Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 02:13 AM - Re: Re: ELT Antenna Mount (BobsV35B@aol.com)
2. 05:40 AM - Re: ELT Antenna Mount (Jared Yates)
3. 05:50 AM - Re: Conduit in wings. (John Morgensen)
4. 06:12 AM - Re: Conduit in wings. (Ken)
5. 06:29 AM - Re: Re: ELT Antenna Mount (Ralph Finch)
6. 06:43 AM - Re: Re: ELT Antenna Mount ()
7. 07:07 AM - Re: Re: ELT Antenna Mount (Kelly McMullen)
8. 07:09 AM - Re: Re: ELT Antenna Mount (BobsV35B@aol.com)
9. 09:28 AM - Re: Next generation wig-wag controller for LED lamps (gregmchugh)
10. 09:58 AM - Re: Re: Next generation wig-wag controller for LED lamps (Daniel Hooper)
11. 10:50 AM - Re: Next generation wig-wag controller for LED lamps (gregmchugh)
12. 10:50 AM - Who got lost without an ELT? (Paul Millner)
13. 11:25 AM - Open source product development for OBAM aircraft (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 11:38 AM - Re: Re: ELT Antenna Mount (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
15. 12:20 PM - Re: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
16. 12:42 PM - Re: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft (Daniel Hooper)
17. 02:12 PM - Re: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
18. 02:15 PM - Re: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft (Jeff Luckey)
19. 03:40 PM - Re: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft (gregmchugh)
20. 04:47 PM - Re: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft (gregmchugh)
21. 07:41 PM - Re: Re: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
22. 07:50 PM - Re: Re: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
23. 08:01 PM - Point me in the right direction (Bill Bradburry)
24. 09:17 PM - Re: Point me in the right direction (Bruce)
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: ELT Antenna Mount |
Good Morning RalphMariaFinch,
I use the name above because there is no other salutation or signature on
your note.
My recollection is that Matt does request that all communications to his
list include such information.
In any case. I would be happy if the government does not come and look for
me.
I happily drive my car all over the USA and never ask any governmental
agency to follow my track. When I want my travels followed, I use many
methods based on where I am traveling, the mode of travel, and the relative
danger that might be associated with that travel.
The original ELT was and is a basic disaster. Typical of all government
programs, it costs more and provides less help than most other methods that
are available. The new units are better, but still not as positive as other
methods that we can use IF we desire.
Personally, I do carry a PLB. I also carry a portable GPS and a portable
VHF radio. I also use and encourage my family to use a SPOT. Sure, I may use
governmental services if they are available, but I will have chosen the
method and evaluated the risk versus cost.
Individual choice is the way it should be done. I do not want you or anyone
else to pay for a search to find me or my remains.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Downers Grove, IL
Stearman N3977A
Bonanza N20318
Do Not Archive
In a message dated 4/9/2012 12:22:34 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
ralphmariafinch@gmail.com writes:
I wouldn't mind if it were optional, but then for those who don't carry
one, I don't want to pay taxes to go look for you.
The ELT requirement started when a Congresscritter disappeared in his
light plane in Alaska and the military spent a lot of time and money looking
for him. Never did find him. You can say they're worthless all you want
(ELTs, I mean) but since the government spends money to look for you they have
the right to force you to make their job easier.
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 9:57 AM, <_Speedy11@aol.com_
(mailto:Speedy11@aol.com) > wrote:
Old Bob is right on target.
ELTs are a government-required waste of money. The decision to carry one
should be at the choice of the owner/operator. I don't care if mine works
or not. I don't plan to depend on it.
As Bob said, "Too many rules driven by pure bureaucracy"
Check Six,
Old Stan
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: ELT Antenna Mount |
As a side note to the airliner discussion, each airliner that I have operate
d (thus far) has had an ELT. As you say, it has been operated under IFR, bu
t it has also been followed by a staff of trained and certificated dispatche
rs in a well-equipped operations center, complete within fancy computers and
back up generators. It's been flown according to pre-planned route, with t
wo current, medically certified, qualified crewmembers at the controls. And
of course, a staff of operators at the arrival point who have a written pla
n for what to do if the airplane doesn't show up on time. We've also carried
a CVR and FDR, both of which also have their own locating beacons. Finally
, we've carried enough fuel to make a huge smoking hole event crash. Safety i
s often in the eye of the beholder, but I think it's an exaggeration to thin
k that you have the same level of safety as an airliner when it comes to sea
rch and rescue. It's easy for you to say that you don't want any help with S
AR, but until the FAA makes that a box that you can check on the flight plan
form, I don't see how you're going to opt out from practical standpoint. It
's sort of like believing that you can opt out of the healthcare system- per
haps possible but highly unlikely in practice.
> I can do at least as good a job of providing guidance for recovery of my a
ircraft as do the air carriers. I might elect to fly IFR at all times or I m
ay just decide that I do not want any help if I should fail to get where I a
m going.
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 4/7/2012 1:01:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time, dee.whitti
ngton@gmail.com writes:
> Bob,
>
> As I understand it, the reason commercial airliners don't have ELTs is the
y are always in contact with ATC and on IFR flight plans. If they crash, the
re is no question of locating them unlike a GA airplane which can choose to f
ly VFR with no flight plan and not in touch with ATC.
>
> Dee
>
> On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 1:45 PM, <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 whethe
r or not it works!
>
> My feeling is that the use of an ELT should be a decision for the owner/op
erator, 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@s
bcglobal.net writes:
> Well certainly the omni-directional characteristics of the 1/4 wave antenn
a are ruined, the vswr, is probably affected, it's horizontally polarized an
d nicely shielded......It might still work but you'll never know until you n
eed it. If you want to hide ALL the antennas inside structure you probably n
eed a glass plane.... ;-)
> Tim
> Cozy Mk IV
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Apr 7, 2012, at 10:32 AM, "Jeff Luckey" <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 con
cerns that there is a great deal of signal-blocking structure very close to t
he antenna.
>>
>>
>>
>> What do you RF gurus think?
>>
>>
>>
>> -RF neophyte
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
>
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: Conduit in wings. |
I used 1/2 inch CPVC pipe and plastic pipe hangers. CPVC is lighter
than regular PVC and it used for the hot water lines in motor homes.
john
On 4/8/2012 6:03 PM, rayj wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> I'm planning on completing my aircraft with a minimum electrical
> system and providing a way to install wingtip lights later. Any
> experiences anyone has with using different types of conduit in wings
> would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> 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
>
>
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: Conduit in wings. |
I've been told by a plastic manufacturer that cpvc is about the worst
plastic out there for toxic smoke if it ever does burn. The translucent
poly pipe used for things like ice maker water supply lines might be a
better choice and more flexible if that matters. Several sizes
available. I do favor non conductive conduit rather than metal. It helps
to leave a string in the conduit if you plan to pull extra wires through
later. The previously mentioned plastic snap in grommets are handy for
running conduit through metal ribs.
Ken
On 09/04/2012 8:48 AM, John Morgensen wrote:
> <john@morgensen.com>
>
> I used 1/2 inch CPVC pipe and plastic pipe hangers. CPVC is lighter than
> regular PVC and it used for the hot water lines in motor homes.
>
> john
>
> On 4/8/2012 6:03 PM, rayj wrote:
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> I'm planning on completing my aircraft with a minimum electrical
>> system and providing a way to install wingtip lights later. Any
>> experiences anyone has with using different types of conduit in wings
>> would be appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Raymond Julian
>> Kettle River, MN
>>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ELT Antenna Mount |
>
> Personally, I do carry a PLB.
>
> And if you activate that, who will come looking for you? Not your friends
or family, but the government, on the taxpayer's dime. So you confirm that
you are not as independent as your mythology tells you.
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: ELT Antenna Mount |
Not exactly, Robert :) - our numbers are greater than 3 or 4 - there are many
more of us who are not relinquishing freedoms for imposed "safety", "well-being",
"welfare" etc. But that's beyond the scope of this list.
Rumen
do not archive
---- Robert Borger <rlborger@mac.com> wrote:
> Old Bob & Stan,
Guess it makes 3 of us.
Blue skies & tailwinds,
Bob Borger
Europa XS Tri, Rotax 914 w/ Intercooler & Airmaster C/S Prop
Little Toot Sport Biplane, Lycoming AEIO-320 EXP
3705 Lynchburg Dr.
Corinth, TX 76208-5331
H: 940-497-2123
C: 817-992-1117
On Apr 08, 2012, at 12:18 PM, BobsV35B@aol.com wrote:
Hi Stan,
Nice to know I am not alone!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
Do Not Archive
In a message dated 4/8/2012 12:00:16 P.M. Central Daylight Time, Speedy11@aol.com
writes:
Old Bob isright on target.
ELTs are a government-required waste of money. The decision to carry one should
be at the choice of the owner/operator. I don't care if mine works or not. I
don't plan to depend on it.
As Bob said, "Too many rules driven by pure bureaucracy"
========================
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: ELT Antenna Mount |
Just for accuracy, It wasn't just one congresscritter, it was the House
Majority Leader, along with the only House Member for Alaska, along with
2 others in a charter Cessna 310 with a professional, experienced
pilot....not just a little light plane out for a joy ride. Perhaps that
is why in recent years the Sec. Service has insisted on military
aircraft carrying the Majority Leader. BTW Canada had been requiring
ELTs for a year or two when this happened.
On 4/8/2012 10:19 PM, Ralph Finch wrote:
>
> The ELT requirement started when a Congresscritter disappeared in his
> light plane in Alaska and the military spent a lot of time and money
> looking for him. Never did find him. You can say they're worthless all
> you want (ELTs, I mean) but since the government spends money to look
> for you they have the right to force you to make their job easier.****
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: ELT Antenna Mount |
Good Morning ralphmariafinch,
Obviously I disagree with every point you mention, but this discussion has
no place on this list.
It started when I suggested that the builder placing his antenna in that
rather unconventional position was like me and did not feel that good
performance from the ELT was important.
And ---- I still follow Matt's request as to identifying ourselves and as
to adding Do Not Archive, to messages of little importance such as this.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Downers Grove, Illinois
Piper Pacer PA-20
In a message dated 4/9/2012 8:29:56 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
ralphmariafinch@gmail.com writes:
Personally, I do carry a PLB.
And if you activate that, who will come looking for you? Not your friends
or family, but the government, on the taxpayer's dime. So you confirm that
you are not as independent as your mythology tells you.
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: Next generation wig-wag controller for LED lamps |
Bob,
I probably should have changed the Subject line on this but I decided to leave
it alone to continue
the thread we had started. It is getting away from the LED wig-wag topic...
I have thought about this a little and I think it would be worthwhile to consider
the option of a general purpose
programmable module and use the LED wig-wag as a simple example application. I
see three useful
characteristics for this module:
1. Functionality set in software
2. Some capability to configure the I/O circuits for each application
3. A standard module package and connector such as the one you showed using an
enclosed case with d-sub connector
To be useful for a wide audience there needs to be simple learning curve for developing
the software
functionality and I/O configuration. I agree that the use of a PIC micro would
be the way to go based on
their ready availability, good price per performance, and availability of development
tools.
In order to make it attractive for general use I would propose the following:
Software Development - The learning curve for using the standard PIC software development
tools
is pretty steep for a novice and I would expect many would shy away from that learning
curve. There
are some third party development tools designed to ease the learning curve but
at a price of $150 and up
they are not targeted at the novice hobbyist. An attractive option is the line
of PICAXE micros targeted
at the education market and easily applied to the types of applications being considered
here (I don't
think we are looking at applications that require high performance embedded processing).
You can
get started with PICAXE development for $25 to $50 depending on which processor
and which
downloading cable you use. The PICAXE development environment is free and easy
to use for the
novice with the capability to simulate the micro operation without connection to
a micro. The use
of a version of BASIC designed for embedded applications makes it easy to program
but there
is an execution speed hit due to the use of a code interpreter in the PICAXE micro
instead of using a compiler
to generate machine code for a plain PIC. Again, I don't see this execution speed
penalty as a major issue for
most applications. As you gain experience you could make a switch to standard PIC
micros and
use C or assembly language. The group behind PICAXE (Revolution Education in Britain)
gets funds from
selling the PICAXE versions of the PIC micro (preloaded with the program loader
and interpreter) and
development boards/kits. Here is a link to the free software development environment:
http://www.picaxe.com/Software/PICAXE/PICAXE-Programming-Editor
You can find more PICAXE info at (including lots of examples and tutorials):
http://www.picaxe.com/
and there are three U.S. distributers:
http://www.sparkfun.com/categories/125
http://www.robotshop.com/search/search.aspx?locale=en_us&keywords=picaxe
http://www.phanderson.com/picaxe/
I/O Configuration - In parallel with a need for easy software development I see
a need for easy configuration
of I/O interfaces to the devices outside the module. There a plenty of examples
and tutorials for interfacing
the PICAXE to all types of devices and here are some examples of general purpose
modules that allow
I/O configuration (usually through the provision of a prototyping area on the module):
>From VX-Aviation, the Proton-225 board based on a PIC micro with a prototyping
area and a package
using standard d-sub 25 pin connectors and housing which is compatible with the
other products they provide. You can download a pdf description here:
http://www.vx-aviation.com/docs.html
>From PICAXE there are several standard development boards that include the provision
for varying levels of I/O configuration:
http://www.picaxe.com/Hardware/Project-Boards/PICAXE-08-Proto-Board/
http://www.picaxe.com/Hardware/Project-Boards/PICAXE-14-Project-Board/
http://www.picaxe.com/Hardware/Project-Boards/PICAXE-18-Project-Board/
I don't know enough about hardware design to know if the use of these types of
boards or even just a prototyping board
from Radio Shack are robust enough to handle the environment of mounting in an
experimental aircraft but based on the
VX-Aviation module it would seem they may be up to the job...
Anyway, this note is getting a little long so I will end it here. I would appreciate
feedback from anyone who is interested
in something along these lines in order to see if my thoughts on this make any
sense to anyone beside me. I am only
interested as an end user of the module and have no real interest in designing
/ producing any type of hardware boards.
I can handle setting up the I/O circuits on a pre-made board but I don't have much
interest in board development even
though I know it is something that is not that hard to learn. Just a matter of
only so many things that you can do, even
when you are retired from a "real" job. I have read and studied the AeroElectric
Connection book and have a draft
design for the electrical system on the Sonex Xenos motor glider that I am building.
But as I pointed out in a previous note,
like most software engineers, I know just enough about hardware design to be dangerous...
Greg McHugh
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=370376#370376
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: Next generation wig-wag controller for LED |
lamps
To that goal, I'd like to suggest using an Arduino. The IDE is totally cross-platform,
the programming language is C with some extra libraries, and the only
difference between an Arduino and a plain Atmel AVR micro is the (free) boot loader,
giving folks their choice of Arduino or AVR Studio. Additionally there
is tons of forum support for programming those guys.
I recently used one in a project where one of the goals was that it needed to be
maintained by a moderately savvy high-school student. I think it's great for
that kind of thing.
Daniel
On Apr 9, 2012, at 11:21 AM, "gregmchugh" <gregmchugh@aol.com> wrote:
> To be useful for a wide audience there needs to be simple learning curve for
developing the software
> functionality and I/O configuration. I agree that the use of a PIC micro would
be the way to go based on
> their ready availability, good price per performance, and availability of development
tools.
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: Next generation wig-wag controller for LED lamps |
Daniel,
I agree that the Arduino is a good option but, as I noted in another note
which seems to be appearing under a different thread, I would be
concerned that the learning curve for software development on
an Arduino might be too steep for many potential users. I suggested
the PICAXE micro as a good choice due to the simple learning curve. Both
are viable options but they would seem to be to be targeted at slightly
different users. The Arduino development environment makes learning
to use the C language easier than many other options but it is still
a language that takes significant learning to understand what the code is
doing. This issue is not as significant as most C development
environments, Arduino does ease the learning curve with
a nice development environment and lots of tutorials and examples.
I can see people starting out with PICAXE and moving to Arduino as
they develop more complex applications. For people ready to tackle
the added complexity of the software, Arduino is probably the best option.
It is good that many options exist...
Greg McHugh
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=370381#370381
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: | Who got lost without an ELT? |
>> Congresscritter disappeared in his light plane in Alaska
Hale Boggs, whose daughter you've probably heard on the radio, Cokie
Roberts...
Paul
--
Please note my new email address!
millner@me.com
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: | Open source product development for OBAM aircraft |
At 11:21 AM 4/9/2012, you wrote:
Bob,
I probably should have changed the Subject line on this but I decided
to leave it alone to continue
the thread we had started. It is getting away from the LED wig-wag topic...
Okay, how about 'open source product development for OBAM aircraft"
I have thought about this a little and I think it would be worthwhile
to consider the option of a general purpose
programmable module and use the LED wig-wag as a simple example
application. I see three useful
characteristics for this module
1. Functionality set in software
2. Some capability to configure the I/O circuits for each application
3. A standard module package and connector such as the one you showed
using an enclosed case with d-sub connector
That was the idea behind the "do allot" ECB
and companion schematic. It's readily deduced
that no single product would use ALL the parts
in the schematic. But selective use of parts
and software offers a host of possibilities.
This particular board was bounded by the dimensions
of the case . . . but there are larger cases
that could be considered. But there's value in
maximizing the 'core' of a bill of materials
that varies only slightly from product to product
and this size seemed like a good starting place.
To be useful for a wide audience there needs to be simple learning
curve for developing the software
functionality and I/O configuration. I agree that the use of a PIC
micro would be the way to go based on
their ready availability, good price per performance, and
availability of development tools.
<snip>
My father-in-law has been doing my PIC software
on a PICkit 1. I think they're $36 from Digikey.
The source editor/compiler is free.
http://tinyurl.com/7dq97tv
<snip>
I don't know enough about hardware design to know if the use of these
types of boards or even just a prototyping board
from Radio Shack are robust enough to handle the environment of
mounting in an experimental aircraft but based on the
VX-Aviation module it would seem they may be up to the job...
these same considerations drove the do-lots board.
Everything needed to do a lot of tasks could be
completely contained in the 'standard enclosure'.
Anyway, this note is getting a little long so I will end it here. I
would appreciate feedback from anyone who is interested
in something along these lines in order to see if my thoughts on this
make any sense to anyone beside me. I am only
interested as an end user of the module and have no real interest in
designing / producing any type of hardware boards.
I can handle setting up the I/O circuits on a pre-made board but I
don't have much interest in board development even
though I know it is something that is not that hard to learn.
Not 'hard' but certainly time consuming. This
is where the open-source approach might allow
the community of interested users to contribute
in concert with their interests and available
time.
For my part, I can readily advise on schematics
and functionality that are 'aviation friendly'.
Been doing that for decades. I would proposed that
the development chain of any single device be
published, certainly here on the List and perhaps
archived on aeroelectric.com
I did the c-mos gate wig-wag as a practical exercise
with low risk for success. It's not been laid up
on a board but could be easily brass-boarded and
hardened for installation on an airplane. Doing
a PIC based flasher might be the short path to
success. The board and packaging is done. The aviation
friendly architecture is done.
So, tell you what. If you program this beastie,
I'll supply the parts. We can turn this into a practical
path to service your needs along with a teaching
moment for interested readers. I'll turn it into
an off-the-shelf product. I'll make cases and bare
board available to anyone who wants to do their own
version of a do-lots module. If they contribute their
own efforts to the open-source library, then depending
on interest-at-large . . . we can make that an
off the shelf product as well.
I'll look into the options for getting some
beefier fets in the box.
Bob . . .
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: ELT Antenna Mount |
Folks,
It seems were getting a lot of ancillary issues
injected to the conversation. With respect to
the original question, installing the antenna in
this manner is guaranteed to offer a substantial
reduction of the system's ability to function.
The relative effectiveness of emergency locator
beacons took a 1000-fold jump when the technology
added a GPS location tag to the ELT output. The
over-all effectiveness is still limited by logistics.
When minutes count, help is only hours away.
Nonetheless, out of tens of thousands of ELT systems-
installed, a few will be part of the post
accident scenario. Fewer still will be credited
with causing a happy ending.
The regulatory matters surrounding ELT installations
is only a symptom of the growing sphere of influence
being exerted by an ever expanding cadre of regulators
in all venues. All honorable citizens are encouraged
to join the struggle to curtail such adventures. There
are plenty of on-topic forums in which those pursuits
can be exercised. Just not here.
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: | Re: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft |
At 11:57 AM 4/9/2012, you wrote:
>
>To that goal, I'd like to suggest using an Arduino.
This is a highly capable device but a bit of an
overkill for things like wig-wag flashers, voltage
monitors, etc.
The challenge is to exploit the scope of
projects that can be implemented in a user
friendly package of the smallest practical
size, cost and parts count. An already stuffed
Arduino board has no aviation friendly i/o
or even an enclosure for $30. I would expect
the wig-wag flasher to be drop-in ready for
use on an airplane and have total bill of
materials under $20 or so.
Bob . . .
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: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft |
That's true, but it's fairly simple to 'roll your own' Arduino with just an ATMega
and a particular serial and reset schematic. I haven't done the design exercise,
but an ATMega168 would probably do the job, and they're as little as $2.31
on Mouser.
The FTDI serial chips are only $2 nowadays too, apparently, if you're inclined
to make it USB programmable.
There are definitely other solutions, but I've had a surprisingly good experience
with these things.
Daniel
On Apr 9, 2012, at 2:19 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
wrote:
>
> At 11:57 AM 4/9/2012, you wrote:
>>
>> To that goal, I'd like to suggest using an Arduino.
>
> This is a highly capable device but a bit of an
> overkill for things like wig-wag flashers, voltage
> monitors, etc.
>
> The challenge is to exploit the scope of
> projects that can be implemented in a user
> friendly package of the smallest practical
> size, cost and parts count. An already stuffed
> Arduino board has no aviation friendly i/o
> or even an enclosure for $30. I would expect
> the wig-wag flasher to be drop-in ready for
> use on an airplane and have total bill of
> materials under $20 or so.
>
>
>
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: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft |
At 02:41 PM 4/9/2012, you wrote:
>
>That's true, but it's fairly simple to 'roll your own' Arduino with
>just an ATMega and a particular serial and reset schematic. I
>haven't done the design exercise, but an ATMega168 would probably do
>the job, and they're as little as $2.31 on Mouser.
>The FTDI serial chips are only $2 nowadays too, apparently, if
>you're inclined to make it USB programmable.
>
>There are definitely other solutions, but I've had a surprisingly
>good experience with these things.
Sure . . . but the ATM168 is a big chip with lots
of I/O we can't put into the enclosure I have.
A large proportion of energy/time to bring a product
to an airplane is packaging. If you can capitalize
on off-the-shelf packaging, that problem goes
away. If the ECB layout I have could be slightly
modified to the new task, that time-to-market
item is shortened.
To be sure, there are MANY options capable of
a host of tasks. I'll suggest we establish some
design goals that get us to the finish line with
a minimum of new investment. If we were talking
about a product where projected sales were in
the thousands or even hundreds, perhaps a 'next
size up' enclosure with silicon capable of more
expansion would be attractive. But I'd be surprised
if construction/sales of the simplest and fastest
project would exceed 100 pieces in the next 5 years.
Return on investment of development time is
much more significant for low volume projects.
The PIC 12F675 is a reduced instruction set
device usually programmed in assembler. This
is an excellent learning environment for
teaching micro-controllers and Bollean
logic. It gets the student better connection
with the inner workings of the chip.
Bob . . .
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: | Open source product development for OBAM aircraft |
All
Regarding Selection of Micro-controller:
There should probably be some due diligence with respect to selection of
micro-controller and micro-controller families to be considered for a
Do-Lots (generic controller w/ hardened interfaces to the real world)
device.
I've used PIC & ATMEL uControllers and I have opinions about both (which I'm
happy to share if people are interested). I'm hoping others on this list do
too.
With some careful design, it may be possible to create a device that is
uController/Manufacturer agnostic.
Food for thought...
-Jeff Luckey
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 10:24
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Open source product development for OBAM
aircraft
<nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
At 11:21 AM 4/9/2012, you wrote:
Bob,
I probably should have changed the Subject line on this but I decided
to leave it alone to continue
the thread we had started. It is getting away from the LED wig-wag topic...
Okay, how about 'open source product development for OBAM aircraft"
I have thought about this a little and I think it would be worthwhile
to consider the option of a general purpose
programmable module and use the LED wig-wag as a simple example
application. I see three useful
characteristics for this module
1. Functionality set in software
2. Some capability to configure the I/O circuits for each application
3. A standard module package and connector such as the one you showed
using an enclosed case with d-sub connector
That was the idea behind the "do allot" ECB
and companion schematic. It's readily deduced
that no single product would use ALL the parts
in the schematic. But selective use of parts
and software offers a host of possibilities.
This particular board was bounded by the dimensions
of the case . . . but there are larger cases
that could be considered. But there's value in
maximizing the 'core' of a bill of materials
that varies only slightly from product to product
and this size seemed like a good starting place.
To be useful for a wide audience there needs to be simple learning
curve for developing the software
functionality and I/O configuration. I agree that the use of a PIC
micro would be the way to go based on
their ready availability, good price per performance, and
availability of development tools.
<snip>
My father-in-law has been doing my PIC software
on a PICkit 1. I think they're $36 from Digikey.
The source editor/compiler is free.
http://tinyurl.com/7dq97tv
<snip>
I don't know enough about hardware design to know if the use of these
types of boards or even just a prototyping board
from Radio Shack are robust enough to handle the environment of
mounting in an experimental aircraft but based on the
VX-Aviation module it would seem they may be up to the job...
these same considerations drove the do-lots board.
Everything needed to do a lot of tasks could be
completely contained in the 'standard enclosure'.
Anyway, this note is getting a little long so I will end it here. I
would appreciate feedback from anyone who is interested
in something along these lines in order to see if my thoughts on this
make any sense to anyone beside me. I am only
interested as an end user of the module and have no real interest in
designing / producing any type of hardware boards.
I can handle setting up the I/O circuits on a pre-made board but I
don't have much interest in board development even
though I know it is something that is not that hard to learn.
Not 'hard' but certainly time consuming. This
is where the open-source approach might allow
the community of interested users to contribute
in concert with their interests and available
time.
For my part, I can readily advise on schematics
and functionality that are 'aviation friendly'.
Been doing that for decades. I would proposed that
the development chain of any single device be
published, certainly here on the List and perhaps
archived on aeroelectric.com
I did the c-mos gate wig-wag as a practical exercise
with low risk for success. It's not been laid up
on a board but could be easily brass-boarded and
hardened for installation on an airplane. Doing
a PIC based flasher might be the short path to
success. The board and packaging is done. The aviation
friendly architecture is done.
So, tell you what. If you program this beastie,
I'll supply the parts. We can turn this into a practical
path to service your needs along with a teaching
moment for interested readers. I'll turn it into
an off-the-shelf product. I'll make cases and bare
board available to anyone who wants to do their own
version of a do-lots module. If they contribute their
own efforts to the open-source library, then depending
on interest-at-large . . . we can make that an
off the shelf product as well.
I'll look into the options for getting some
beefier fets in the box.
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: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft |
Bob,
Sounds like a reasonable approach to me. Using these PIC chips gives a lot
of options for software development. The kit you mention is $36 direct
from Microchip. I just ordered one and will come up with the code for
the wig-wag example using the kit. We just need to decide on which
chip provides the right capabilities for the expected applications. I
expect the option exists to allow several of the PIC chips to drop into
the same board layout since the added pins simply increase the
number of I/O ports.
I believe the PICAXE chips are drop in replacements for the standard PIC
chips supported by the kit you referenced without the need for the
development kit. They can be programmed using the PICAXE kits which
are readily available for $30 to $50 with the major cost being a USB
programming cable. If you have a serial port available the cable is $6.
I expect the serial cable is easy to make yourself since it is simply a
connection to a 3.5mm stereo audio plug...
Development tools for BASIC on the PICAXE are free and there is also
an option to program the PICAXE directly from flowcharts using the
Logicator tool ($15 tool).
Enough options to satisfy most of the potential users...
Greg McHugh
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=370402#370402
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: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft |
Bob,
One question I forgot to ask in the previous note. When I looked at
using the Perihelion Wig-Wag for my LED landing lights I was
surprised at the compact size and the capability to switch the loads
on standard landing lights. Is there something unique about this
design to handle the 250 watt load?
Greg McHugh
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=370405#370405
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: Open source product development for OBAM |
aircraft
At 06:45 PM 4/9/2012, you wrote:
>
>Bob,
>
>One question I forgot to ask in the previous note. When I looked at
>using the Perihelion Wig-Wag for my LED landing lights I was
>surprised at the compact size and the capability to switch the loads
>on standard landing lights. Is there something unique about this
>design to handle the 250 watt load?
You'd have to check with Eric as to his
design philosophy but based on what is
generally known, getting the heat in the
FETs under control has two components.
(1) Thermal resistance from the silicon to the
ambient. Like ohms in current flow, thermal resistance
has a quotient most often stated in degrees C in rise
per watt of power in the junction.
(2) Keeping power dissipated at a minimum by selecting
a FET with the lowest practical on-resistance in
combination with a healthy overhead for rated voltage.
Check out this array of 30 volt FETs.
http://tinyurl.com/6vxhkxg
Then let's select a 2.1 milliohm resistance at
4.5 volts of gate drive. Nice specs but it's
a bare chip intended for installation by bonding
into a hybrid device. Okay back up let's leave
the resistance alone and select 20 volts where
it says we'll find 153 devices to select from.
Lets go over in the array and look at surface mount
parts with leads (67 choices).
The next thing we're interested in is size. Just
for grins, hit the SO-8 package (34 choices).
Notice that we have three power dissipation choices.
Let's go peek at the single 3.5 watt device.
That gives us the IRF7811 with an logic level
drive on resistance of 14 milliohms. Now, with
the proposed 45 watt devices, let's assume 5A
max at minimum bus voltage so 5A(squared) x .014 ohms
equals 350 milliwatts. Hmmm . . . not bad.
Let's go get the detailed data at:
http://tinyurl.com/6qpt9cf
We see there that thermal resistance junction-to-
leads is on the order of 20 degrees C per watt.
.35 watts will give us a 7 degree C rise on the
junction over the temperature of the board. Now
here's where it gets a little sticky. Our board
is epoxy glass with most of the copper removed
and the whole thing is enclosed in a plastic case
with no ventilation. What we don't know is the
thermal resistance board to ambient wile boxed up
in this case.
I'll go measure it in the next few days. This is
done by cutting a piece of copper clad the same
footprint as the proposed board. Glue a power
resistor and thermocouple to the board. Close
it up in the plastic case. Dump some handy amount
of power into the resistor, say 1 watt. Then see
what the temperature reads after an hour or so.
This will yield the best possible heat transfer
situation for one of these FETS soldered to the
board. I'm thinking the 7811 might do the job.
They're stock at Digikey for 1.50 in small quantities.
Since this is a plastic enclosure, we'll qualify
to cabin environments so 40 to 50 C is about the upper
test limits.
Okay, just for grins let's see how a pair of SO-8
chips goes into the space previously occupied by
three DIP4 chips and some do-lots components.
Emacs!
Well, lookee there. Not only is there plenty
of room, we might even put one on top and the
other on the bottom so as to leave room for leaving
more copper on the board around the chip.
This exercise in cut and try on a four-cornered
envelope with the final confirmation or denial
of choice being a full power test in the temperature
chamber. I have one of those.
http://tinyurl.com/7yrrhhq
So fortunately, we have access to quite a bit
of experience to drive the corners of the envelope
toward the component of choice.
I'm pretty sure we can get a 5A switcher in
this enclosure with comfortable head room
for power handling. So now your schematic
looks something like this:
Emacs!
When we went from do-lots to wig-wag, it got a lot
simpler. Two outputs driving power FETs, two inputs
to control for three states of function (OFF/WW/ON).
So, first cut at the design looks good. If you can make
the silicon sing, dance and do dishes, I'd say we're
50% of the way to having a useful product that meets
design goals and offers a user friendly envelope
and wiring interface.
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: Open source product development for OBAM |
aircraft
>
>Enough options to satisfy most of the potential users...
Exactly. For years I tried to find a crack into
which I could drive a wedge for distributed processing.
We had dozens of little black boxes for current sensing,
time delays, logic, thermostats, etc that all used discrete
components and were designed 30 to 40 years ago.
I even demonstrated that I could make huge reductions in
parts count with similar reductions in size and weight,
plus take advantage of pick-n-place assembly. But as soon
as I mentioned software, everyone turns white and runs
out the door.
It didn't matter how simple the software task might
be, those-who-know-more-about-airplanes-than-we-do-
in-Washington insisted on piles of paper and buckets
of holy-water with DO-178 'certification' and configuration
management. A device with $20 worth of parts to do
some simple task could cost $100,000 to qualify. So
much for modern marvels.
Hence, anything software was farmed out in the form
of "do-everything" flight and airframe management computers
with a $10,000 bill of materials and a 10 million
dollar cert program. What's more, when it didn't work
right, we had somebody else to throw rocks at and then
wait around with everyone camping on a work order.
Now, you and I have a chance to show the guys at
Beech/Raytheon/HBC how to do a responsible job of
incorporating software with a distributed processing
approach to black box development.
Ought to be fun.
Bob . . .
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: | Point me in the right direction |
My strobes will not fire when they are plugged into the plane electrical
system. They will fire if 12V from a power supply is hooked up to them.
The schematic is basically: battery, to master solenoid, to fuse, to switch,
to strobe power supply.
Sometimes it will fire once and stop and sometimes it will fire 6-7 times
and stop.
I have continuity with the ground pin on the Molex power supply connector to
aircraft ground.
With the master on, I have 12V at the fuse, I have 12V incoming to the
switch.
With the master on and the strobe switch off, I have .65V after the switch.
With the strobe switch on I have 12V after the switch.
With the strobe switch on I have sometimes 12V, sometimes 10V, and sometimes
8V at the power pin in the connector going to the strobe power supply.
At first I thought the switch was bad then that I have a loose connection
somewhere after the switch. It doesn't seem reasonable that all this could
have happened at the same time. The strobes were fine till I was not able
to visit the plane for about 6 months. The problem happened when I returned
and tried to power them up.
I suppose the Molex connector pins could be loose but that doesn't explain
the low voltage.
I plan to move the wire from the strobe switch to the position light switch
tomorrow to see if that helps. None of the other light switches have
voltage after them with the switch off.
Any suggestions?
Bill B
Message 24
| 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: | Point me in the right direction |
Check the wire crimps on the molex connectors. Sounds like something is
not airtight and corroded over time.
Bruce
WWW.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Bradburry
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 10:59 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Point me in the right direction
<bbradburry@bellsouth.net>
My strobes will not fire when they are plugged into the plane electrical
system. They will fire if 12V from a power supply is hooked up to them.
The schematic is basically: battery, to master solenoid, to fuse, to
switch,
to strobe power supply.
Sometimes it will fire once and stop and sometimes it will fire 6-7
times
and stop.
I have continuity with the ground pin on the Molex power supply
connector to
aircraft ground.
With the master on, I have 12V at the fuse, I have 12V incoming to the
switch.
With the master on and the strobe switch off, I have .65V after the
switch.
With the strobe switch on I have 12V after the switch.
With the strobe switch on I have sometimes 12V, sometimes 10V, and
sometimes
8V at the power pin in the connector going to the strobe power supply.
At first I thought the switch was bad then that I have a loose
connection
somewhere after the switch. It doesn't seem reasonable that all this
could
have happened at the same time. The strobes were fine till I was not
able
to visit the plane for about 6 months. The problem happened when I
returned
and tried to power them up.
I suppose the Molex connector pins could be loose but that doesn't
explain
the low voltage.
I plan to move the wire from the strobe switch to the position light
switch
tomorrow to see if that helps. None of the other light switches have
voltage after them with the switch off.
Any suggestions?
Bill B
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! --
|