n to failure curve. In years past, we've heard
from builders who suffered a battery post failure
due to vibrations stresses of a 2AWG jumper wire
bolted to the battery.
This is why we've recommended 4AWG welding cable
jumpers from the (+) post to contactor and (-) post
to ground for such batteries . . . irrespective
of the size of fat wires elsewhere in the system.
You might want to consider a welding cable jumper
from your alternator's b-lead to where ever that
segment ties off to the rest of the system.
These are gross examples of what that copper sleeve
inside the insulator of a PIDG terminal is all about.
When you mashed the terminal on the wire, you placed
the wire under severe stress to achieve the gas-tight
connection. Support immediately adjacent to that
stress riser is key to long service life.
The terminal itself benefits from the same consideration
for reducing cyclic stresses to the material.
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: | Re: Ok to bend uninsulated ring terminals? |
On 5/14/2011 11:36, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 12:20 PM 5/14/2011, you wrote:
>>
>> Bob,
>> I'm installing my L-60 alternator and have an issue with clearance of
>> the B-lead nut and trying to install an uninsulated Ring Terminal
>> (4AWG, .25" Stud). The standard flat terminal directs the wire 90
>> degrees from the B-lead nut.
>>
>> I need the wire to run AFT or parallel to the B-Lead post to be able
>> to feed it through my front right engine baffle and then towards the
>> starter contactor sitting on the firewall.
>>
>> Is it acceptable to bend the uninsulated ring terminal 75 to 90
>> degrees? Or is there a different #4AWG terminal I could use that
>> would allow the wire to come off the B-Lead post pointing AFT instead
>> of perpendicular to the post?
>
> Sure. But one bend only. After all, the barrel of a ring terminal is
> "bent" to form the barrel.
> There are terminals with factory-bent flags that ccommodate the
> functionality you're needing. Those
> products might be heat-treated after the bending operation for
> stress relief . . . but not necessarily so.
I would suggest an effort to maximize the bend radius would also prove
wise to distribute stress, as opposed to a minimal radius 'sharp' 90
degree bend that would concentrate it; as one might obtain by clamping
the ring in a vise and whacking the crimp barrel over with a hammer
would likely produce.
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: Ok to bend uninsulated ring terminals? |
>I would suggest an effort to maximize the bend radius would also
>prove wise to distribute stress, as opposed to a minimal radius
>'sharp' 90 degree bend that would concentrate it; as one might
>obtain by clamping the ring in a vise and whacking the crimp barrel
>over with a hammer would likely produce.
Excellent point. If one has an 1/8" piece
of aluminum or mild steel from which to fabricate
a bend radius tool . . .
Emacs!
Bob. . .
>
>
>-----
>No virus found in this message.
>Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
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: Ok to bend uninsulated ring terminals? |
I'll try to maximize the bend radius and support the wire as well.
Thank-you both for the replies. Just what I needed to keep making progress.
Howard
--------
Howard Plevyak
GlaStar / North Bend, Ohio
hplevyak@mac.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=339857#339857
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: | Lithium batteries redux |
G'day Bob,
Yes. I was aslo thinking of those with utility lights or other loads coming
directly off the battery bus. If a load is left on for any reason, even a
new lithium battery could be rendered useless overnight (as it won't safely
accept a charge below the minimum operating voltage).
Kind regards, Stu
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 1:12 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Lithium batteries redux
--> <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
At 12:22 AM 5/14/2011, you wrote:
G'day,
www.batteryuniversity.com is a useful resource. Isidor Buchmann is very
well regarded as an expert in these technologies.
Li-ion or Li-Po secondary cells (rechargeables) do not behave the same way
as older technologies like NiCd or NiMH or Lead Acid. Lithium technologies
have upper and lower voltage limits, otherwise the battery is ruined. In
other words, if you load a Lithium battery and let it run down below the
minimum voltage limit (about 3V per cell), the battery will be ruined the
first time you use it. Therefore, these batteries must be connected to
electronic devices to control voltage. The correct chargers must also be
used. When used correctly, this also means that there is a LOT of energy
left in the battery even after the 'power meter' says the battery is flat
(such as on your computer) - enough to start a fire if short circuited.
To be sure, the lithium batteries are not drop-in
replacements for your grandpa's tractor battery.
In spite of their relatively attractive energy/
weight/volume ratios, they are also fragile by
legacy standards.
There's been more than one tense discussion between
individuals-who-know-more-about-airplanes-than-we-do
and wannabe suppliers of lithium products to aviation.
When you put any battery in an airplane, the legacy
consensus is that the pilot should be allowed to
drag every watt-second of energy out in case of
an 'emergency'. The lithium wannabes were intent upon
shutting the battery off before the terminal voltage
dropped below a level that was damaging to the battery.
Never mind that either scenario happens with perhaps 5% of
the battery capacity remaining. Those who dictate
management of emergencies would rather that your
radios fade gracefully during the last few minutes of
your emergency as opposed to going dark " just to protect
a battery". Never mind that either scenario was but
a handful of minutes before total darkness.
Both factions were honorably driven by noble ideas
. . . and both were missing the whole point of
designing failure tolerant systems supported by
thoughtful preventative maintenance programs. The
idea that we can design systems that never put a
pilot into that situation seldom occurs. Except,
of course, for cases of maintenance neglect or
bad operational decisions.
Successful and comfortable integration of lithium
batteries into the plain-vanilla GA aircraft will
require some re-adjustment of attitudes and
demand more attention from the owner/operator to
compensate for the lithium battery's unique
limits.
. . . and yes, the writings of Isidor Buchmann are
a wealth of solid information and understanding of
battery function and performance.
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: | Is phenolic essentially fireproof? |
G'day Bob,
Is cotton-based phenolic sheet or rod considered adequately fireproof for a
machined firewall passthrough?
Kind regards, Stu
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: Is phenolic essentially fireproof? |
Not really....some I've seen have temp ratings of 165-265F. Its more of an electrical
insulator....but I'm no expert.
Tim
On May 14, 2011, at 10:38 PM, "Stuart Hutchison" <stuart@stuarthutchison.com.au>
wrote:
>
>
> G'day Bob,
>
> Is cotton-based phenolic sheet or rod considered adequately fireproof for a
> machined firewall passthrough?
>
> Kind regards, Stu
>
>
>
>
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: Is phenolic essentially fireproof? |
You can get fire-retardant phenolic, which means some is and some
isn't. Make sure you use the right one.
Dave Saylor
AirCrafters
140 Aviation Way
Watsonville, CA 95076
831-722-9141 Shop
831-750-0284 Cell
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Stuart Hutchison
<stuart@stuarthutchison.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> G'day Bob,
>
> Is cotton-based phenolic sheet or rod considered adequately fireproof for a
> machined firewall passthrough?
>
> Kind regards, Stu
>
>
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! --
|