---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 05/14/11: 13 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:09:25 AM PST US From: Werner Schneider Subject: Re: Careful on the Google link AeroElectric-List: garmin 195 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: 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: > > > 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" > Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 10:44 AM > To: > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: garmin 195 > >> >> >> 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:24:16 AM PST US From: "Ed Anderson" Subject: Re: Careful on the Google link AeroElectric-List: garmin 195 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" Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 7:05 AM Subject: Re: Careful on the Google link AeroElectric-List: garmin 195 > > > 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: > > > > 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: >> >> >> 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" >> Sent: Friday, May 13, 2011 10:44 AM >> To: >> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: garmin 195 >> >>> >>> >>> 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:02:30 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Lithium batteries redux From: "Eric M. Jones" > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:15:59 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:23:42 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Ok to bend uninsulated ring terminals? From: "plevyakh" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 11:41:39 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:28:24 PM PST US From: Ron Quillin Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Ok to bend uninsulated ring terminals? On 5/14/2011 11:36, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > 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 _____________________________________ Time: 02:08:07 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:06:15 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Ok to bend uninsulated ring terminals? From: "plevyakh" 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:37:48 PM PST US From: "Stuart Hutchison" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 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 --> 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 ____________________________________ Time: 08:43:24 PM PST US From: "Stuart Hutchison" Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 09:13:48 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Is phenolic essentially fireproof? From: Tim Olson 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" wrote: > > > G'day Bob, > > Is cotton-based phenolic sheet or rod considered adequately fireproof for a > machined firewall passthrough? > > Kind regards, Stu > > > > ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 11:15:25 PM PST US From: Dave Saylor Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message aeroelectric-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.