Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:11 AM - Re: RF noise from Jeff's LED lights (Bill Watson)
2. 03:17 AM - Re: Re: Avionics-List: Transponder troubles (jtortho@aol.com)
3. 03:52 AM - Re: building a batter capacity tester (Bill Watson)
4. 04:36 AM - Re: static check ()
5. 04:41 AM - static check ()
6. 05:24 AM - Re: Re: ...failure mode (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 05:26 AM - Re: RF noise from Jeff's LED lights (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 06:04 AM - External Battery Plug (CHARLES T BECKER)
9. 06:31 AM - Re: building a batter capacity tester (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 07:06 AM - Re: Re: Halogen bulbs with wig wag circuitry....failure mode (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
11. 07:16 AM - Re: RF noise from Jeff's LED lights (Bill Watson)
12. 08:43 AM - Re: RF noise from Jeff's LED lights (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 09:41 AM - Rotax 912ULS charging problem (N992DN)
14. 10:24 AM - Re: Re: ...failure mode (Paul)
15. 11:09 AM - maybe OT: need help identifying pinouts on dvd drive (David)
16. 12:35 PM - Re: Rotax 912ULS charging problem (Gilles Thesee)
17. 01:51 PM - Re: RF noise from Jeff's LED lights (Bill Watson)
18. 02:00 PM - Re: Re: ...failure mode (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
19. 02:04 PM - Re: Rotax 912ULS charging problem (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
20. 02:05 PM - Re: Rotax 912ULS charging problem (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
21. 04:26 PM - Re: RF noise from Jeff's LED lights (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
22. 07:17 PM - Re: RF noise from Jeff's LED lights (Brantel)
23. 07:33 PM - Re: Re: ...failure mode (William Slaughter)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RF noise from Jeff's LED lights |
Bob, I'd like to get a couple of those if they are still available from you.
What I have is a couple of "Luxdrive 02008B-700 PowerPucks" producing
700ma. They are round rather than square as the ones in your link but
look like the same thing. they have 2 input and output leads.
If you have a couple of filter boards that I can wire them to, I'd like
to get them. Or perhaps a couple of boards with the pucks installed.
How much? How can I get them?
Thanks!
On 9/11/2011 12:01 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 08:05 PM 9/9/2011, you wrote:
>> <Mauledriver@nc.rr.com>
>>
>> I am getting a loud hiss on both aircraft radios whenever my LED
>> position lights are turned on. In fact, any FM radio in the vicinity
>> gets the hiss too.
>>
>> I have "Jeff's LED lights for RVs" installed in the wing tips along
>> with Bob Archer antennas. Though it may be worth noting that the
>> SL30 Comm antenna is a standard belly mounted bent whip.
>>
>> I know the RF is coming from the radios because if I turn the volume
>> down on the radios, the noise disappears (in other words, the
>> intercom is not affected).
>>
>> The archives have some discussion of filters, resistors and
>> capacitors but I'm not sure where to start.
>>
>> My first inclination is to disconnect one at a time to see if the
>> noise is coming from both lights. Then I don't know where to start.
>
> Some years ago, folks were building their own
> nav lights that utilized a "Buck Puck" constant
> current driver. They were experiencing similar
> noise problems. I proposed and fabricated a
> filtered version of the Buck Puck
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9051/
>
> We also offered a filter-board that builders
> could use to quiet Buck Pucks they already owned.
> The instructions above describe a line noise filter
> that proved useful on the Buck Puck. If your
> fixtures use the same power supply then values
> for a filter are given in the document. You might
> be able to use one of our filter boards . . . or
> substitute a fully assembled power supply.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Avionics-List: Transponder troubles |
To share some experience.
I have a Cherokee 6 . On a regular basis on V16 over Deer park, heading tow
ards JFK ATC reports my transponder is not working.
It comes back shortly. The consensus was there are some angles that are
blocked by my fixed gear.
-----Original Message-----
From: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Sat, Sep 10, 2011 1:50 pm
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Avionics-List: Transponder troubles
th.net>
On 09/10/2011 08:52 AM, Kelly McMullen wrote:
> --> Avionics-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen<kellym@aviating.com>
>
> Had strange occurrence with Salt Lake Approach yesterday. Initially,
Another + for it being an ATC problem. One of my neighbors used to fly
all over the central & southeast USA, & whenever he (and others) would
fly through Memphis airspace ATC would tell them that their transponder
wasn't working properly (no altitude, incorrect altitude, etc etc). The
various transponders seemed to work fine around other class B/C
airspace, & all had problems whenever they entered Memphis airspace.
Charlie
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: building a batter capacity tester |
Just a quick update on my PC680 odyssey.... while 1 battery was beyond
hope, 2 that I had removed for poor performance recovered enough to pass
the minimum test as defined by the manufacturer -
>12.65 volts with no load,
> 9.6 volts @70F with 120amp load for 15 seconds
My oldest battery, a3+ year old Odyssey PC680 that has only been
trickled charged, tests at 12.89volts with no load and 10.8 volts at end
of load test.
A 'new' battery a neighbor gave me, the certified version of the PC680,
13.18 with no load and 10.0 volts at end of test
How did they recover? A couple of charges/discharges with a 10amp
Schumacher charger (model XC10).
The 2 batteries I have installed in my '10 have 'recovered' too. Though
I haven't had a chance to test them with the HF tester recently, batt1
has been discharged with extensive panel work and batt2 has given me 10+
starts. They've been charged on a number of 1 & 2 hour flights. They
now both perform almost as desired, i.e. batt1 will run my panel for
extended periods without losing the 3 GRTs due to low voltage, batt2
gets thru the first compression stroke on the first try... sometimes
just barely and it is certainly not 'snappy'.
I can run with what I have for now. Cold weather may change things. My
sense is that 1 or 2 fresh batteries will give me what I want in the
end. A different starter may still be desirable for better starts in
cold conditions.
PS - the certified version of the 680 labled "PowerSafe - SBS J16 from
Enersys" seems to perform differently. Though it is physically
identical except for color, it appears to have different characteristics
under load. Not necessarily better.
Bill "smiling ear to ear with the new OBAM plane" Watson
On 9/11/2011 5:50 PM, MLWynn@aol.com wrote:
> I have been following the PC680 thread with great interest. I have a
> couple for my RV8 that have been sitting around longer than I had
> meant for them to sit. You know how construction goes.
> I was going to build the capacity tester from the aeroelectric site:
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/battest.pdf
> This looks pretty straightforward and I assume that I can get all the
> components from my local Radio Shack. The one thing I am foggy on is
> the 10 V. Zener diode in the schematic. Never having used these, are
> they sold by voltage or amperage or what. Specifically, how do I make
> sure I get the correct component?
> Thanks,
> Michael Wynn
> RV 8 Wiring
> San Ramon, CA
> In a message dated 9/11/2011 12:09:07 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> paulm@olypen.com writes:
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul" To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 11:29 AM
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: ...failure = Use ilities ay
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - List Contribution Web
> Site p;
>
>
> *
>
>
> *
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: static check |
9/12/2011
Hello Corky, Now you have asked a new question and it has two parts to it.
1) The first part of your question is: "...can i as IA PERFORM STATIC
CHECKS......"
The answer to that part of the question is YES, and the details of that YES
answer are found in my previously posted answer of Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 9:43
AM.
2) The second part of your question is: ".... can i as IA PERFORM ALTIMETER
CERTS."
By "ALTIMETER CERTS" I believe that you must be referring to ALL of the
tests required by 14 CFR 91.411 (a). ALL of those required tests (with the
exception of the static pressure system tests and inspections) must be
conducted by the one of the organizations listed in 91.411 (b). See here:
"(b) The tests required by paragraph (a) of this section must be conducted
by-
(1) The manufacturer** of the airplane, or helicopter, on which the tests
and inspections are to be performed;
(2) A certificated repair station properly equipped to perform those
functions and holding-
(i) An instrument rating, Class I;
(ii) A limited instrument rating appropriate to the make and model of
appliance to be tested;
(iii) A limited rating appropriate to the test to be performed;
(iv) An airframe rating appropriate to the airplane, or helicopter, to be
tested;"
Since a normal A&P Mechanic, even one possessing IA (Inspection Authority),
does not meet any one of the qualifications listed above then he CAN NOT
PERFORM all of the 91.411 (a) required tests on either type certificated or
experimental amateur built aircraft.##
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
'OC' Baker Says: "The best investment we can make is the time and effort to
gather and understand knowledge."
**PS: Every once in a while the builder of an experimental amateur built
aircraft decides that he is the "manufacturer" of that aircraft and
therefore under paragraph 91.411 (b) (1) is permitted to perform the tests
required by 91.411 (a). That is not correct -- he is not considered the
"manufacturer" of his experimental amateur built aircraft by the FAA.
##PS: It is very unfortunate that the tests required every two years by 14
CFR 91.411 and 91.413 are routinely referred to as ".... pitot static system
checks ...". That is a very misleading and confusing term for the tests that
are required.
===============================================================
From: "corky childs" <corkyabc@charter.net>
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2011 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: static check
my question is can i as IA PERFORM STATIC CHECKS AND PERFORM ALTIMETER
CERTS
=================================================================
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 |
|
9/11/2011
Hello Corky, I'd like to respond by cutting and pasting a previous posting
of mine. Let's start with a look at 14 CFR 91.411:
"91.411 Altimeter system and altitude reporting equipment tests and
inspections.
(a) No person may operate an airplane, or helicopter, in controlled airspace
under IFR unless-**
(2) Except for the use of system drain and alternate static pressure valves,
following any opening and closing of the static pressure system, that system
has been tested and inspected and found to comply with paragraph (a),
appendix E, of part 43 of this chapter; and....."
"(b) The tests required by paragraph (a) of this section must be conducted
by-
{several different qualification requirements listed including:}
(3) A certificated mechanic with an airframe rating (static pressure system
tests and inspections only)."##
Being a certificated A&P mechanic I turned to Appendix E, of part 43 which
reads in part:
"Appendix E to Part 43-Altimeter System Test and Inspection
Each person performing the altimeter system tests and inspections required
by 91.411 shall comply with the following:
(a) Static pressure system:
(2) Determine that leakage is within the tolerances established in 23.1325
or 25.1325, whichever is applicable."
So I then needed to go on to PART 23--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL,
UTILITY, ACROBATIC, AND COMMUTER CATEGORY AIRPLANES to find out how to
perform the test and what the leakage tolerances were.
Here is what 23.1325 says in part:
"23.1325 Static pressure system.
(b) If a static pressure system is necessary for the functioning of
instruments, systems, or devices, it must comply with the provisions of
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section.
(2) A proof test must be conducted to demonstrate the integrity of the
static pressure system in the following manner:
(i) Unpressurized airplanes. Evacuate the static pressure system to a
pressure differential of approximately 1 inch of mercury or to a reading on
the altimeter, 1,000 feet above the aircraft elevation at the time of the
test. Without additional pumping for a period of 1 minute, the loss of
indicated altitude must not exceed 100 feet on the altimeter."
So how to evacuate the static pressure system? After plugging up the two
static ports I opened the system drain connection in my static system and
plumbed in this MixMizer syringe:
http://www.hopkinsmfg.com/10111.html
This device readily evacuated the system and the static system passed the
leak test. After closing up the system drain connection and making the
required log book entry I was good to go.
What did we learn from this exercise?
A) For some mandatory regulatory requirements there are some provisions of
14 CFR that do apply to our experimental amateur built aircraft even if at
first glance some of them (Part 43 and Part 23 for example) do not appear to
apply.
B) Even though anyone can work on, repair, modify, inspect, and maintain an
amateur built experimental aircraft there are certain items that require
action by specially qualified individuals. The annual condition inspection
is one item requiring performance by either the holder of the Repairman
Certificate for that specific aircraft or the holder of an A&P certificate.
Another is the requirement for either the holder of an Airframe certificate
or one of the other entities identified in 91.411 (b) in order to conduct a
regulatory acceptable static system check.
Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks,
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
**PS: Note that while this section pertains to "..operate (ing) ... in
controlled airspace under IFR ...." a careful reading of the FAR's (see
sections 91.215 and 91.413) will show that a VFR only airplane with an
integrated altitude encoder and transponder system (which is just about
everyone) will also require a static system check under certain
circumstances.
##PS: Note that being the builder and designated repairman for this specific
experimental amateur built airplane did not qualify me to perform the static
system test and inspection.
====================================================
From: corky childs
Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2011 4:09 PM
Subject: static check
if i had a ap and ia what else would i need to static test experminital anc
certified aircraft thanks corky
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: ...failure mode |
At 01:29 PM 9/11/2011, you wrote:
>
>Bob's scope digital sampling is very slow sampling as usual.
Really? As usual? Exactly what was the sampling rate
for the data depicted? What is your basis for the assertion?
Inquiring minds want to know.
>The peak inrush current is basically current limited to the power
>supply and wiring and switcher resistance. He shows one sample at
>over 30 amps and who knows what the peak current is.
Is that the point? The purpose for producing that plot
was to demonstrate that the incandescent lamp under study
(I think it was an automotive halogen) does not cool
sufficiently between wig-wag flashes to produce a series
of inrush currents even close to what is produced by
the first, cold start.
<snip>
>I got the info from a suscessful fligher months ago and the parts
>are cheep also Like at the time 30 for a system. NOT all hid systems
>will work wig wag as the supply simply dies soon
>
>I can go back and try to find the link if you are interested. I will
>not post to Bob's list ever!!!!
. . . yet here you are!
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
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: RF noise from Jeff's LED lights |
At 05:08 AM 9/12/2011, you wrote:
>
>Bob, I'd like to get a couple of those if they are still available from you.
>
>What I have is a couple of "Luxdrive 02008B-700 PowerPucks"
>producing 700ma. They are round rather than square as the ones in
>your link but look like the same thing. they have 2 input and output leads.
>
>If you have a couple of filter boards that I can wire them to, I'd
>like to get them. Or perhaps a couple of boards with the pucks installed.
>How much? How can I get them?
They're in the catalog at:
https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/AECcatalog.html
AEC9051 at the bottom of the page
Bob . . .
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | External Battery Plug |
Can someone point me to the diagram for wiring in an
external power plug for connecting a sustainer? I've got
an 8A, two rear mounted batteries, subie, all electric.
used a switched buss, as opposed to a diode, for managing
the two busses.
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: building a batter capacity tester |
At 04:50 PM 9/11/2011, you wrote:
>I have been following the PC680 thread with great interest. I have
>a couple for my RV8 that have been sitting around longer than I had
>meant for them to sit. You know how construction goes.
>
>I was going to build the capacity tester from the aeroelectric site:
>
><http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/battest.pdf>http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/battest.pdf
>
>This looks pretty straightforward and I assume that I can get all
>the components from my local Radio Shack. The one thing I am foggy
>on is the 10 V. Zener diode in the schematic. Never having used
>these, are they sold by voltage or amperage or what. Specifically,
>how do I make sure I get the correct component?
Keep in mind that this is more of a battery
bench-marker as opposed to a quantitative
tester.
A battery's ability to deliver energy depends
on size, condition, temperature and load. A
battery 'rated' at 20AH will deliver that amount
of output when new and generally under a very
light load compared to how you intend to used it.
Consider the exemplar plot below
Emacs!
This battery is 'rated' at 17 a.h. But it will
deliver that output only when loaded at .85A x
20 hours = 17 a.h. Your airplane's endurance
loads are more likely to be on the order of 4A
so you can expect about 3 hours of service or
12.75 a.h. of output. Of course, this is an as-new
performance value. You'll want to size and maintain
your battery to meed design goals when the battery
has just degraded to the point of needing replacement.
For most folks this is at 75 or 80% of new capacity.
So this particular battery could be used in a system
where endurance expectations are for 2 hours of
service at 4.25A.
The battery cap tester depicted in the book is
not intended to give you an accurate reading of
the battery's capacity. What it will do is let
you know when the battery has fallen so far below
its as-new condition as to require replacement.
If your new battery ran your exemplar load for say
200 minutes, then you would benchmark the replacement
at 150 minutes.
If you'd like to get real numbers at loads matching
your system's requirements, you'll need something like
http://www.westmountainradio.com/product_info.php?products_id=cba3&navcode=/cbaLink1
I've got a couple of these critters. They were used
to produce the plots like these
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/HF_aa_vs_Duracell.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/El-Cheeso_Battery_Test_3.jpg
The device can also be used as a voltage versus time
data acquisition system and get you information like
this.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/schumacher_3.jpg
I would not discourage you from building the po' boy's
cap-checker. It's a useful tool within its limitations.
Radio Shack won't have a 10v zener. You'll have to get
it from a supplier with a broader range of product offerings.
I'll be back in my shop later today. Let me see if I've
got one in drawer I can send you.
Bob . . .
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Halogen bulbs with wig wag circuitry....failure |
mode
At 12:27 PM 9/11/2011, you wrote:
>
>
> > Inrush current beyond the initial cold
> > start is not an issue for incandescent lamps.
> > The reason I plotted the this data . . .
>
>
>Quite true Bob, however I tried not having a first cycle, but it
>never seemed to work. You ALWAYS have a first pulse.
Sure . . . The purpose of study was to support a
discussion about the NTC thermistor style current limiters.
These things 'work' when allowed to heat up past the
resistance vs. temperature break point where the
device's resistance falls to some low, tolerable value
of series resistance.
I think we were talking about the CL series limiters
http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=KC023L-ND
http://www.ge-mcs.com/download/temperature/920_325a.pdf
These stay in a low resistance state by a sustained
current flow and have a 'cool down' requirement of
2 to 20 seconds for them to 'reset' and be capable
of limited the next inrush event.
The discussion concluded that the thermistor style
device would perform as needed for the initial cold-
start transient but was too slow to help for closely
space repeat transients. The data plot showed that
second and subsequent events in an incandescent wig-wag
system were insignificant.
>Also, most timers using a 555 have an initial 1.5X times longer
>pulse than the second pulse. I no longer use the 555 for this
>reason. What I do now is have a faster r/c oscillator and a divider
>to get the correct timing. I'd be glad to share the schematic with
>interested parties.
Yeah, my favorite is the CD4060 oscillator/divider.
Hope these don't go obsolete soon. I'm putting one
into a high school electronics class project. The
critters are 40 years old and still great ol' work
horses.
An alternative (if you can live in a 5v world) is
a PIC microcontroller. I keep the 8-pin flash devices
around to emulate more complex logic and timing
functions. It's a jelly bean part at about 75 cents
and capable of dropping into a bunch of applications
with the right code. I used one to generate a pair
of 17 Khz outputs to drive a push-pull, dc/dc converter
design. The single chip replaced 4 parts in the next-best
choice and was more stable to boot.
> Nice graph of the pulses.
That's a plotting feature of even the low cost lines
of most 'scopes these days. I can plug a thumbdrive
into my TEK TDS220 scope and dump the screen to a
.jpg file. I can also get a dump of the numbers for
use in other analysis.
>I'd still bet that many halogen lamps have declined in quality. I've
>seen this first-hand. There are many variables in the making of halogen lamps.
You got that right. But I'll bet it's cyclical too.
Suppliers are always wrestling for contracts but
price cannot be the sole driver. I think the value
trends are generally upward.
Bob . . .
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RF noise from Jeff's LED lights |
Thanks, I ordered a couple.
FYI, Had a heck of a time finding your catalog page before you sent this
link. No matter how hard I hit Google or fooled around with my other AE
bookmarks, I just couldn't find it.
Bill
On 9/12/2011 8:23 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 05:08 AM 9/12/2011, you wrote:
>> <Mauledriver@nc.rr.com>
>>
>> Bob, I'd like to get a couple of those if they are still available
>> from you.
>>
>> What I have is a couple of "Luxdrive 02008B-700 PowerPucks" producing
>> 700ma. They are round rather than square as the ones in your link
>> but look like the same thing. they have 2 input and output leads.
>>
>> If you have a couple of filter boards that I can wire them to, I'd
>> like to get them. Or perhaps a couple of boards with the pucks
>> installed.
>> How much? How can I get them?
>
> They're in the catalog at:
>
> https://matronics.com/aeroelectric/Catalog/AECcatalog.html
>
> AEC9051 at the bottom of the page
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
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: RF noise from Jeff's LED lights |
At 09:13 AM 9/12/2011, you wrote:
>
>Thanks, I ordered a couple.
>
>FYI, Had a heck of a time finding your catalog page before you sent
>this link. No matter how hard I hit Google or fooled around with my
>other AE bookmarks, I just couldn't find it.
Hmmm . . . one could start at the home page
http://aeroelectric.com and select the
"Catalog of Products and Services" link.
But how you get there is not so important
as getting there. I'm pleased that we can
help move your project forward.
By the way, did you see the link to the
installation manual?
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9051/9051-700A.pdf
Check this over and make sure it looks like
a doable and useful experiment . . .
Bob . . .
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Rotax 912ULS charging problem |
On aero electric web site I found the internal diagram of the charger
rectifier associated with Rotax 912 engine, the diagram is located here:
http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Regulators/Ducati_Rotax/Ducati_Regulator_Wiring_1.pdf
My question is if this diagram is correct (because I can see some ??????
beside some of the components) or is it some kind of "reverse engineering"?
The problem I am trying to solve however is intermittent false indication
of the charge warning light. The light will come on from time to time or
just flicker while the charge is on, I can verify it on the voltmeter
installed on the instrument panel. I am trying to locate the source
of problem by looking for any loose connection between the trio of R, B and
C of the rectifier terminals.
The airplane is RANS 6S6
Nati Niv
Illinois
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ...failure mode |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 5:21 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: ...failure mode
> <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 01:29 PM 9/11/2011, you wrote:
>>
My comments were intended to be private and addressed what I understood was
the suggested cause of short Halogen auto lights. The data you showed and my
personal experience is the initial ON spike does NOT shorten the life and
your data shows wig wag surely does NOT have a significant effect based on
heating and cooling from wig wag vs no wig wag after the initial ON pulse as
there is no significant inrush on later ON pulses.
>>Bob's scope digital sampling is very slow sampling as usual.
> Really? As usual? Exactly what was the sampling rate
> for the data depicted? What is your basis for the assertion?
> Inquiring minds want to know.
>
Well Bob surely you know. You say its a TDS 220 which is advertised as a 2
channel 100 mhz with sampling rates AS FAST AS 1GS/s; But that applies only
for a fast sweep speed as the line buffer is limited to 2500 samples per
line or one sample every MS (in the above sample) far below what is needed
to determine the initial surge current width and peak to get the energy
produced into the bulb. Further there is HUGE NOISE on top of the signal
from apparently a defective setup. Further it (Sampling) is too slow to
characterize the wig wag ON inrush current spikes but it does imply the
inrush is small negating wig wag as a factor in bulb life
Its generally accepted in the industry one needs a MINIMUM sample rate of 10
times the expected pulse width to characterize a repetitive pulse and higher
for a one shot event. In digital sampling scopes the line buffer is critical
in determing the true sampling rate NOT the advertised sampling rate for
slower sweep rates
Thus we can determine the inrush pulse is between 1 and 2 MS with a peak of
at least 31+ amps Who knows how much the true peak current might be but that
info is not known as the detailed setup is not discussed. Further the next 1
MS sample is at least 15 amps followed by a 10 amp sample.
While there is no significant repeating inrush an inrush limiter would stop
the initial inrush and extens lamp life a point not noticed in the
discussion as I recall.
Note sampling rate is not the average value during the sample time its a
very short time period every 1 MS as the value must be captured and
processed before the next sample period. Basically what you see is a very
small sample time period being taken every 1 MS The tek data sheet for the
scope suggests the sample period is a very small part of 1 MS in this case
thus perhaps 99+% of the time the data value being sampled could be far away
from the sample snap shot on average.
Sadly sampling scopes are easilly misunderstood when it comes to
specifications and what is implied is often far from general truth for other
than the specificaed setup conditions
After the initial pulse ther is so much "NOISE" on the data its basically
impossible to determine if there is any following peaks in the ON current.
Not only is there 4-5 amps of noise but there is a lower frequency of noise
implied suggestion low frequenct ripple even in the ground along with high
frequency noise. This suggests a bad setup coupled with perhaps a switching
power supply VS a batttery as the source of power.
>>The peak inrush current is basically current limited to the power supply
>>and wiring and switcher resistance. He shows one sample at over 30 amps
>>and who knows what the peak current is.
>
> . . . yet here you are!
AS you would have known if you read my next message before replying to this
one you would have known it was posted in error. Many groups I belong to
default to the poster not the group. My mistake
I have replied to a question you know the answer to and it would have been
helpful to the group (at large) to simply state how the scope shows data and
how sampling scopes wotrk and when and where they should be used. In
addition how they can decieve. related comment try to trouble shoot your
turn signal with a $5 digital meter where it samples one or twice per
second. :-)
Further I am suprised your posting the subject scope pix with all the noise
as its not typical of your generally high quality work
Have at it! as I will not post again unless I make another mistake in
addressing posts. Nor will I reply to any further comments
Paul
>
>
> Bob . . .
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | maybe OT: need help identifying pinouts on dvd drive |
I have a car navigation dvd drive system and the internal dvd drive has
died. I finally found another system to replace it but would very much
like to identify the pinouts on this beast. The ATAPI (IDE) dvd drive
connects to the system via a 50 pin flat flex cable. The only tools I
have to help with this are
1. multimeter - not helpful because if you put one probe on say, pin 1,
of the cable, many of the connectors on the board give solid beep and
some give intermittent beeps! (of course, no power is going to the
board or drive.)
2. cheapo logic analyzer, usb and pc/laptop based, but it only has 16
pins. very difficult to use.
3. 4 channel analog (non storage) o'scope, 150 mhz.
I would like to replace this dvd drive with a solid state drive, like an
SDHC card or USB thumb drive but must identify the pinouts first to
know how to connect it to the adapters.
In the future, I may use this system in my OBAM Mustang II.
Thanks!
David M.
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Rotax 912ULS charging problem |
N992DN a crit :
>
> On aero electric web site I found the internal diagram of the charger
> rectifier associated with Rotax 912 engine, the diagram is located here:
>
>
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Regulators/Ducati_Rotax/Ducati_Regulator_Wiring_1.pdf
>
>
>
> My question is if this diagram is correct (because I can see some
> ?????? beside some of the components) or is it some kind of "reverse
> engineering"?
>
>
>
Nati and all,
The diagram on the left was provided by a fellow builder. I redrew the
diagram after some study of the rectifier regulator :
http://contrails.free.fr/elec_ducati_en.php
As you say it is indeed a case of reverse engineering.
Best regards,
--
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
Message 17
| 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: RF noise from Jeff's LED lights |
do not archive
>> FYI, Had a heck of a time finding your catalog page before you sent
>> this link. No matter how hard I hit Google or fooled around with my
>> other AE bookmarks, I just couldn't find it.
> Hmmm . . . one could start at the home page
> http://aeroelectric.com and select the
> "Catalog of Products and Services" link.
That's way to straight forward.... better to over think it
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/AEC/9051/9051-700A.pdf
>
> Check this over and make sure it looks like
> a doable and useful experiment . . .
Very doable as described. I was toying with the idea of getting the kit
without the Buckpuck, thinking that the Powerpucks I have are
functionally equivalent. They are aimed at similar applications but I
noted enough differences to make that level of experimentation not worth
it right now.
I will double check the specs against what I think I have in the way of
LEDs in my current "Jeff's LED position lights" installation. I really
like the product... except for the noise.
Bill
Message 18
| 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: ...failure mode |
>My comments were intended to be private and addressed what I
>understood was the suggested cause of short Halogen auto lights. The
>data you showed and my personal experience is the initial ON spike
>does NOT shorten the life and your data shows wig wag surely does
>NOT have a significant effect based on heating and cooling from wig
>wag vs no wig wag after the initial ON pulse as there is no
>significant inrush on later ON pulses.
My data shows the cold-start transient is typical
of incandescent lamps. The data further shows that
the initial current draw on subsequent on-cyles is
absent that transient because the filament doesn't
have time to cool down between cycles. The data
says nothing about heating and cooling cycles.
Heating and cooling cycles are directly related to
light output which ranges from very dim to full bright
which must be a transition of several thousand degrees
and is totally unrelated to the presence or lack of
an inrush event.
>>>Bob's scope digital sampling is very slow sampling as usual.
> > Really? As usual? Exactly what was the sampling rate
>> for the data depicted? What is your basis for the assertion?
>> Inquiring minds want to know.
>
>Well Bob surely you know. You say its a TDS 220 which is advertised
>as a 2 channel 100 mhz with sampling rates AS FAST AS 1GS/s; But
>that applies only for a fast sweep speed as the line buffer is
>limited to 2500 samples per line or one sample every MS (in the
>above sample) far below what is needed to determine the initial
>surge current width and peak to get the energy produced into the
>bulb. Further there is HUGE NOISE on top of the signal from
>apparently a defective setup. Further it (Sampling) is too slow to
>characterize the wig wag ON inrush current spikes but it does imply
>the inrush is small negating wig wag as a factor in bulb life.
But during the discussions which accompanied the
plot in question, we weren't really concerned
with specifics of the inrush transients which
by the way, were measured at other sweep settings
but not included as not being germane to the
discussion.
And yes, I noted the noise present but didn't have
time to clean it up as again, the point being made
was to show the huge differences in lamp switching
transients between cold start and subsequent flashes.
>Its generally accepted in the industry one needs a MINIMUM sample
>rate of 10 times the expected pulse width to characterize a
>repetitive pulse and higher for a one shot event. In digital
>sampling scopes the line buffer is critical in determing the true
>sampling rate NOT the advertised sampling rate for slower sweep rates
No claims are being made to the contrary.
I think I've got the fast plots in the
archives. If you want to discuss transient
specifics, we can do that too. As I recall,
the fast plots also carried the signature
of flasher relay contact bounce and were
not even useful to the discussion du jour.
>Thus we can determine the inrush pulse is between 1 and 2 MS with a
>peak of at least 31+ amps Who knows how much the true peak current
>might be but that info is not known as the detailed setup is not
>discussed. Further the next 1 MS sample is at least 15 amps followed
>by a 10 amp sample.
Yes . . . but no claims were made as to the
inrush specifics . . . either when that plot
was published nor in the discussions that
started this tread.
>While there is no significant repeating inrush an inrush limiter
>would stop the initial inrush and extens lamp life a point not
>noticed in the discussion as I recall.
Possibly . . . but I'm unaware of any commercially
produced vehicle that includes such inrush limiters
on headlights . . . but I don't follow that market
closely. I believe I was the first designer in Wichita
to include an inrush limiter on an airplane. I put one
on the nose gear mounted taxi light of the GP180. It went
onto the first three prototypes but was removed when no
definitive data could be offered as to return on investment.
The only thing we could demonstrate is a reduction in the flashing
of other lights when the nose gear light was turned on.
Same thing happened with landing lights. The reliability
guys didn't want inrush limiters on those either due to
lack of data for return on investment and suppression of
reliability due to added parts.
Later I discovered that keep-warm circuits for tungsten
filaments on high vibration mounts had a far greater benefit
for bulb life than inrush limiting. Never had an opportunity
to explore that in a T/C aircraft as my job moved out of that
arena when I went to the Targets Group.
>Note sampling rate is not the average value during the sample time
>its a very short time period every 1 MS as the value must be
>captured and processed before the next sample period. Basically what
>you see is a very small sample time period being taken every 1 MS
>The tek data sheet for the scope suggests the sample period is a
>very small part of 1 MS in this case thus perhaps 99+% of the time
>the data value being sampled could be far away from the sample snap
>shot on average.
>
>Sadly sampling scopes are easilly misunderstood when it comes to
>specifications and what is implied is often far from general truth
>for other than the specificaed setup conditions
>
>After the initial pulse ther is so much "NOISE" on the data its
>basically impossible to determine if there is any following peaks in
>the ON current.
>
>Not only is there 4-5 amps of noise but there is a lower frequency
>of noise implied suggestion low frequenct ripple even in the ground
>along with high frequency noise. This suggests a bad setup coupled
>with perhaps a switching power supply VS a batttery as the source of power.
No, it was just an RG battery. There's a 5KW AM
broadcast station 1 mile from the Wichita house
that is never entirely absent from test data.
I've suffered both the effects of 1.3Mhz carrier
and demodulated program material.
I didn't have time to chase it out that day
but my lab in Medicine Lodge is entirely clean
of such interference. I'll re-plot and publish both
the fast and slow data for the website archive.
It is not good that data be mis-interpreted as
to significance or the point being made.
Bob . . .
Message 19
| 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: Rotax 912ULS charging problem |
At 11:37 AM 9/12/2011, you wrote:
>On aero electric web site I found the internal diagram of the
>charger rectifier associated with Rotax 912 engine, the diagram is
>located here:
>
>
>
><http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Regulators/Ducati_Rotax/Ducati_Regulator_Wiring_1.pdf>http://aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Regulators/Ducati_Rotax/Ducati_Regulator_Wiring_1.pdf
>
>
>My question is if this diagram is correct (because I can see some
>?????? beside some of the components) or is it some kind of "reverse
>engineering"?
It's a deduced diagram somebody sent us that was based
on their dissection of the product by carving out the
potting compound.
>
>
>The problem I am trying to solve however is intermittent false
>indication of the charge warning light. The light will come on from
>time to time or just flicker while the charge is on, I can verify it
>on the voltmeter installed on the instrument panel. I am trying to
>locate the source of problem by looking for any loose connection
>between the trio of R, B and C of the rectifier terminals.
I can't vouch for the diagrams accuracy . . . only that
it is typical of such single-phase rectifier/regulators
on small engines.
Recommend you disconnect the light and use an active
notification of low voltage that is independent
of the charging system. That light is sorta like
the alternator warning light on cars. Tells a limited
story.
Bob . . .
Message 20
| 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: Rotax 912ULS charging problem |
>
>The diagram on the left was provided by a fellow builder. I redrew
>the diagram after some study of the rectifier regulator :
>http://contrails.free.fr/elec_ducati_en.php
>As you say it is indeed a case of reverse engineering.
>
>Best regards,
>--
>Gilles
Yeah, I'd forgotten who sent me that. How are you
my friend. Long time no hear!
Bob . . .
Message 21
| 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: RF noise from Jeff's LED lights |
>
>I will double check the specs against what I think I have in the way
>of LEDs in my current "Jeff's LED position lights" installation. I
>really like the product... except for the noise.
Good to hear. When you get your system up and
running to design goals, how about some pictures
and a narrative of your experience and findings.
We can post it to the articles section of the
website . . .
Bob . . .
Message 22
| 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: RF noise from Jeff's LED lights |
Bob's filters will work just fine with Jeff's lights.
They will completely eliminate your noise issues.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=352107#352107
Message 23
| 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: ...failure mode |
Promises, promises.
Have at it! as I will not post again unless I make another mistake in
addressing posts. Nor will I reply to any further comments
Paul
>
>
> Bob . . .
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! --
|