---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 04/07/12: 26 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 06:51 AM - Re: Converting to externally reg alternator (user9253) 2. 07:44 AM - Re: Re: Converting to externally reg alternator (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 3. 09:00 AM - Re: Re: Converting to externally reg alternator (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 4. 09:08 AM - Seems I killed one Odyssey PC625 battery (Allen Fulmer) 5. 09:34 AM - ELT Antenna Mount (Jeff Luckey) 6. 10:30 AM - Re: ELT Antenna Mount (Tim Andres) 7. 10:46 AM - Re: ELT Antenna Mount (BobsV35B@aol.com) 8. 10:47 AM - Re: Re: Converting to externally reg alternator (Paul Millner) 9. 10:55 AM - Re: ELT Antenna Mount (The Kuffels) 10. 10:56 AM - Re: Seems I killed one Odyssey PC625 battery (John Loram) 11. 11:00 AM - Re: ELT Antenna Mount (DeWitt (Dee) Whittington) 12. 11:07 AM - Re: Seems I killed one Odyssey PC625 battery (Jeff Luckey) 13. 11:22 AM - Re: Next generation wig-wag controller for LED lamps (gregmchugh) 14. 11:26 AM - Re: ELT Antenna Mount (BobsV35B@aol.com) 15. 11:29 AM - Re: ELT Antenna Mount (Jeff Luckey) 16. 12:02 PM - Re: ELT Antenna Mount (Jeff Luckey) 17. 12:36 PM - Re: ELT Antenna Mount (John Grosse) 18. 12:37 PM - Re: ELT Antenna Mount (rayj) 19. 01:06 PM - Re: Troubleshooting Field Breaker (Jim P) 20. 01:21 PM - Re: ELT Antenna Mount (rayj) 21. 01:27 PM - Re: Seems I killed one Odyssey PC625 battery (rayj) 22. 04:42 PM - Re: Seems I killed one Odyssey PC625 battery (David Lloyd) 23. 07:19 PM - Re: ELT Antenna Mount (The Kuffels) 24. 07:19 PM - Re: ELT Antenna Mount (Ralph Finch) 25. 08:41 PM - Re: Re: Next generation wig-wag controller for LED lamps (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 26. 08:45 PM - Re: Re: Troubleshooting Field Breaker (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 06:51:53 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Converting to externally reg alternator From: "user9253" The Rotax dynamo does not have a field winding. Thus, the only way to shut it off is by opening the B lead (or shutting off the engine). A 20 amp relay is capable of opening the Rotax dynamo output. However, a 60 amp alternator would require a much larger relay or contactor to open the B lead. It is much easier to open the 3 amp alternator field circuit. As for the Rotax capacitor, it can not conduct DC current. It is irrelevant whether the relay contacts are open or closed. The purpose of the capacitor is to smooth the pulsing DC output of the rectified single phase dynamo current. Joe > Bob, all, Forgive my lack of knowledge here, but I don't understand the problem here. I use the Z-17 architecture that has the Rotax dynamo output connected to the battery via relay. If the relay is powered down the dynamos output goes to ground through a capacitor. At least that's my understanding. If that is correct, why can't a single wire alternator be controlled in the same way. In the event of a voltage regulator failure and a runaway alternator ensues would not the overvoltage module do the same to a relay connecting the single wire to the battery? Obviously this sounds simple for an electronic illiterate like me. What am I missing that makes such a scenario unworkable. > Rick Girard -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=370206#370206 ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 07:44:22 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Converting to externally reg alternator At 10:32 PM 4/6/2012, you wrote: >Bob, all, Forgive my lack of knowledge here, but I don't understand >the problem here. I use the Z-17 architecture that has the Rotax >dynamo output connected to the battery via relay. If the relay is >powered down the dynamos output goes to ground through a capacitor. >At least that's my understanding. If that is correct, why can't a >single wire alternator be controlled in the same way. In the event >of a voltage regulator failure and a runaway alternator ensues would >not the overvoltage module do the same to a relay connecting the >single wire to the battery? Obviously this sounds simple for an >electronic illiterate like me. What am I missing that makes such a >scenario unworkable. > >Rick Girard > >On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III ><nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote: ><nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> > > >At 08:43 PM 4/4/2012, you wrote: ><millner@me.com> > >Ah! Since anecdotal evidence is apparently compelling, my Ford had >a runaway alternator, which resulted in a battery explosion, which >peppered the underside of the hood with acid burns. Bummer. > >Paul > > > Good morning Paul, long time no hear! > > As I was talking to the chief engineer at > MPA about this experiences with alternators, > it would have been interesting to know how > what percentage of alternators coming in > the door had failed regulators . . . and what > the failure modes were. > > The only alternators that they routinely examined > for fault analysis were those returned on > warranty. As I stated in the narrative of my visit > the rate of returns had mostly to do with the > skills of the installer. An exceedingly small > number of warranty returns had any failures at > all. > > Of course, ALL alternators coming through the > rebuild stream had been replaced for reasons > some mechanic thought were good. At the same > time, I've encountered few mechanics that > REALLY understand how the alternator works and > how to accurately troubleshoot systems that > exhibit less than gross failure. > > Virtually none of the normal work stream was > evaluated for failure modes. It would have > been VERY interesting to see how many had > failed regulators in a runaway mode. But alas, > 22,000 items passed through that facility > every day. Any effort to glean such information > from those carcasses would have been very > difficult/expensive. > > The bottom line is that the best source of > data we have comes from the aviation community > . . . and that data will be anecdotal at best. > The bright side is that the astute system > designer needs only to know that risk for > regulator failure in any system is not zero > and happily, insurance against such failures > is inexpensive. > > As the personable spokesperson for Allstate > might suggest, "You're in good hands with > OV protection." > > > Bob . . . > >=================================== >-List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List >=================================== >http://forums.matronics.com >=================================== >le, List Admin. >="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution >=================================== > > >-- >Zulu Delta >Mk IIIC >Thanks, Homer GBYM > >It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy. > - Groucho Marx > > Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 09:00:29 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Converting to externally reg alternator At 10:32 PM 4/6/2012, you wrote: >Bob, all, Forgive my lack of knowledge here, but I don't understand >the problem here. I use the Z-17 architecture that has the Rotax >dynamo output connected to the battery via relay. If the relay is >powered down the dynamos output goes to ground through a capacitor. >At least that's my understanding. If that is correct, why can't a >single wire alternator be controlled in the same way. In the event >of a voltage regulator failure and a runaway alternator ensues would >not the overvoltage module do the same to a relay connecting the >single wire to the battery? Obviously this sounds simple for an >electronic illiterate like me. What am I missing that makes such a >scenario unworkable. Actually, it can. In fact, that is the control philosophy originally depicted in Z-24 found at: http://tinyurl.com/7z6yzv9 The reasoning behind this configuration was simple. If you've got a runaway alternator for which there are no external controls, the only remedy left is to simply isolate the offending machine from the rest of the aircraft's electrical system. Notice the similarity of the Z-24 architecture with that of Z-17 found at: http://tinyurl.com/7mh9k3c Again, the engine driven power source (whether fielded by a permanent magnet -OR- a fixed magnet) offers no means by which one may apply external controls. At some time (post Z-17) it was reasoned that the root cause for any runaway condition on an alternator was a regulator failure. In the case of PM alternators, we had ready access to the AC output of the energy source driving the rectifier/regulator. Given that AC current is many times less abusive to relay contacts in the disconnect mode, it seemed prudent to MOVE the disconnect relay to the windings of the PM alternator BEFORE the regulator. Hence Z-16 was offered: http://tinyurl.com/7vp9g4e EITHER philosophy of OV management described above meets design goals for isolation of the offending alternator from the rest of the system. Z-16 might be described as more elegant. Now, let's take what we've discussed above and see how it speaks to Z-24. Further, let's discuss some special cases for the b-lead disconnect philosophy as it relates to self excited, electrically fielded alternators. The PM alternator is fixed field . . . PERIOD. Maximum output voltage is a function of RPM . . . PERIOD. The electrically excited alternator with a field coil connected internally to the B-lead is another breed of animal entirely. As I discussed in the article at: http://tinyurl.com/7cormux the automotive alternator is demonstrably capable of very high output voltages when supplied with a fixed field (like a PM alternator) and still higher voltages when the field is supplied from the alternator's own runaway output . . . A stone-simple b-lead disconnect system was conceived for the larger wound-field machines and published as Z-24. In the article published at: http://tinyurl.com/5n989y we explore the special cases for using this control philosophy. The new considerations for design arose from two major differences between the PM alternator control (z-17/z-16) and wound field alternator control (z-24). (ISSUE 1) As one attempts to open the b-lead on a runaway alternator, the contactor is opening against a tightly wound voltage 'spring' if you will. In the first few milliseconds after onset of the ov condition, the alternator is attempting to push the bus voltage up but will be held at bay by the valiant efforts of the battery. None the less, output current for the alternator will be at the machine's magnetic limits, probably just above rated design current. As the contacts open, voltage rise across the spreading contacts is very fast and will no doubt establish an arc in the widening space that is not unlike that which I described in the narrative about MPA's demonstrations of b-lead disconnects in the latest revision to chapter 3 of the connection. The flash of fire was so intense as to blinding to both the human observer -AND- the lowly video camera. Deleterious to the contactor? Probably. But even if the contactor is toasted by the effective disconnection of a runaway alternator, the original design goal is achieved. The radios are not toasted too. Remedy? One could install a contactor with better ratings for high voltage disconnect like: http://tinyurl.com/83kf237 (ISSUE 2) Early in the history of Z-24, it seems that some OBAM aircraft builders used the control switch to cycle their alternators ON/OFF while under load. This lead to what the automotive industry calls a "load dump" wherein the built in regulator is unable to respond fast enough to bring a suddenly unloaded alternator back under control. Hence, the alternator's output launches for the moon. In a load-dump case, the rise is expected to be transient. Assuming the alternator is well designed, the short term ov condition is quickly brought to heel and all is right with the universe. Unfortunately, all alternators are not created equal. The alternators installed on these airplanes were demonstrably incapable of standing off the b-lead disconnect transients demonstrated for me in MPA's laboratories. These alternators suffered failures attributed to poor design of Z-24. I suspect that individuals who experienced these failures abandoned use of any form of automatic OV runaway management. Over the years, we've learned that Z-24, when applied to a realistically designed alternator and fitted with a robust contactor is probably about as bullet-proof as design goals dictate. "But wait, call in the next ten minutes and we'll . . . .", heard that one before. In this case, the feature just out of reach is described in the article cited above . . . don't click this link again, you already have http://tinyurl.com/5n989y Here I've proposed a next generation control philosophy. A philosophy dependent on being able to run alternators at their rated outputs in a test environment. To that end I acquired an alternator test stand http://tinyurl.com/79k9lm2 and set out to modify it for emulation of the architecture of every architecture in the z-figures up to and including Z-14. This offered some obstacles not the least of which was a big honk'n 3-phase motor . . . http://tinyurl.com/7qlhaqf which demanded an adapter be added at the end of a 60 amp feeder I ran out to my garage on Bainbridge. The modification was well along when it was interrupted by a move to Medicine Lodge with a host of new demands on my time. However, it would be useful to describe the functionality of the next generation controller. The AEC9004 'black box' contains a micro-controller programmed to do the following. (a) watch the b-lead terminal for signs of overvoltage. (b) when and if an ov condition is detected, power is removed from the b-lead contactor coil. (c) the differential voltage across the contactor is monitored for first signs of the alternator side being more positive than the battery side by say 1 volt or so. (d) at that time a power MOS-FET good for hundreds of amps is biased on hard and throws a dead short across the b-lead terminals of the alternator. A kind of "software crowbar" approach to ov management. This sounds brutal . . . but is in fact quite gentle. An alternator is incapable of delivering much more output current than it's nameplate rating. Hence, the FET need only sink perhaps 60 or 70 amps to ground as soon as it is safe to do so. I.e. the BATTERY must be disconnected before the crowbar is triggered. Since the alternator's output is folded back to the field winding, the act of pulling the b-lead to ground deprives the field of voltage necessary to feed and sustain the runaway. Hence, everything comes to a benign state of rest in milliseconds after the FET is turned on. I've not been able to test it yet but it is my expectation that the 'current' flowing in the crowbar FET during the OFF condition for an alternator will be under 1 amp. That current being delivered by the residual magnetism of the rotor. The cool thing about this philosophy is that all the issues for voltage rating of the contactor -AND- worries about load-dump transients are mitigated. This control system could be applied to an alternator of any pedigree with minimal concerns for damage. Further, it installs a one-wire alternator in an airplane while offering the legacy design goals for (1) any-time/any-condition ON/OFF control of the alternator and (2) timely response to mitigation of an OV condition. I'm now considering the use of my truck engine driven alternator test bed. Some years ago, a List member donated a new one-wire alternator to the task and it has been mounted on a frame to belt drive it from a 2 hp tread-mill motor. Preliminary work at low power can be accomplished with this fixture with high power work to be done on the truck. In the mean time, Z-24 as published is a valid philosophy for getting a one-wire alternator installed today. Further, Z-24 easily morphs to the next generation configuration when that hardware achieves production reality. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 09:08:37 AM PST US From: "Allen Fulmer" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Seems I killed one Odyssey PC625 battery Subaru engine with dual electrical system including pair of Odyssey PC625's. Left one battery master switch on all night! 6 yr. old PC625 on that master reading only 6.4 volts. Optimizer battery charger gives error indicating "CHARGER/BATTERY FAULT. Charging stopped". Since I was going to replace the batteries anyway before first flight went ahead and bought new PC625. Charger charges it and remaining 6 year old battery just fine. Would love to have a 12 volt battery sitting on the work bench. So - - - is there any method to bring this battery back to life for bench use only? Odyssey PC625 AGM battery and Xenotronics Optimizer Model SX100-1. Thanks, Allen Fulmer RV7 finishing up wiring details before closing top skin. ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 09:34:15 AM PST US From: "Jeff Luckey" Subject: AeroElectric-List: ELT Antenna Mount Please see attached picture: Please understand that my intention is not to be critical, but to learn. Is this an effective way to mount an ELT antenna? I understand why this builder chose to mount it this way. But I have concerns that there is a great deal of signal-blocking structure very close to the antenna. What do you RF gurus think? -RF neophyte ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 10:30:16 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ELT Antenna Mount From: Tim Andres Well certainly the omni-directional characteristics of the 1/4 wave antenna a re ruined, the vswr, is probably affected, it's horizontally polarized and n icely shielded......It might still work but you'll never know until you need it. If you want to hide ALL the antennas inside structure you probably need a glass plane.... ;-) Tim Cozy Mk IV Sent from my iPad On Apr 7, 2012, at 10:32 AM, "Jeff Luckey" wrote: > Please see attached picture: > > Please understand that my intention is not to be critical, but to learn > > Is this an effective way to mount an ELT antenna? > > I understand why this builder chose to mount it this way. But I have conc erns that there is a great deal of signal-blocking structure very close to t he antenna. > > What do you RF gurus think? > > -RF neophyte > > > <2009.05.02 - RV-8 - ELT Ameri-King AK-451 With GPS Input Installation (12 ).jpg> ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 10:46:23 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ELT Antenna Mount Good Afternoon Tim, Maybe the builder feels the same about an ELT as I do. Possibly he/she is just trying to be legal but does not care a whit whether or not it works! My feeling is that the use of an ELT should be a decision for the owner/operator, NOT a requirement of the law. Airliners are not required to carry one. Why should we? Too many rules driven by pure bureaucracy. Do Not Archive. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Brookeridge Air Park N3977A In a message dated 4/7/2012 12:31:03 P.M. Central Daylight Time, tim2542@sbcglobal.net writes: Well certainly the omni-directional characteristics of the 1/4 wave antenna are ruined, the vswr, is probably affected, it's horizontally pola rized and nicely shielded......It might still work but you'll never know until y ou need it. If you want to hide ALL the antennas inside structure you probably need a glass plane.... ;-) Tim Cozy Mk IV Sent from my iPad On Apr 7, 2012, at 10:32 AM, "Jeff Luckey" <_JLuckey@pacbell.net_ (mailto:JLuckey@pacbell.net) > wrote: Please see attached picture: Please understand that my intention is not to be critical, but to learn Is this an effective way to mount an ELT antenna? I understand why this builder chose to mount it this way. But I have concerns that there is a great deal of signal-blocking structure very close to the antenna. What do you RF gurus think? -RF neophyte <2009.05.02 - RV-8 - ELT Ameri-King AK-451 With GPS Input Installation (12).jpg> (http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List) (http://www.matronics.com/contribution) ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 10:47:16 AM PST US From: Paul Millner Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Converting to externally reg alternator >> As the personable spokesperson for Allstate might suggest, "You're in good hands with OV protection." Certainly we're better off with overvoltage protection than relying on our friends at the major insurance companies... our house burned down in a major wild fire 21 years ago, and Allstate and State Farm were guilty of reprehensible conduct. I'll stick with OV protection! :-) Paul ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 10:55:51 AM PST US From: "The Kuffels" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ELT Antenna Mount Jeff, << Is this an effective way to mount an ELT antenna? >> In terms of ideal electronic performance, it is a poor location. In terns of intended mission it is excellent. The tail cone location makes it very likely the antenna will survive a crash. There are enough gaps to make it likely a satellite would be able to receive a signal. It looks like you have an RV model. In that case a better place for an ELT antenna would be under the rear portion of the canopy. But what you have will certainly be more reliable than any external mount. Tom Kuffel ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 10:56:49 AM PST US From: "John Loram" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Seems I killed one Odyssey PC625 battery You may have well and truly damaged the battery, permanently. However, it could be that your 'smart charger' is refusing to even try to charge the battery under the assumption that it is unrecoverable (typically due to a shorted cell). Try putting a 'dumb' charger of 1 to 3 amps on the battery for a couple of hours, long enough to get the voltage of the batter up above 10 volts) then replace the dumb charger with the 'smart' charger and see if the smart charger will recover the battery. It may be that that the dumb charger will not get the battery above 8 or 9 volts, confirming that one of the six cells is shorted out in which case, consider using the battery as a door stop. cheers, -john- _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Allen Fulmer Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 9:12 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Seems I killed one Odyssey PC625 battery Subaru engine with dual electrical system including pair of Odyssey PC625's. Left one battery master switch on all night! 6 yr. old PC625 on that master reading only 6.4 volts. Optimizer battery charger gives error indicating "CHARGER/BATTERY FAULT. Charging stopped". Since I was going to replace the batteries anyway before first flight went ahead and bought new PC625. Charger charges it and remaining 6 year old battery just fine. Would love to have a 12 volt battery sitting on the work bench. So - - - is there any method to bring this battery back to life for bench use only? Odyssey PC625 AGM battery and Xenotronics Optimizer Model SX100-1. Thanks, Allen Fulmer RV7 finishing up wiring details before closing top skin. ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 11:00:38 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ELT Antenna Mount From: "DeWitt (Dee) Whittington" Bob, As I understand it, the reason commercial airliners don't have ELTs is they are always in contact with ATC and on IFR flight plans. If they crash, there is no question of locating them unlike a GA airplane which can choose to fly VFR with no flight plan and not in touch with ATC. Dee On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 1:45 PM, wrote: > ** > Good Afternoon Tim, > > Maybe the builder feels the same about an ELT as I do. > > Possibly he/she is just trying to be legal but does not care a whit > whether or not it works! > > My feeling is that the use of an ELT should be a decision for the > owner/operator, NOT a requirement of the law. > > Airliners are not required to carry one. Why should we? > > Too many rules driven by pure bureaucracy. > > Do Not Archive. > > Happy Skies, > > Old Bob > AKA > Bob Siegfried > Brookeridge Air Park > N3977A > > In a message dated 4/7/2012 12:31:03 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > tim2542@sbcglobal.net writes: > > Well certainly the omni-directional characteristics of the 1/4 wave > antenna are ruined, the vswr, is probably affected, it's horizontally > polarized and nicely shielded......It might still work but you'll never > know until you need it. If you want to hide ALL the antennas inside > structure you probably need a glass plane.... ;-) > Tim > Cozy Mk IV > > Sent from my iPad > > On Apr 7, 2012, at 10:32 AM, "Jeff Luckey" wrote: > > Please see attached picture:**** > > ** ** > > Please understand that my intention is not to be critical, but to learn =85** > ** > > ** ** > > Is this an effective way to mount an ELT antenna?**** > > ** ** > > I understand why this builder chose to mount it this way. But I have > concerns that there is a great deal of signal-blocking structure very clo se > to the antenna.**** > > ** ** > > What do you RF gurus think?**** > > ** ** > > -RF neophyte**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > <2009.05.02 - RV-8 - ELT Ameri-King AK-451 With GPS Input Installation > (12).jpg> > > * > > ist href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List">http:// www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-Lists.matronics.com/">http://forum s.matronics.com > p://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/contribution > * > > * > =========== =========== =========== =========== > * > > -- DeWitt Whittington www.VirginiaFlyIn.org Building Glasair Sportsman with 3 partners ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 11:07:50 AM PST US From: "Jeff Luckey" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Seems I killed one Odyssey PC625 battery You can probably bring it back with diminished capacity - it could be great as a bench-test battery; but you will need an old-school, stupid charger. And you may have to charge & discharge a few times. Your smart charger has correctly detected that this battery is in trouble, and has refused to charge it. (Imagine that - Attitude from a battery charger! What's next? . Grouchy toasters ;) I've been successful reviving a couple of batts with this technique. But I would NEVER fly with it! _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Allen Fulmer Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 08:12 Subject: AeroElectric-List: Seems I killed one Odyssey PC625 battery Subaru engine with dual electrical system including pair of Odyssey PC625's. Left one battery master switch on all night! 6 yr. old PC625 on that master reading only 6.4 volts. Optimizer battery charger gives error indicating "CHARGER/BATTERY FAULT. Charging stopped". Since I was going to replace the batteries anyway before first flight went ahead and bought new PC625. Charger charges it and remaining 6 year old battery just fine. Would love to have a 12 volt battery sitting on the work bench. So - - - is there any method to bring this battery back to life for bench use only? Odyssey PC625 AGM battery and Xenotronics Optimizer Model SX100-1. Thanks, Allen Fulmer RV7 finishing up wiring details before closing top skin. ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 11:22:33 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Next generation wig-wag controller for LED lamps From: "gregmchugh" Bob, Thanks for the info. What is the limiting factor on power to the LED's? I am planning to use the Teledyne LED lights that use 45 watts, so about 4 amps at 12 volts for each light. What changes would be needed to up the power capability by a factor of two. Different parts? Different packaging? Different connector? Heatsinks? What is the frequency of the wig-wag function and how is that set by the components? I am a software engineer so I know enough about hardware design to be dangerous, but I am in the process of learning more. Greg McHugh Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=370235#370235 ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 11:26:30 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ELT Antenna Mount Good Afternoon Dee, It is obvious that I have not presented the point in a way that you can understand my feelings. It should be a decision we make. NOT a forced solution. We as, individuals, should be able to choose what method we want to use to maintain contact with the rest of the world. I can do at least as good a job of providing guidance for recovery of my aircraft as do the air carriers. I might elect to fly IFR at all times or I may just decide that I do not want any help if I should fail to get where I am going. More likely, I would carry a PLB in areas that would be difficult and nothing at all in flat land Mid America. Lots of possibilities. Long before the rules were forced upon us, I made a practice of carrying a portable VHF communication unit (Remember the Bayside?) and keeping a current IFR chart on board that would let me know what frequency would be monitored by aircraft in the area. My recollection is that IFR flight was NOT mandatory for air carrier aircraft at the time the ELT was foisted upon us. It was the decision of a liberal congress critter that forced the issue. Not the FAA or the aviati on industry. The idea is one of personal choice. Happy Skies, Old Bob In a message dated 4/7/2012 1:01:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time, dee.whittington@gmail.com writes: Bob, As I understand it, the reason commercial airliners don't have ELTs is they are always in contact with ATC and on IFR flight plans. If they crash , there is no question of locating them unlike a GA airplane which can choos e to fly VFR with no flight plan and not in touch with ATC. Dee On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 1:45 PM, <_BobsV35B@aol.com_ (mailto:BobsV35B@aol.com) > wrote: Good Afternoon Tim, Maybe the builder feels the same about an ELT as I do. Possibly he/she is just trying to be legal but does not care a whit whether or not it works! My feeling is that the use of an ELT should be a decision for the owner/operator, NOT a requirement of the law. Airliners are not required to carry one. Why should we? Too many rules driven by pure bureaucracy. Do Not Archive. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Brookeridge Air Park N3977A In a message dated 4/7/2012 12:31:03 P.M. Central Daylight Time, _tim2542@sbcglobal.net_ (mailto:tim2542@sbcglobal.net) writes: Well certainly the omni-directional characteristics of the 1/4 wave antenna are ruined, the vswr, is probably affected, it's horizontally pola rized and nicely shielded......It might still work but you'll never know until y ou need it. If you want to hide ALL the antennas inside structure you probably need a glass plane.... ;-) Tim Cozy Mk IV Sent from my iPad On Apr 7, 2012, at 10:32 AM, "Jeff Luckey" <_JLuckey@pacbell.net_ (mailto:JLuckey@pacbell.net) > wrote: Please see attached picture: Please understand that my intention is not to be critical, but to learn Is this an effective way to mount an ELT antenna? I understand why this builder chose to mount it this way. But I have concerns that there is a great deal of signal-blocking structure very clos e to the antenna. What do you RF gurus think? -RF neophyte ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 11:29:28 AM PST US From: "Jeff Luckey" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: ELT Antenna Mount Tom, To be clear, that picture is not of my airplane. I am building an RV-7 but have not started work on my fuselage. I'm trying to gather information for decisions I will be making in the near future. _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of The Kuffels Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 09:55 Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ELT Antenna Mount Jeff, << Is this an effective way to mount an ELT antenna? >> In terms of ideal electronic performance, it is a poor location. In terns of intended mission it is excellent. The tail cone location makes it very likely the antenna will survive a crash. There are enough gaps to make it likely a satellite would be able to receive a signal. It looks like you have an RV model. In that case a better place for an ELT antenna would be under the rear portion of the canopy. But what you have will certainly be more reliable than any external mount. Tom Kuffel ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 12:02:51 PM PST US From: "Jeff Luckey" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: ELT Antenna Mount Bob, Do you feel the same way about anti-lock brakes, airbags, catalytic converters? As the Original Poster for this topic, I deem that we are quickly vectoring off-topic. If it is necessary to continue this alternate topic, let's move it to the appropriate forum. _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B@aol.com Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 10:24 Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ELT Antenna Mount Good Afternoon Dee, It is obvious that I have not presented the point in a way that you can understand my feelings. It should be a decision we make. NOT a forced solution. We as, individuals, should be able to choose what method we want to use to maintain contact with the rest of the world. I can do at least as good a job of providing guidance for recovery of my aircraft as do the air carriers. I might elect to fly IFR at all times or I may just decide that I do not want any help if I should fail to get where I am going. More likely, I would carry a PLB in areas that would be difficult and nothing at all in flat land Mid America. Lots of possibilities. Long before the rules were forced upon us, I made a practice of carrying a portable VHF communication unit (Remember the Bayside?) and keeping a current IFR chart on board that would let me know what frequency would be monitored by aircraft in the area. My recollection is that IFR flight was NOT mandatory for air carrier aircraft at the time the ELT was foisted upon us. It was the decision of a liberal congress critter that forced the issue. Not the FAA or the aviation industry. The idea is one of personal choice. Happy Skies, Old Bob In a message dated 4/7/2012 1:01:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time, dee.whittington@gmail.com writes: Bob, As I understand it, the reason commercial airliners don't have ELTs is they are always in contact with ATC and on IFR flight plans. If they crash, there is no question of locating them unlike a GA airplane which can choose to fly VFR with no flight plan and not in touch with ATC. Dee On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 1:45 PM, wrote: Good Afternoon Tim, Maybe the builder feels the same about an ELT as I do. Possibly he/she is just trying to be legal but does not care a whit whether or not it works! My feeling is that the use of an ELT should be a decision for the owner/operator, NOT a requirement of the law. Airliners are not required to carry one. Why should we? Too many rules driven by pure bureaucracy. Do Not Archive. Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Brookeridge Air Park N3977A In a message dated 4/7/2012 12:31:03 P.M. Central Daylight Time, tim2542@sbcglobal.net writes: Well certainly the omni-directional characteristics of the 1/4 wave antenna are ruined, the vswr, is probably affected, it's horizontally polarized and nicely shielded......It might still work but you'll never know until you need it. If you want to hide ALL the antennas inside structure you probably need a glass plane.... ;-) Tim Cozy Mk IV Sent from my iPad On Apr 7, 2012, at 10:32 AM, "Jeff Luckey" wrote: Please see attached picture: Please understand that my intention is not to be critical, but to learn. Is this an effective way to mount an ELT antenna? I understand why this builder chose to mount it this way. But I have concerns that there is a great deal of signal-blocking structure very close to the antenna. What do you RF gurus think? -RF neophyte ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 12:36:56 PM PST US From: John Grosse Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ELT Antenna Mount I guess we could debate forever about what should or shouldn't be the rule, but I don't believe that was the original question. As far as the ELT in the picture goes: I don't believe it would comply with the manufacturer's TSO, and would for that reason not be an acceptable solution to me personally. Whether it would work as hoped in an emergency or be acceptable to your DAR is a question none of us can know for sure. It's your airplane, and you are free to decide based on your own priorities and how lucky you feel at the moment. John Grosse ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 12:37:02 PM PST US From: rayj Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ELT Antenna Mount I can't say I follow your logic from charger to catalytic, but as Gilda Radner said: Nevermind! Back to your battery. I believe I saw on this list some time back a possible "cheat" for this situation. Connect a good battery and the dead battery in parallel with the charger. As I understand it the charger is "tricked" into operating and will then charge both batteries. I have brought dead batteries back with "dumb" chargers many times, though as others have said, I wouldn't use it in a critical application. Hope this helps. Raymond Julian Kettle River, MN "And you know that I could have me a million more friends, and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine On 04/07/2012 03:01 PM, Jeff Luckey wrote: > Bob, > > Do you feel the same way about anti-lock brakes, airbags, catalytic > converters? > > As the Original Poster for this topic, I deem that we are quickly > vectoring off-topic. > > If it is necessary to continue this alternate topic, lets move it to > the appropriate forum > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:*owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of > *BobsV35B@aol.com > *Sent:* Saturday, April 07, 2012 10:24 > *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: ELT Antenna Mount > > Good Afternoon Dee, > > It is obvious that I have not presented the point in a way that you can > understand my feelings. It should be a decision we make. NOT a forced > solution. > > We as, individuals, should be able to choose what method we want to use > to maintain contact with the rest of the world. > > I can do at least as good a job of providing guidance for recovery of my > aircraft as do the air carriers. I might elect to fly IFR at all times > or I may just decide that I do not want any help if I should fail to get > where I am going. > > More likely, I would carry a PLB in areas that would be difficult and > nothing at all in flat land Mid America. > > Lots of possibilities. > > Long before the rules were forced upon us, I made a practice of carrying > a portable VHF communication unit (Remember the Bayside?) and keeping a > current IFR chart on board that would let me know what frequency would > be monitored by aircraft in the area. > > My recollection is that IFR flight was NOT mandatory for air carrier > aircraft at the time the ELT was foisted upon us. It was the decision of > a liberal congress critter that forced the issue. Not the FAA or the > aviation industry. > > The idea is one of personal choice. > > Happy Skies, > > Old Bob > > In a message dated 4/7/2012 1:01:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > dee.whittington@gmail.com writes: > > Bob, > > As I understand it, the reason commercial airliners don't have ELTs > is they are always in contact with ATC and on IFR flight plans. If > they crash, there is no question of locating them unlike a GA > airplane which can choose to fly VFR with no flight plan and not in > touch with ATC. > > Dee > > On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 1:45 PM, > wrote: > > Good Afternoon Tim, > > Maybe the builder feels the same about an ELT as I do. > > Possibly he/she is just trying to be legal but does not care a whit > whether or not it works! > > My feeling is that the use of an ELT should be a decision for the > owner/operator, NOT a requirement of the law. > > Airliners are not required to carry one. Why should we? > > Too many rules driven by pure bureaucracy. > > Do Not Archive. > > Happy Skies, > > Old Bob > > AKA > > Bob Siegfried > > BrookeridgeAir Park > > N3977A > > In a message dated 4/7/2012 12:31:03 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > tim2542@sbcglobal.net writes: > > Well certainly the omni-directional characteristics of the 1/4 > wave antenna are ruined, the vswr, is probably affected, it's > horizontally polarized and nicely shielded......It might still > work but you'll never know until you need it. If you want to > hide ALL the antennas inside structure you probably need a glass > plane.... ;-) > > Tim > > Cozy Mk IV > > Sent from my iPad > > > On Apr 7, 2012, at 10:32 AM, "Jeff Luckey" > wrote: > >> Please see attached picture: >> >> Please understand that my intention is not to be critical, but >> to learn >> >> Is this an effective way to mount an ELT antenna? >> >> I understand why this builder chose to mount it this way. But >> I have concerns that there is a great deal of signal-blocking >> structure very close to the antenna. >> >> What do you RF gurus think? >> >> -RF neophyte >> > * * > > * * > > ** > > ** > > ** > > *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List* > > ** > > ** > > *http://forums.matronics.com* > > ** > > ** > > *http://www.matronics.com/contribution* > > * * > > * > > > * ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 01:06:03 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Troubleshooting Field Breaker From: "Jim P" Continued trouble shooting today. Bill at B&C suggested a probable cause of bad field connectors at the alternator. Swapped connectors and all seems fine. Field pin at alternator to ground is 3.5 Ohms so that seems within limits. I ran a jumper wire from the regulator to the field and still see the same issue. I did note that I'm seeing about 15.9 - 16V just before the breaker opens so the alternator seems to be putting out voltage. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=370244#370244 ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 01:21:52 PM PST US From: rayj Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ELT Antenna Mount Please ignore this. I posted it under the wrong subject. My apologies. Raymond Julian Kettle River, MN "And you know that I could have me a million more friends, and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine On 04/07/2012 02:35 PM, rayj wrote: > > I can't say I follow your logic from charger to catalytic, but as Gilda > Radner said: Nevermind! > > Back to your battery. I believe I saw on this list some time back a > possible "cheat" for this situation. Connect a good battery and the dead > battery in parallel with the charger. As I understand it the charger is > "tricked" into operating and will then charge both batteries. I have > brought dead batteries back with "dumb" chargers many times, though as > others have said, I wouldn't use it in a critical application. > > Hope this helps. > > Raymond Julian > Kettle River, MN > > "And you know that I could have me a million more friends, > and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine > > On 04/07/2012 03:01 PM, Jeff Luckey wrote: >> Bob, >> >> Do you feel the same way about anti-lock brakes, airbags, catalytic >> converters? >> >> As the Original Poster for this topic, I deem that we are quickly >> vectoring off-topic. >> >> If it is necessary to continue this alternate topic, lets move it to >> the appropriate forum >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> *From:*owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of >> *BobsV35B@aol.com >> *Sent:* Saturday, April 07, 2012 10:24 >> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: ELT Antenna Mount >> >> Good Afternoon Dee, >> >> It is obvious that I have not presented the point in a way that you can >> understand my feelings. It should be a decision we make. NOT a forced >> solution. >> >> We as, individuals, should be able to choose what method we want to use >> to maintain contact with the rest of the world. >> >> I can do at least as good a job of providing guidance for recovery of my >> aircraft as do the air carriers. I might elect to fly IFR at all times >> or I may just decide that I do not want any help if I should fail to get >> where I am going. >> >> More likely, I would carry a PLB in areas that would be difficult and >> nothing at all in flat land Mid America. >> >> Lots of possibilities. >> >> Long before the rules were forced upon us, I made a practice of carrying >> a portable VHF communication unit (Remember the Bayside?) and keeping a >> current IFR chart on board that would let me know what frequency would >> be monitored by aircraft in the area. >> >> My recollection is that IFR flight was NOT mandatory for air carrier >> aircraft at the time the ELT was foisted upon us. It was the decision of >> a liberal congress critter that forced the issue. Not the FAA or the >> aviation industry. >> >> The idea is one of personal choice. >> >> Happy Skies, >> >> Old Bob >> >> In a message dated 4/7/2012 1:01:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time, >> dee.whittington@gmail.com writes: >> >> Bob, >> >> As I understand it, the reason commercial airliners don't have ELTs >> is they are always in contact with ATC and on IFR flight plans. If >> they crash, there is no question of locating them unlike a GA >> airplane which can choose to fly VFR with no flight plan and not in >> touch with ATC. >> >> Dee >> >> On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 1:45 PM, > > wrote: >> >> Good Afternoon Tim, >> >> Maybe the builder feels the same about an ELT as I do. >> >> Possibly he/she is just trying to be legal but does not care a whit >> whether or not it works! >> >> My feeling is that the use of an ELT should be a decision for the >> owner/operator, NOT a requirement of the law. >> >> Airliners are not required to carry one. Why should we? >> >> Too many rules driven by pure bureaucracy. >> >> Do Not Archive. >> >> Happy Skies, >> >> Old Bob >> >> AKA >> >> Bob Siegfried >> >> BrookeridgeAir Park >> >> N3977A >> >> In a message dated 4/7/2012 12:31:03 P.M. Central Daylight Time, >> tim2542@sbcglobal.net writes: >> >> Well certainly the omni-directional characteristics of the 1/4 >> wave antenna are ruined, the vswr, is probably affected, it's >> horizontally polarized and nicely shielded......It might still >> work but you'll never know until you need it. If you want to >> hide ALL the antennas inside structure you probably need a glass >> plane.... ;-) >> >> Tim >> >> Cozy Mk IV >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> >> On Apr 7, 2012, at 10:32 AM, "Jeff Luckey" > > wrote: >> >>> Please see attached picture: >>> >>> Please understand that my intention is not to be critical, but >>> to learn >>> >>> Is this an effective way to mount an ELT antenna? >>> >>> I understand why this builder chose to mount it this way. But >>> I have concerns that there is a great deal of signal-blocking >>> structure very close to the antenna. >>> >>> What do you RF gurus think? >>> >>> -RF neophyte >>> >> * * >> >> * * >> >> ** >> >> ** >> >> ** >> >> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List* >> >> ** >> >> ** >> >> *http://forums.matronics.com* >> >> ** >> >> ** >> >> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution* >> >> * * >> >> * >> >> >> * > > ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 01:27:33 PM PST US From: rayj Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Seems I killed one Odyssey PC625 battery I believe I saw on this list some time back a possible "cheat" for this situation. Connect a good battery and the dead battery in parallel with the charger. As I understand it the charger is "tricked" into operating and will then charge both batteries. I have brought dead batteries back with "dumb" chargers many times, though as others have said, I wouldn't use them in a critical application. Hope this helps. Raymond Julian Kettle River, MN "And you know that I could have me a million more friends, and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine On 04/07/2012 02:04 PM, Jeff Luckey wrote: > You can probably bring it back with diminished capacity it could be > great as a bench-test battery; but you will need an old-school, > stupid charger. And you may have to charge & discharge a few times. > > Your smart charger has correctly detected that this battery is in > trouble, and has refused to charge it. (Imagine that Attitude from > a battery charger! Whats next? Grouchy toasters ;) > > Ive been successful reviving a couple of batts with this technique. > But I would NEVER fly with it! > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:*owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of > *Allen Fulmer *Sent:* Saturday, April 07, 2012 08:12 *To:* > Aeroelectric-List *Subject:* AeroElectric-List: Seems I killed one > Odyssey PC625 battery > > Subaru engine with dual electrical system including pair of Odyssey > PC625s. > > Left one battery master switch on all night! > > 6 yr. old PC625 on that master reading only 6.4 volts. > > Optimizer battery charger gives error indicating CHARGER/BATTERY > FAULT. Charging stopped. > > Since I was going to replace the batteries anyway before first flight > went ahead and bought new PC625. Charger charges it and remaining 6 > year old battery just fine. > > Would love to have a 12 volt battery sitting on the work bench. > > So - - - is there any method to bring this battery back to life for > bench use only? > > Odyssey PC625 AGM battery and Xenotronics Optimizer Model SX100-1. > > Thanks, > > Allen Fulmer > > RV7 finishing up wiring details before closing top skin. > > * * > > * * > > ** > > ** > > ** > > *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List* > > ** > > ** > > *http://forums.matronics.com* > > ** > > ** > > *http://www.matronics.com/contribution* > > * * > > * > > > * ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 04:42:42 PM PST US From: "David Lloyd" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Seems I killed one Odyssey PC625 battery ...That probably will fool the charger however, I am not so sure about the amperage action between the 2 batteries when connected. I think the fully charged batt. will flash charge the dead batt. with a lot of current at least for the several seconds. Would that be enough to burn up the connecting wire or cause the dead one to do something odd or dangerous..? If tried, I would put some type of resistance between the good and dead battery so the initial inrush current is limited to some reasonable level, maybe 20 amps or less. Hopefully Bob will inject here and fine tune the idea...... Dave ______________________________________________ ----- Original Message ----- From: "rayj" Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 1:26 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Seems I killed one Odyssey PC625 battery > > I believe I saw on this list some time back a possible "cheat" for this > situation. Connect a good battery and the dead battery in parallel with > the charger. As I understand it the charger is "tricked" into operating > and will then charge both batteries. I have brought dead batteries back > with "dumb" chargers many times, though as others have said, I wouldn't > use them in a critical application. > > Hope this helps. > > Raymond Julian > Kettle River, MN > > "And you know that I could have me a million more friends, > and all I'd have to lose is my point of view." - John Prine > > On 04/07/2012 02:04 PM, Jeff Luckey wrote: >> You can probably bring it back with diminished capacity it could be >> great as a bench-test battery; but you will need an old-school, >> stupid charger. And you may have to charge & discharge a few times. >> >> Your smart charger has correctly detected that this battery is in >> trouble, and has refused to charge it. (Imagine that Attitude from >> a battery charger! Whats next? Grouchy toasters ;) >> >> Ive been successful reviving a couple of batts with this technique. >> But I would NEVER fly with it! >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> >> >> > *From:*owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of >> *Allen Fulmer *Sent:* Saturday, April 07, 2012 08:12 *To:* >> Aeroelectric-List *Subject:* AeroElectric-List: Seems I killed one >> Odyssey PC625 battery >> >> Subaru engine with dual electrical system including pair of Odyssey >> PC625s. >> >> Left one battery master switch on all night! >> >> 6 yr. old PC625 on that master reading only 6.4 volts. >> >> Optimizer battery charger gives error indicating CHARGER/BATTERY >> FAULT. Charging stopped. >> >> Since I was going to replace the batteries anyway before first flight >> went ahead and bought new PC625. Charger charges it and remaining 6 >> year old battery just fine. >> >> Would love to have a 12 volt battery sitting on the work bench. >> >> So - - - is there any method to bring this battery back to life for >> bench use only? >> >> Odyssey PC625 AGM battery and Xenotronics Optimizer Model SX100-1. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Allen Fulmer >> >> RV7 finishing up wiring details before closing top skin. >> >> * * >> >> * * >> >> ** >> >> ** >> >> ** >> >> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List* >> >> ** >> >> ** >> >> *http://forums.matronics.com* >> >> ** >> >> ** >> >> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution* >> >> * * >> >> * >> >> >> * > > > ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 07:19:33 PM PST US From: "The Kuffels" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ELT Antenna Mount John & Jeff, << I don't believe it would comply with the manufacturer's TSO, >> Usually the manufacturer's installation instructions address what must be done to comply with the TSO. For example, the 406 MHz ACK E-04 and the Airtex 406-4 say the unit must be mounted in a certain orientation to a structure of a certain strength, have an antenna cable of a maximum loss, use their supplied antenna mounted to a structure of a certain strength, etc. It does not mandate where the antenna is located. There are some recommendations but no TSO requirements. Thus I conclude, unless there is some very unusual wording in a specific ELT manufacturer's instructions, the far tailcone installation is legal. Note the multifrequency antennas for the above ELTs would not mechanically fit in the shown location. But as I said, a much better place would be under and near the rear edge of the canopy. It would meet the dual needs of crash survivability and reasonable satellite visibility. Tom Kuffel ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 07:19:33 PM PST US From: Ralph Finch Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ELT Antenna Mount >From Wikipedia : Disappearance and searchAs Majority Leader, Boggs often campaigned for > others. On October 16, 1972, he was aboard a twin engine Cessna 310 with > Representative Nick Begich of Alaska, who was facing a possible tight rac e > in the November 1972 general election against the Republican candidate, D on > Young, when it disappeared during a flight from Anchorage to Juneau. The > only others on board were Begich=92s aide Russell Brown and the pilot, Do n > Jonz;[5] the four were heading to a campaign fundraiser for Begich. (Begi ch > won the 1972 election posthumously with 56 percent to Young's 44 percent, > though Young would win the special election to replace Begich and won eve ry > election through and including 2010.) > > Coast Guard, Navy, and Air Force planes searched for the party. On > November 24, 1972, after thirty-nine days, the search was abandoned. > Neither the wreckage of the plane nor the pilot's and passengers' remains > were ever found. The accident prompted Congress to pass a law mandating > Emergency Locator Transmitters in all U.S. civil aircraft. But back to the OP's question. As others have pointed out, it's more likely to physically survive a crash than an externally mounted ELT, but less likely to radiate its signal usefully. Another question is whether the antenna location is even legal. Assuming it is legal, then your choice as to if the internal location gives you the better chance at being found, or if not, if the improvement to an external location is worth the trouble of changing it. ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 08:41:54 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Next generation wig-wag controller for LED lamps At 01:20 PM 4/7/2012, you wrote: > >Bob, > >Thanks for the info. > >What is the limiting factor on power to the LED's? > >I am planning to use the Teledyne LED lights that use 45 watts, so >about 4 amps at 12 volts for each light. What changes would be >needed to up the power capability by a factor of two. Different parts? >Different packaging? Different connector? Heatsinks? Heatsinks. Just because a device is RATED at xx amps, doesn't mean that it will carry that current waving around in breeze . . . unless it's a strong breeze and maybe down around -40 or so. The parts as shown are good for over 10A if the FETs are thoughtfully accommodated with respect to getting rid of their heat. Actually, these fets might be okay at 5A with little or no heatsinking . . . didn't bother to run the numbers. But in any case, upsizing for the larger lamps is no big deal. >What is the frequency of the wig-wag function and how is that set >by the components? The 1M/1uF network sets flash rate. That combination with the 4093's I had in the bin gave about 340 mS in one state and 450 mS in the others. One of the characteristics of the cmos-gate astable is that the hysteresis band is not centered between Vcc/Vdd, hence the peg-leg gait of the flash pattern. Of course, this wouldn't hurt the serviceability of the device . . . in fact, folks would know who was inbound from many miles out by the pattern of your wig-wag. The 'fix' would be to add a resistor and diode in parallel with the 1M and adjust for better symmetry -OR- change the oscillator to a 555 timer -OR- add a divide by two flip-flop and double the frequency of the oscillator. The design goal was minimum parts count but with some additional 'silicon herbs and spices' . . . the flavor of the dish can be improved. > I am a software engineer so I know enough >about hardware design to be dangerous, but I am in the process >of learning more. Good for you! We all gotta start somewhere. My career got officially launched in the basement of an uncle who was big wig engineer for local power company. He taught me the early motions of soldering things together . . . with an iron that was the size of a billy club and took 20 minutes to warm up! Hmmm . . . if you can herd the bytes around in a microcontroller, there are some $1 devices from PIC that would take care of your flash timer and push-pull outputs to logic level gates on power fets. Of course, other inputs could be used to control OFF/WW/ON functionality. If you're interested in getting your feet wet in etched circuit board layout, check out the free CAD package from expresspcb.com It might even be that the end-product can be fitted into this stock enclosure Emacs! There's a gazillion ways to do this. Let's pick one that gets your juices going . . . Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 08:45:24 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Troubleshooting Field Breaker At 03:03 PM 4/7/2012, you wrote: > >Continued trouble shooting today. Bill at B&C suggested a probable >cause of bad field connectors at the alternator. Swapped connectors >and all seems fine. Field pin at alternator to ground is 3.5 Ohms so >that seems within limits. I ran a jumper wire from the regulator to >the field and still see the same issue. I did note that I'm seeing >about 15.9 - 16V just before the breaker opens so the alternator >seems to be putting out voltage. If it is that high, then it seems likely that the ov protection system is doing what it was designed to do. If regulator portion of the LR3 is functioning correctly, then it's being mis-informed as to actual bus voltage or perhaps it has been adjusted too high. One way to sort through all the variables is do some testing that is outside the current constellation of potential problems. I suggest you mail it to B&C. Priority mail in a free padded envelope from the post office would get it there in a day or two. Same for the trip back. If the regulator is okay, then this greatly simplifies your task. Bob . . . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.