---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 04/15/12: 27 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 05:56 AM - Re: Re: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft (Henador Titzoff) 2. 06:33 AM - Re: Re: Looking for suggestions (Ken) 3. 07:30 AM - Oklahoma/Kansas Storms last night (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 4. 07:41 AM - Re: Re: Looking for suggestions (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 5. 07:42 AM - Re: Re: Looking for suggestions (Dan Billingsley) 6. 07:46 AM - Re: Oklahoma/Kansas Storms last night (Dan Billingsley) 7. 07:52 AM - Re: Re: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 8. 08:20 AM - Re: Oklahoma/Kansas Storms last night (Robert Borger) 9. 08:51 AM - Re: Looking for suggestions (user9253) 10. 12:51 PM - Re: Re: Looking for suggestions (Dan Billingsley) 11. 01:31 PM - Magneto grounding (1mitchkelly@comcast.net) 12. 01:53 PM - Re: Magneto grounding (John MacCallum) 13. 01:53 PM - Re: Re: Looking for suggestions (Charlie England) 14. 02:11 PM - Re: Re: Looking for suggestions (Bob McCallum) 15. 02:13 PM - Re: Magneto grounding (Charlie England) 16. 02:13 PM - Re: Re: Looking for suggestions (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 17. 02:27 PM - Re: Looking for suggestions (user9253) 18. 02:43 PM - Re: Magneto grounding (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 19. 03:16 PM - Re: Looking for suggestions (user9253) 20. 04:21 PM - Re: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft (gregmchugh) 21. 05:00 PM - Re: Re: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft (Richard E. Tasker) 22. 05:06 PM - Re: Re: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft (rayj) 23. 06:08 PM - Re: Re: Looking for suggestions (Dan Billingsley) 24. 06:14 PM - Re: Re: Looking for suggestions (Dan Billingsley) 25. 08:00 PM - Re: Re: Looking for suggestions (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 26. 09:56 PM - Re: Looking for suggestions (user9253) 27. 11:24 PM - Re: Re: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft (David) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 05:56:39 AM PST US From: Henador Titzoff Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft I agree with David wholeheartedly but would like to add one more simple com ment. -Real programmers these days do not program because they're out of work. -While machine code is efficient, real programmers are inefficient. -They can do only the simplest of tasks, and even a programmer using Bas ic will outrun him and leave him in the dust. -Guess which one will get t he job done? -The days of writing machine code are over except for the si mplest tasks that somehow need specialized hand tweaking.=0A=0ASo if you kn ow any machine code real programmers, they're probably bag boys at your loc al supermarket because they can't get a job. The rest are either in the gro und or on display at your local dinosaur museum.=0A=0AHenador Titzoff=0A=0A =0A________________________________=0A From: David =0ATo : aeroelectric-list@matronics.com =0ASent: Saturday, April 14, 2012 11:07 P M=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Open source product development for @knology.net>=0A=0AArghhhh.....=0A=0AREAL programmers cannot program comple x notions in machine (toggle switches!) or=0Aassembler.- It is simply too hard.- It is hard enough to do in third generation=0Alanguages like 'C' or 'Fortran' or Basic or Pascal or ...- Even as long ago as=0Athe 1980's, real world tests showed that compilers had gotten so good that=0Aexecutabl es were better by all metrics when written in a higher level language=0Atha n in assembler.=0A=0AI have written in assembler and even (once) did the to ggle thing on a PDP-11. =0AOnce the translators are written (compilers), le t the computer do the donkey work=0Athat they're good at and let the people work at the conceptual levels, which they=0Aare good at.=0A=0AIn some envi ronments, the slow speed of interpreter execution is still good=0Aenough, a s you've said.=0A=0AWhat the world still needs is a good fourth or fifth ge neration language but that=0Ais REALLY hard to build and build well.- In the database world, we had a product=0Athat used relational calculus (high level programming) instead of relational=0Aalgebra (clunky SQL).- The pro duct was called ZIM by Zanthe Information Systems=0Aout of Canada at the ti me.- Extremely powerful language that even CEO's could use=0Ato query the ir information.- Sadly, it never caught on in the marketplace.- There =0Aare some current attempts at 4th and 5th G languages but they are still in their=0Ainfancy after 40 years of trying.=0A=0ADavid M.=0A=0A=0A=0AOn Sa t 04/14/12- 4:16 PM , "Richard E. Tasker" retasker@optonline.net sent:=0A r@optonline.net>=0A> Uh, no...- REAL programmers program in machine code or at worst assembly...=0A> :-P=0A> do not archive=0A> =0A> Jeff Luckey wro te:=0A> > -->- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeff=0A> Luckey"JLuc key@p=0A> acbell.net>>=0A> > Bob,=0A> >=0A> > Your assessment of the Picaxe is right on.- They=0A> are great for> beginners/simple/low performance d evices but their=0A> interpreter is at least a> couple of orders of magnitu de slower than devices=0A> programmed w/ a compiler.>=0A> > There is a myri ad of experimental aviation=0A> applications where that level of> performan ce would be adequate.=0A> >=0A> > Several years ago when I first started pr ogramming=0A> uControllers, I examined> PICAXE&- Parallax Stamps.- I se ttled on the Stamps=0A> (They also have built-in> interpreters).- They ar e great for getting up and=0A> running simply&- quickly,> which is key fo r the initial learning curve, but I=0A> quickly outgrew them.>=0A> > As I'm sure you are aware the standard in BASIC=0A> programming w/ PICs is> micro Engineering Labs PICBASIC PRO Compiler.- It is=0A> a great product and> r easonably priced at $120-$270.- I know several=0A> people who use&- rea lly like> it.=0A> >=0A> > And, of course, Real Programmers program uCons in C=0A> ;)>=0A> > -Jeff=0A> >=0A> > -----Original Message-----=0A> > From: o wner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com>=0A[owner-aeroelectric-list-ser ver@matronics.com] On Behalf=0A> Of Robert L.> Nuckolls, III=0A> > Sent: Tu esday, April 10, 2012 19:37=0A> > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com> Subj ect: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Open=0Asource=0A> product development for O BAM> aircraft=0A> >=0A> > -->- AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robe rt=0A> L. Nuckolls, III"> nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>>=0A> > At 10:37 AM 4/10/2012, you wrote:=0A> >> -->- AeroElectric-List message posted by: =0A> "gregmchugh"gregmchugh=0A> @aol.com>>>=0A> >> Bob,=0A> >>=0A> >> Looks good. Let's try to keep the option open to=0A> drop in the PICAXE 8 pin>> chip in place of the standard PIC chip.=0A> >- - I've been poking arou nd the 'net trying to get=0A> a better>- - picture of what the PICAXE is all about. If I=0A> am reading>- - the postings right, PICAXE chips have an=0A> on-board interpreter>- - for tokenized BASIC commands . . . these tend=0A> to be very>- - slow with respect to what the chip ca n do with=0A> optimized>- - object code.=0A> >=0A> >- - I saw som e links for a basic compiler that=0A> targets>- - PIC devices.=0A> > =0A> > =0A> http://www.sfcompiler.co.uk/swordfish/>=0A> >- - I think t his does a righteous compilation=0A> of>- - the BASIC source code for much more=0A> efficient>- - use of memory and greater speeds. I'm=0A> going>- - out of town tomorrow with Dr. Dee. She=0A> has>- - a co nference to attend in Oklahoma City=0A> and>- - I'll be driving her an d three of her=0A> students>- - to the conference. I'll have quite a b it=0A> of>- - free time while they take care of=0A> business.>- - I'll look a bit deeper into the=0A> Swordfish>- - product and . . . t here are=0A> undoubtedly>- - others.=0A> >=0A> >- - I can see the allure of the PICAXE=0A> product>- - for neophytes to get their juice s=0A> flowing>- - for herding bytes around in silicon. It=0A> would> - - no doubt suffice for the wig-wag=0A> project>- - too.- But a serious compiler would let=0A> you>- - run less expensive chips at t heir=0A> best>- - speeds. I think there'a a place for=0A> both>- - sets of tools.=0A> >=0A> >- - Since both tools target PIC products, =0A> the>- - board layouts for things like the=0A> do-much>- - ar chitecture will work across both=0A> tools.>=0A> >=0A> >- - Bob . . . =0A> >=0A> >=0A> >=0A> >=0A> >=0A> >=0A> >=0A> >=0A> >=0A> >=0A> =0A> -- =0A> Please Note:=0A> No trees were destroyed in the sending of this messag e.- We do concede,=0A> however,that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily=0A> inconvenienced.--=0A> =0A> =0A> =0A> =0A> =0A> = ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 06:33:45 AM PST US From: Ken Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for suggestions That is indeed probably an excellent and simple test for this situation. Not sure it is completely foolproof though. (is anything?) I've replaced capacitors in other applications that were within limits for capacitance (which this test checks) but they had too high Equivalent Series Resistance (ESR) to effectively filter a power supply. Apologies for splitting hairs but claims of anything being "completely foolproof" always sounds like a challenge to me ;) As far as the original thread goes I would add that I've never bothered to install the often recommended capacitor on my single phase 20 amp John Deere permanent magnet alternator/dynamo and have never had any alternator noise. However it is in a z-14 configuration which means it is always connected to a small 8AH battery. Ken On 14/04/2012 2:50 PM, user9253 wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > "user9253" > > Here is a simple and foolproof method of testing the Rotax 22,000F > capacitor. Buy a miniature 12V lamp, Radio Shack 272-1141, or > equivalent. Remove the capacitor from the circuit and charge it with > 12vdc (observe polarity). Disconnect the charging power source. > Connect the miniature lamp to the capacitor. The lamp should glow > brightly at first, then slowly dim as the capacitor is discharged. > The total time from when the lamp first illuminates until it stops > glowing red should be about 15 seconds. At least my lamp did. Your > parts may vary. Joe > > -------- Joe Gores > > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 07:30:39 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Oklahoma/Kansas Storms last night Yesterday, the National Weather Service was predicting atmospheric conditions for extra-ordinary convective activity over the central US. Dr. Dee and I had driven a group of her students to a conference in Oklahoma City which ended Friday. We decided to come home earlier than planned. Norman, OK got hit Friday Night. Dr. Dee stayed with the family in Wichita. I took the students home to Lindsborg and returned to Medicine Lodge. The trip from Lindsborg to M.L. was right down the middle of two lines of storms that were moving parallel to my ground track! Didn't get a drop of rain on two hour trip home. Around 10 p.m. last night, a tornado formed that followed almost exactly the same track as the storm that devastated Andover, KS in 1991. This one did some damage to McConnell AFB/Boeing facilities, Hawker Beechcraft, and many residential areas. http://tinyurl.com/7ta64v3 I've been trying, unsuccessfully, to contact a close associate who still works for HBC and lives in a house at the n.e. corner of a mobile home park across the street from HBC's Plant IV. Our house was several miles to the north and sustained only straight winds damage to some shingles and flashing. Some strong cells moved over the Medicine Lodge area several hours apart but I've not heard any reports of tornadic activity from those storms. Except for Doug's whereabouts and welfare, all those close to us are confirmed to be okay. Our neighbors in Tornado Alley have got some heavy hauling and rebuilding to do. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 07:41:11 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for suggestions At 08:33 AM 4/15/2012, you wrote: > >That is indeed probably an excellent and simple test for this situation. > >Not sure it is completely foolproof though. (is >anything?) I've replaced capacitors in other >applications that were within limits for >capacitance (which this test checks) but they >had too high Equivalent Series Resistance (ESR) >to effectively filter a power supply. > >As far as the original thread goes I would add >that I've never bothered to install the often >recommended capacitor on my single phase 20 amp >John Deere permanent magnet alternator/dynamo >and have never had any alternator noise. However >it is in a z-14 configuration which means it is >always connected to a small 8AH battery. This has the look and smell of a ground-loop issue. A few years back, I looked at the relative effectiveness of filtering the ripple component off a the B&C SD-8 alternator. One captured trace can be seen here: http://tinyurl.com/73tusru Here you can see a ripple component on the order of 2.5 volts pk-pk. When the capacitor was disconnected, there was little, if any, observable difference in the 'noise'. We also know that except for conditions where the battery is being heavily charged or discharged, the battery's effective impedance across the bus is very high. Thus, batteries are of little service in reducing noises that wiggle the bus around in the range of 12.5 to 14.5 volts Given the demonstrated success of PM alternator installations on so many airplanes it seems likely that the problem in this case has more to do with a variable in grounding than any failure of a component to perform as advertised. Bob . . . >Ken > >On 14/04/2012 2:50 PM, user9253 wrote: >>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: >>"user9253" >> >>Here is a simple and foolproof method of testing the Rotax 22,000F >>capacitor. Buy a miniature 12V lamp, Radio Shack 272-1141, or >>equivalent. Remove the capacitor from the circuit and charge it with >>12vdc (observe polarity). Disconnect the charging power source. >>Connect the miniature lamp to the capacitor. The lamp should glow >>brightly at first, then slowly dim as the capacitor is discharged. >>The total time from when the lamp first illuminates until it stops >>glowing red should be about 15 seconds. At least my lamp did. Your >>parts may vary. Joe >> >>-------- Joe Gores >> > > >----- >No virus found in this message. >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 07:42:39 AM PST US From: Dan Billingsley Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for suggestions Joe, that's a good thought using a lamp...If one has a simple Volt meter / multi meter, you could actually watch the numbers come down as the discharg e occurs. Might want to throw a small resistor in there to generate a bit o f a load. What I'm not certain of is what the potential -voltage would be expected on a full 22,000uF. Using a lower end MM would need to set the V -high enough I believe.-=0ADan=0A=0A=0A=0A>____________________________ ____=0A> From: user9253 =0A>To: aeroelectric-list@ma tronics.com =0A>Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2012 11:50 AM=0A>Subject: AeroEle ctric-List: Re: Looking for suggestions=0A> =0A>--> AeroElectric-List messa ge posted by: "user9253" =0A>=0A>Here is a simple an d foolproof method of testing the Rotax 22,000=C2=B5F capacitor.- =0A>Buy a miniature 12V lamp, Radio Shack 272-1141, or equivalent.- =0A>Remove t he capacitor from the circuit and charge it with 12vdc (observe polarity). =0A>Disconnect the charging power source.=0A>Connect the miniature lamp to the capacitor.=0A>The lamp should glow brightly at first, then slowly dim a s the capacitor is discharged.=0A>The total time from when the lamp first i lluminates until it stops glowing red should be about 15 seconds.- At lea st my lamp did.- Your parts may vary.=0A>Joe=0A>=0A>--------=0A>Joe Gores =0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>Read this topic online here:=0A>=0A>http://forums.matro =========================0A =========================0A =========================0A >=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A> ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 07:46:52 AM PST US From: Dan Billingsley Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Oklahoma/Kansas Storms last night Bob, I was thinking about how you were fairing the last couple days. Glad t o hear you and yours are ok.=0ADan=0A=0A=0A=0A>____________________________ ____=0A> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" =0A >To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com =0A>Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 7:29 AM=0A>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Oklahoma/Kansas Storms last night=0A> =0A ls.bob@aeroelectric.com>=0A>=0A>Yesterday, the National Weather Service was predicting atmospheric=0A>conditions for extra-ordinary convective activit y over the=0A>central US.=0A>=0A>Dr. Dee and I had driven a group of her st udents to=0A>a conference in Oklahoma City which ended Friday.=0A>We decide d to come home earlier than planned. Norman,=0A>OK got hit Friday Night. Dr . Dee stayed with the family=0A>in Wichita. I took the students home to Lin dsborg and=0A>returned to Medicine Lodge.=0A>=0A>The trip from Lindsborg to M.L. was right down the middle=0A>of two lines of storms that were moving parallel to my=0A>ground track! Didn't get a drop of rain on two hour trip =0A>home.=0A>=0A>Around 10 p.m. last night, a tornado formed that=0A>follow ed almost exactly the same track as the storm that=0A>devastated Andover, K S in 1991. This one did some damage=0A>to McConnell AFB/Boeing facilities, Hawker Beechcraft,=0A>and many residential areas.=0A>=0A>http://tinyurl.com /7ta64v3=0A>=0A>I've been trying, unsuccessfully, to contact a close=0A>ass ociate who still works for HBC and lives in a house at the=0A>n.e. corner o f a mobile home park across the street from=0A>HBC's Plant IV.=0A>=0A>Our h ouse was several miles to the north and sustained=0A>only straight winds da mage to some shingles and flashing.=0A>=0A>Some strong cells moved over the Medicine Lodge area several=0A>hours apart but I've not heard any reports of tornadic activity=0A>from those storms. Except for Doug's whereabouts an d welfare,=0A>all those close to us are confirmed to be okay.=0A>=0A>Our ne ighbors in Tornado Alley have got some heavy hauling=0A>and rebuilding to d =============0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A> ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 07:52:53 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft At 07:54 AM 4/15/2012, you wrote: > The days of writing machine code are over except for the simplest > tasks that somehow need specialized hand tweaking. Agreed. A little 8-pin PIC watching a bus voltage to flash a light . . . or a timer to wig-wag the landing lights is just such a 'simple' task that yields nicely to programming in assembler. But as soon as you need to do any math beyond a simple integer add/subtract the glow is off the assembler rose. If I were teaching a hands-on class in uC product development, we'd certainly use assembler to explore the various registers. But evolution into higher order functionality is not well served by learning to the assembler necessary to do floating point math or deeply nested prioritizing of tasks. Not exploiting advantages of higher order language compilers is like running a roofing company without nailguns. If your roofers or programmers are getting a good wage and have a deadline to meet, efficient use of manpower and time is the name of the game. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 08:20:40 AM PST US From: Robert Borger Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Oklahoma/Kansas Storms last night Bob,=0A=0ASo glad to hear everyone is OK at your place. =C2-Our thoughts and prayers go out to all affected by the storms. =C2-And best wishes t o the HBC folks.=0ABlue skies & tailwinds,=0ABob Borger=0AEuropa XS Tri, R otax 914 w/ Intercooler & Airmaster C/S Prop=0ALittle Toot Sport Biplane, Lycoming AEIO-320 EXP=0A3705 Lynchburg Dr.=0ACorinth, TX 76208-5331=0AH: 9 40-497-2123=0AC: 817-992-1117=0A=0AOn Apr 15, 2012, at 09:29 AM, "Robert L . Nuckolls, III" wrote:=0A=0A--> AeroElect ric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" =0A=0AYesterday, the National Weather Service was predicting at mospheric=0Aconditions for extra-ordinary convective activity over the=0Ac entral US.=0A=0ADr. Dee and I had driven a group of her students to=0Aa co nference in Oklahoma City which ended Friday.=0AWe decided to come home ea rlier than planned. Norman,=0AOK got hit Friday Night. Dr. Dee stayed with the family=0Ain Wichita. I took the students home to Lindsborg and=0Aretu rned to Medicine Lodge.=0A=0AThe trip from Lindsborg to M.L. was right dow n the middle=0Aof two lines of storms that were moving parallel to my=0Agr ound track! Didn't get a drop of rain on two hour trip=0Ahome.=0A=0AAround 10 p.m. last night, a tornado formed that=0Afollowed almost exactly the s ame track as the storm that=0Adevastated Andover, KS in 1991. This one did some damage=0Ato McConnell AFB/Boeing facilities, Hawker Beechcraft,=0Aan d many residential areas.=0A=0Ahttp://tinyurl.com/7ta64v3=0A=0AI've been t rying, unsuccessfully, to contact a close=0Aassociate who still works for HBC and lives in a house at the=0An.e. corner of a mobile home park across the street from=0AHBC's Plant IV.=0A=0AOur house was several miles to the north and sustained=0Aonly straight winds damage to some shingles and fla shing.=0A=0ASome strong cells moved over the Medicine Lodge area several=0A hours apart but I've not heard any reports of tornadic activity=0Afrom tho se storms. Except for Doug's whereabouts and welfare,=0Aall those close to us are confirmed to be okay.=0A=0AOur neighbors in Tornado Alley have got ===================0A=0A=0A=0A ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 08:51:16 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for suggestions From: "user9253" Dan, A resistor is not necessary as the lamp provides a load. The voltage of a capacitor can never be more than the voltage that was used to charge it up. According to Ken and Bob's posts above, a capacitor is not very effective at alleviating noise. Are the headset jacks electrically isolated from the aircraft frame with insulating washers? Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=370863#370863 ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 12:51:59 PM PST US From: Dan Billingsley Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for suggestions =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A>________________________________=0A> From: user9253 =0A>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com =0A>Sent: Sunday, A pril 15, 2012 8:45 AM=0A>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for sugges @banyanol.com>=0A>=0A>Dan,=0A>A resistor is not necessary as the lamp provi des a load.=0A>Yeah, I was just thinking of getting around not using the la mp and getting a digital reading of the discharging cap.=0A>The voltage of a capacitor can never be more than the voltage that was used- to charge i t up.=0A>..I am always willing to be corrected and learned...but I must-d isagree-that if a 22,000mF is filled up, then when discharged there will be a much higher initial voltage reading than let's say the 12 V battery th at charged it. Example: if you take one of the disposable cameras that use a flash and run a positive and negative lead off of that electrolytic cap.. .hook it up to a volt meter and press the button, I have gotten between 300 and 400 volts each time. Most of these cameras use a AA (or 1.5V cell).=0A >- According to Ken and Bob's posts above, a capacitor is not very effect ive at alleviating noise. Agreed...so I might want to look at a choke?=0A> - Are the headset jacks electrically isolated from the aircraft frame wit h insulating washers? Yes, the jacks were the first thing I checked when I was-introduced to my system whine. Could that frame-grounded antenna in t he back be a factor?=0A>=0A>=0A>Thanks for all the assistance. And someone set me straight if I am off base about the caps holding high voltages.=0A>D an-=0A>Joe=0A>=0A>--------=0A>Joe Gores=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>Read this topi c online here:=0A>=0A>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=370863# =========================0A ===============0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A> ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 01:31:52 PM PST US From: 1mitchkelly@comcast.net Subject: AeroElectric-List: Magneto grounding I have Slick 4301 magnetos and ACS A-510-2K ignition / starter switch. Operation is normal, however when I measure resistance between p-lead (either mag) and ground with switch set to Both, it reads zero. This is not what I expected, what am I missing? Mitch ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 01:53:41 PM PST US From: "John MacCallum" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Magneto grounding That is correct Mitch, the Mag P leads are open circuit on both. If you put the switch to Left the Right P lead will show a short to ground and the Left will be open circuit. Then if you reverse it and switch to the Right Mag the Left will be grounded. Cheers John MacCallum VH-DUU RV 10 #41016 From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of 1mitchkelly@comcast.net Sent: Monday, 16 April 2012 6:26 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Magneto grounding I have Slick 4301 magnetos and ACS A-510-2K ignition / starter switch. Operation is normal, however when I measure resistance between p-lead (either mag) and ground with switch set to Both, it reads zero. This is not what I expected, what am I missing? Mitch ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 01:53:41 PM PST US From: Charlie England Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for suggestions On 04/15/2012 02:46 PM, Dan Billingsley wrote: > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* user9253 > *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > *Sent:* Sunday, April 15, 2012 8:45 AM > *Subject:* AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for suggestions > > > > > Dan, > A resistor is not necessary as the lamp provides a load. > Yeah, I was just thinking of getting around not using the lamp and > getting a digital reading of the discharging cap. > The voltage of a capacitor can never be more than the voltage that > was used to charge it up. > ..I am always willing to be corrected and learned...but I must > disagree that if a 22,000mF is filled up, then when discharged > there will be a much higher initial voltage reading than let's say > the 12 V battery that charged it. Example: if you take one of the > disposable cameras that use a flash and run a positive and > negative lead off of that electrolytic cap...hook it up to a volt > meter and press the button, I have gotten between 300 and 400 > volts each time. Most of these cameras use a AA (or 1.5V cell). > According to Ken and Bob's posts above, a capacitor is not very > effective at alleviating noise. Agreed...so I might want to look > at a choke? > Are the headset jacks electrically isolated from the aircraft > frame with insulating washers? Yes, the jacks were the first thing > I checked when I was introduced to my system whine. Could that > frame-grounded antenna in the back be a factor? > > Thanks for all the assistance. And someone set me straight if I am > off base about the caps holding high voltages. > Dan > Joe > > -------- > Joe Gores > Sorry Joe, but what you're seeing with the disposable flash camera capacitor is the result of the charging circuit. It takes high voltage to fire a flash tube. The flash circuit takes the low DC battery voltage and drives a 'switching' (oscillator) power supply with it to make AC. There's a tiny transformer (or possibly a 'ladder diode/capacitor' type circuit) in the unit that takes the low voltage AC & steps it up to several hundred volts, & then there's a high voltage rectifier that converts it back to DC, which charges the high voltage capacitor that you found. If you put your meter leads on the cap itself, fire the flash, and watch the meter as the flash recharges, you will probably be able to watch the voltage rise to several hundred volts as the capacitor takes on its charge for the next flash. If you're lucky enough to get one with markings on it, look at the voltage rating. It will be higher than whatever voltage you are measuring. A 12V capacitor (at any capacitance) will turn into a mini-grenade if you hit it with several hundred volts. > http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/camera-flash2.htm Hope that helps, Charlie ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 02:11:23 PM PST US From: Bob McCallum Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for suggestions Dan; There is no way for a capacitor to attain a voltage higher than that which was used to charge it. The camera is a bad example because it more closely resembles your strobes whose capacitor might indeed be several hundred volts, but it is not charged by directly applying battery voltage. There is electronic circuitry involved which can theoretically apply any voltage which the designer of the circuit decides he needs to attain. The power source might indeed be a 1.5V battery but this tells us nothing about what circuitry is attached to that battery, certainly it is not directly connected to the flash capacitor. Different story with the 22,000uF cap for the charging circuit which is directly connected to the 12V battery circuit, therefore starts out at approximately 12V. As for your noise, as Bob suggested, you might want to try to eliminate potential ground loops thus eliminating the means by which the noise is being introduced in the first place rather than by trying to lower it's affect after it's been introduced. Depending on the integrity of the various connections in the audio/radio/antenna circuit then the antenna ground could possibly be part of a ground loop. We are assuming that the co-ax connector for that antenna is wired correctly and that you're not depending on the local ground to be part of the antenna circuit, only the attachment to the ground plane??????????? Bob McC _____ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Billingsley Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 3:46 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for suggestions _____ From: user9253 Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 8:45 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for suggestions Dan, A resistor is not necessary as the lamp provides a load. Yeah, I was just thinking of getting around not using the lamp and getting a digital reading of the discharging cap. The voltage of a capacitor can never be more than the voltage that was used to charge it up. ..I am always willing to be corrected and learned...but I must disagree that if a 22,000mF is filled up, then when discharged there will be a much higher initial voltage reading than let's say the 12 V battery that charged it. Example: if you take one of the disposable cameras that use a flash and run a positive and negative lead off of that electrolytic cap...hook it up to a volt meter and press the button, I have gotten between 300 and 400 volts each time. Most of these cameras use a AA (or 1.5V cell). According to Ken and Bob's posts above, a capacitor is not very effective at alleviating noise. Agreed...so I might want to look at a choke? Are the headset jacks electrically isolated from the aircraft frame with insulating washers? Yes, the jacks were the first thing I checked when I was introduced to my system whine. Could that frame-grounded antenna in the back be a factor? Thanks for all the assistance. And someone set me straight if I am off base about the caps holding high voltages. Dan Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=370863#370863<; - The AeroElectric-List Email Forum - http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List ======================= ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 02:13:04 PM PST US From: Charlie England Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Magneto grounding On 04/15/2012 03:25 PM, 1mitchkelly@comcast.net wrote: > > I have Slick 4301 magnetos and ACS A-510-2K ignition / starter switch. > Operation is normal, however when I measure resistance between p-lead > (either mag) and ground with switch set to Both, it reads zero. This > is not what I expected, what am I missing? > > Mitch > > What you're seeing is a normal reading. With the mag switch 'on' (so the mag can operate), you are reading the DC resistance of the magneto coil primary winding, which is so close to zero that a regular ohm meter can't read it accurately. It will look like a dead short. The *impedance* (in quick & dirty terms, the AC resistance) is higher, but your ohm meter can't measure that. This is the reason for 'buzz boxes', used to set the timing of magnetos. They generate an AC signal that's fed into the mag, and can detect the difference between reading across the coil or seeing a truly dead short, when the points inside the mag are closed (or your mag switch is set to 'off'). Hope that helps, Charlie ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 02:13:32 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for suggestions This has the look and smell of a ground-loop issue. A few years back, I looked at the relative effectiveness of filtering the ripple component off a the B&C SD-8 alternator. One captured trace can be seen here: I was surprised that I had not posted the constellation of plots that explored numerous operating conditions relating to SD-8 noise plots. I found the data I recalled, posted it to aeroelectric.com and re-organized the data plots folder on the website. Here's the SD-8 stuff in total. http://tinyurl.com/7yr9h4p Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 02:27:00 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for suggestions From: "user9253" > someone set me straight if I am off base about the caps holding high voltages The high voltage that charges a capacitor in a camera flash does not come directly from the battery. Pulsing battery current is applied to the primary of a transformer. High voltage from the transformer secondary is what charges the capacitor. If a 22,000F capacitor is charged on the workbench, the capacitor will never have a higher voltage than whatever was applied to it. Below are a couple of links to camera flash circuits. Joe http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/kflashm.gif http://www.increa.com/reverse/dc/ -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=370892#370892 ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 02:43:56 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Magneto grounding At 03:48 PM 4/15/2012, you wrote: >That is correct Mitch, the Mag P leads are open >circuit on both. If you put the switch to Left >the Right P lead will show a short to ground >and the Left will be open circuit. Then if you >reverse it and switch to the Right Mag =C2 the Left will be grounded. It's a bit more complex than that. A magneto has a core of magnetic material which can be 'excited' by a rotating magnet rotated on a shaft. One winding has many turns of very fine wire in which converts the rapidly changing magnetic flux from the rotating core magnet to a high voltage pulse (4-8,000 volts). This pulse is routed through a distributor to the appropriate plug wire to cause a spark across the plug's gap in the cylinder. A second winding of very few turns of heavy wire is connected to the magneto's interrupter 'points'. The schematic of this arrangement is shown here: Emacs! As long as the points are closed, a dead short exists across the primary winding and the rate of rise of magnetic flux within the core is retarded. As the points open, that retarding force is suddenly removed allowing the high voltage to be generated and distributed to the appropriate plug. Setting the position of this 'opening event' with respect to crankshaft and piston position is accomplished in a "timing procedure". The primary winding has VERY low dc resistance. So when you measure the resistance on a magneto's p-lead to ground, it is difficult if not impossible to detect when the points open as the shaft is rotated. This is why magneto "timing lights" have little buzzers or electronic oscillators inside to generate an AC excitation signal which sees a much larger AC impedance jump as the points open. http://tinyurl.com/6ttzr94 Shower-of-Sparks ignition systems excite the primary still more strongly and repetitively during cranking to generate a stream of sparks when the points open. http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Shower-of-Sparks/ShowerOfSparks.pdf But unless your measurement system for resistance has resolution in the milliohms range . . . like this one . . . http://tinyurl.com/6o5kqub You won't be able to use an ohmmeter to either measure the primary coil resistance -OR- detect a open/close event on the magneto's points. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 03:16:34 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for suggestions From: "user9253" > Sorry Joe, but what you're seeing with the disposable flash camera capacitor is the result of the charging circuit. Charlie, It was Dan who measured the flash camera capacitor voltage, not me. Dan had mixed his reply in with a quote from my previous post. That made it confusing as to who wrote what. I think that most of us agree that a capacitor will never hold more than what was put into it. Thanks for the link to How Stuff Works. Joe Do NOT archive -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=370898#370898 ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 04:21:24 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft From: "gregmchugh" Bob and all, I had a little more time to play with the PICkit 1 Flash Starter Kit since my last update on the project. In our last episode, I had loaded the Hex file that come with Lesson 1 onto the board and it seemed to function fine (you push a button and an LED changes state). Next, I checked that I could reassemble and load from the code that came with Lesson 1 (switch debouncing). Worked fine with the latest MPLAB IDE that I downloaded from Microchip. Hex file seems to function the same but it is different than the hex file that come with the kit. Not unusual for this to happen (assembled years later with a newer version of the toolchain). Something I may take some time to look at but since I am planning to use the C version not something critical to do. I next compiled the C code that came with the lesson and it had one error (due to a missing define to allow the use of legacy header files) and two warnings (the count for the timer was defined as 20. instead of 20, not sure why, giving a warning about float to integer conversion). A Google search solved the first one and the second one was readily found by looking at the warning message. The legacy header define is needed to allow older code to be compiled under the current toolchain. I would guess that no one got the job of updated the C code that comes with the Starter Kit to reflect changes in the standard header files. Downloaded the hex file produced that had been produced from the C code and it seems to function as expected. All in all, about what I would be expecting at this point. Getting to this point would be pretty easy for anyone familiar with embedded software development but a novice might have gotten stuck along the way. The MPLAB IDE is feature filled which is good for experienced users but can be daunting for a novice. Next I will do any porting required to move over from the PIC12F675 to the PIC12F683. Time to take a look at the datasheets for the chips and find any significant differences. I have only the MPLAB simulator to investigate how the code executes and I will next spend some time learning how that works. Seems pretty straightforward but I have only stepped through the code. Need to see how to set up the external stimulus inputs into the simulator. Again seems to me like something that is pretty familiar but I am not sure how a novice would look at it. I decided to go ahead and order the low-end debugger (PICkit 3 Debug Express plus an interface adapter and the PIC12F683 ICD Header) from Microchip. That should be coming tomorrow and I will have access to debugging in the chip. So, for those keeping score the Flash Starter Kit is $36, the Debug Express is $70, the interface adapter is $10, and the ICD header for a specific chip is $25. I would call this reasonable cost to get what you get but a novice might say it was too much to get started. You could get by with just the Starter Kit but I like having a view into the chip as the code is running. You could skip the Flash Starter Kit and go with the just the Debug Express but the Starter Kit does have all of the hardware to support the tutorials and some prototyping area to play around with. The PICAXE and Arduino folks get around the debug issue by keeping the serial interface open to the development PC, allowing debug messages to be displayed. Works fine for most simple applications but it would tie up two pins on our 8 pin device. That is enough for now, I am still planning to write up a short summary of all of this for anyone who wants to give it a try. Only a few small gotcha's up to this point... Greg McHugh Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=370902#370902 ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 05:00:08 PM PST US From: "Richard E. Tasker" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft My comment on "real programmers" was merely a response to the comment that "real programmers program uCons in C". In fact, real programmers program in either what they are told to use for the particular project. Or, if they work for an intelligent company, they program in whatever gets the job done most efficiently and the definition of that depends on what the constraints are. If there is plenty of memory to store the program, then any language will work. If the program storage is limited, then what language one chooses is also limited. Do not archive. Henador Titzoff wrote: > I agree with David wholeheartedly but would like to add one more simple comment. Real programmers these days do not program because they're out of work. While machine code is efficient, real > programmers are inefficient. They can do only the simplest of tasks, and even a programmer using Basic will outrun him and leave him in the dust. Guess which one will get the job done? The days > of writing machine code are over except for the simplest tasks that somehow need specialized hand tweaking. > > So if you know any machine code real programmers, they're probably bag boys at your local supermarket because they can't get a job. The rest are either in the ground or on display at your local > dinosaur museum. > > Henador Titzoff > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > *From:* David > *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > *Sent:* Saturday, April 14, 2012 11:07 PM > *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft > > > Arghhhh..... > > REAL programmers cannot program complex notions in machine (toggle switches!) or > assembler. It is simply too hard. It is hard enough to do in third generation > languages like 'C' or 'Fortran' or Basic or Pascal or ... Even as long ago as > the 1980's, real world tests showed that compilers had gotten so good that > executables were better by all metrics when written in a higher level language > than in assembler. > > I have written in assembler and even (once) did the toggle thing on a PDP-11. > Once the translators are written (compilers), let the computer do the donkey work > that they're good at and let the people work at the conceptual levels, which they > are good at. > > In some environments, the slow speed of interpreter execution is still good > enough, as you've said. > > What the world still needs is a good fourth or fifth generation language but that > is REALLY hard to build and build well. In the database world, we had a product > that used relational calculus (high level programming) instead of relational > algebra (clunky SQL). The product was called ZIM by Zanthe Information Systems > out of Canada at the time. Extremely powerful language that even CEO's could use > to query their information. Sadly, it never caught on in the marketplace. There > are some current attempts at 4th and 5th G languages but they are still in their > infancy after 40 years of trying. > > David M. > > > On Sat 04/14/12 4:16 PM , "Richard E. Tasker" retasker@optonline.net sent: > > er@optonline.net > > > Uh, no... REAL programmers program in machine code or at worst assembly... > > :-P > > do not archive > > > > Jeff Luckey wrote: > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jeff > > Luckey"JLuckey@p > > acbell.net>> > > > Bob, > > > > > > Your assessment of the Picaxe is right on. They > > are great for> beginners/simple/low performance devices but their > > interpreter is at least a> couple of orders of magnitude slower than devices > > programmed w/ a compiler.> > > > There is a myriad of experimental aviation > > applications where that level of> performance would be adequate. > > > > > > Several years ago when I first started programming > > uControllers, I examined> PICAXE& Parallax Stamps. I settled on the Stamps > > (They also have built-in> interpreters). They are great for getting up and > > running simply& quickly,> which is key for the initial learning curve, but I > > quickly outgrew them.> > > > As I'm sure you are aware the standard in BASIC > > programming w/ PICs is> microEngineering Labs PICBASIC PRO Compiler. It is > > a great product and> reasonably priced at $120-$270. I know several > > people who use& really like> it. > > > > > > And, of course, Real Programmers program uCons in C > > ;)> > > > -Jeff > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > > [owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com ] On Behalf > > Of Robert L.> Nuckolls, III > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 19:37 > > > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Open > source > > product development for OBAM> aircraft > > > > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert > > L. Nuckolls, III"> nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com >> > > > At 10:37 AM 4/10/2012, you wrote: > > >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > > "gregmchugh"gregmchugh > > @aol.com>>> > > >> Bob, > > >> > > >> Looks good. Let's try to keep the option open to > > drop in the PICAXE 8 pin>> chip in place of the standard PIC chip. > > > I've been poking around the 'net trying to get > > a better> picture of what the PICAXE is all about. If I > > am reading> the postings right, PICAXE chips have an > > on-board interpreter> for tokenized BASIC commands . . . these tend > > to be very> slow with respect to what the chip can do with > > optimized> object code. > > > > > > I saw some links for a basic compiler that > > targets> PIC devices. > > > > > > > > http://www.sfcompiler.co.uk/swordfish/> > > > I think this does a righteous compilation > > of> the BASIC source code for much more > > efficient> use of memory and greater speeds. I'm > > going> out of town tomorrow with Dr. Dee. She > > has> a conference to attend in Oklahoma City > > and> I'll be driving her and three of her > > students> to the conference. I'll have quite a bit > > of> free time while they take care of > > business.> I'll look a bit deeper into the > > Swordfish> product and . . . there are > > undoubtedly> others. > > > > > > I can see the allure of the PICAXE > > product> for neophytes to get their juices > > flowing> for herding bytes around in silicon. It > > would> no doubt suffice for the wig-wag > > project> too. But a serious compiler would let > > you> run less expensive chips at their > > best> speeds. I think there'a a place for > > both> sets of tools. > > > > > > Since both tools target PIC products, > > the> board layouts for things like the > > do-much> architecture will work across both > > tools.> > > > > > > Bob . . . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Please Note: > > No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, > > however,that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily > > inconvenienced.-- > > > > > > > > > &grchive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, ; --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-Listhttp://forums.matr &nbs//www.matronics.com/contribution" ====== > > > > > > > * > > > * -- Please Note: No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however, that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced. -- ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 05:06:10 PM PST US From: rayj Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft Thanks to everyone for their input about chips and the next steps. I'll plan on getting out my C books and studying when the time comes. The free software aspect of AVR that Jeff mentioned appeals to me. Since this is all just for yucks, I like to keep the costs as low as possible. Thanks again to everyone. do not archive 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 04/12/2012 06:22 PM, rayj wrote: > > Greetings, > > Now that all the software folks are listening, I'll ask a question that > I'm sure others are wondering. After a person finishes learning a > particular kit, Parallax in my case, what's the next step up in > capability and versatility. Is there something that is generic or does > each chip manufacturer have a separate track for using their product. > > Not trying to start a conflict, just wondering what the world looks like > out there. > > do not archive > > 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 04/12/2012 05:43 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >> >> >> At 10:07 AM 4/11/2012, you wrote: >> >> >> Bob and all, >> >> >> I am planning to code the wig-wag function using the standard Microchip >> development tools using C. I ordered the PICkit 1 Flash Starter Kit >> directly from Microchip on Monday for $36 plus shipping and it is >> scheduled to arrive today. See Part Number: DV164101 at >> http://www.microchip.com/. >> >> >> Okay. I I'll get the FAT fets laid onto the artwork, modify >> the do-lots schematic to agree, and get some boards >> ordered. >> >> >> I checked on the SWORDFISH Basic compiler and it appears to only >> support the 18F family, 12F does not seem to be supported. >> >> >> Hmmm . . . fooey. Keep us up to date on future recommendations/ >> discoveries. I used to write a lot of 6800/6502 assembler for >> embedded applications. I use Turbo Basic for test systems. I'd >> like to get salty with the RSC controllers but after one had >> the 150+ constellation of instructions in the legacy chips, >> it takes a whole new outlook on programming to get 'er done >> with less than 40! >> >> Any single software development solution would not target a wide >> enough user base to make these types of modules viable for anything >> but limited use. >> >> >> agreed >> >> I am very pleased to see that there are more responses coming in >> from software folks, I was afraid I was stuck in a sea of hardware folks. >> I won't start with the war stories on embedded software development. >> Here is a Dilbert that shows how the war story saga ends... >> >> Anyway, welcome software folks and let's here lot's of ideas on >> what you would like to see happen with this project... >> >> Had to put new tires on the car today so didn't get to >> 'play' . . . I'll have some time in the morning. >> >> >> Bob . . . >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 06:08:29 PM PST US From: Dan Billingsley Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for suggestions Joe,-Apologies-in order and I once again stand corrected. Dang little e lectrons...just when I think I'm getting a grasp on em they change directio ns. I certainly learned something here and enjoyed looking at the camera fl ash schematic...makes sense now.-=0ADan=0A=0A=0A=0A>_____________________ ___________=0A> From: user9253 =0A>To: aeroelectric- list@matronics.com =0A>Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 2:23 PM=0A>Subject: Aer oElectric-List: Re: Looking for suggestions=0A> =0A>--> AeroElectric-List m essage posted by: "user9253" =0A>=0A>=0A>> someone s et me straight if I am off base about the caps holding high voltages=0A>=0A >The high voltage that charges a capacitor in a camera flash does not come directly from the battery.- Pulsing battery current- is applied to the primary of a transformer.- High voltage from the transformer secondary is what charges the capacitor.=0A>- If a 22,000=C2=B5F capacitor is charged on the workbench, the capacitor will never have a higher voltage than what ever was applied to it.=0A>- Below are a couple of links to camera flash circuits.=0A>Joe=0A>http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/kflashm.gif=0A>=0A>http:// www.increa.com/reverse/dc/=0A>=0A>--------=0A>Joe Gores=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A> Read this topic online here:=0A>=0A>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.p ==================0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A> ________________________________ Message 24 ____________________________________ Time: 06:14:49 PM PST US From: Dan Billingsley Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for suggestions =0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0AFrom: Bob McCallum =0ATo: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com=0ASent: Sun , April 15, 2012 2:14:09 PM=0ASubject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking f or suggestions=0A=0A =0ADan;=0A =0AThere is no way for a capacitor to attai n a voltage higher than that which was =0Aused to charge it. The camera is a bad example because it more closely resembles =0Ayour strobes whose capac itor might indeed be several hundred volts, but it is =0Anot charged by dir ectly applying battery voltage. There is electronic circuitry =0Ainvolved w hich can theoretically apply any voltage which the designer of the =0Acircu it decides he needs to attain. The power source might indeed be a 1.5V =0Ab attery but this tells us nothing about what circuitry is attached to that =0Abattery, certainly it is not directly connected to the flash capacitor. =0ADifferent story with the 22,000uF cap for the charging circuit which is directly =0Aconnected to the 12V battery circuit, therefore starts out at a pproximately =0A12V. Now understood=0A =0AAs for your noise, as Bob suggest ed, you might want to try to eliminate =0Apotential ground loops thus elimi nating the means by which the noise is being =0Aintroduced in the first pla ce rather than by trying to lower it=99s affect after =0Ait=99s been introduced. Depending on the integrity of the various connections in =0Athe audio/radio/antenna circuit then the antenna ground could possibly b e part =0Aof a ground loop. We are assuming that the co-ax connector for th at antenna is =0Awired correctly and that you=99re not depending on t he local ground to be part of =0Athe antenna circuit, only the attachment t o the ground plane??????????? Well, =0Ayou might be on to something here. T he ground of the coax (outer wire) WAS =0Aconnected to my air-frame (tube & fabric plane) to operate AS the ground plane. =0AThis was done on my buddi es Kitfox and has operated without a hitch for 8 years. =0AHe is very reada ble and transmits with no issue. As a Ham radio operator I am =0Avery aware of how a ground plane should be installed and I would have made one =0Aif I had the room under the antenna (I don't) As mentioned in an =0A earlier post, my com antenna is built into the vertical stab (again how a f riend =0Ahas his). The differences between the two planes IS how the elect rical systems =0Aare installed. I went with Z-16 and all grounds going to a bus (but not the =0Aantenna). The tower says my transmissions are clear an d the reception is good as =0Awell, but it sure is sounding like I created a ground loop. Guess I will need to =0Afigure out what to do with the anten na.=0AThanks Bob & Bob,=0ADan=0A =0ABob McC=0A =0A=0A______________________ __________=0A =0AFrom:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com =0A[mail to:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan =0ABillin gsley=0ASent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 3:46 PM=0ATo: aeroelectric-list@matron ics.com=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for suggestions=0A =0A =0A =0A>=0A________________________________=0A =0A>From:user9253 =0A>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com =0A>Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2012 8:45 AM=0A>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for sugge @banyanol.com>=0A>=0A>Dan,=0A>A resistor is not necessary as the lamp provi des a load.=0A>Yeah, I was just thinking of getting around not using the la mp and getting a =0A>digital reading of the discharging cap.=0A>The voltage of a capacitor can never be more than the voltage that was used to =0A>ch arge it up.=0A>..I am always willing to be corrected and learned...but I mu st disagree that if =0A>a 22,000mF is filled up, then when discharged there will be a much higher =0A>initial voltage reading than let's say the 12 V battery that charged it. =0A>Example: if you take one of the disposable cam eras that use a flash and run a =0A>positive and negative lead off of that electrolytic cap...hook it up to a volt =0A>meter and press the button, I h ave gotten between 300 and 400 volts each time. =0A>Most of these cameras u se a AA (or 1.5V cell).=0A> According to Ken and Bob's posts above, a capa citor is not very effective at =0A>alleviating noise. Agreed...so I might w ant to look at a choke?=0A> Are the headset jacks electrically isolated fr om the aircraft frame with =0A>insulating washers? Yes, the jacks were the first thing I checked when I =0A>was introduced to my system whine. Could t hat frame-grounded antenna in the back =0A>be a factor?=0A> =0A>Thanks for all the assistance. And someone set me straight if I am off base =0A>about the caps holding high voltages.=0A>Dan =0A>Joe=0A>=0A>--------=0A>Joe Gores =0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>Read this topic online here:=0A>=0A>http://forums.matro nics.com/viewtopic.php?p=370863#370863<; - The =0A>AeroElectric-L ist Email Forum -=0A>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List =0A>=0A>FORUMo available via the Web Forums!=0A>========= ================0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A>=0A =0A =0Ahttp://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List=0Ahttp://forum ============== =0A ________________________________ Message 25 ____________________________________ Time: 08:00:39 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for suggestions > (I don't) As mentioned in an earlier post, my com antenna > is built into the vertical stab (again how a friend has his). The > differences between the two planes IS how the electrical systems > are installed. I went with Z-16 and all grounds going to a bus (but > not the antenna). The tower says my transmissions are clear and the > reception is good as well, but it sure is sounding like I created a > ground loop. Guess I will need to figure out what to do with the antenna. I really doubt that the coax ground to the airframe is the culprit here . . . unless for some strange, as yet undiscovered reason it is the ONLY ground for that radio or cluster of black boxes. Do all of your box-grounds go to the common power bus and all shield and signal grounds connect to their respective LO or GND pins on the boxes? Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 26 ____________________________________ Time: 09:56:46 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Looking for suggestions From: "user9253" I am trying to understand why a ground loop causes problems with audio noise. To me, a ground loop means that the negative side of the electrical system is connected to ground at two or more points. Current has two possible parallel paths: either through the negative wire or through the airframe. If any voltage is dropped between the two points where the negative wire is grounded, then the current going to one load will affect the voltage and thus the current gong to the other load. It would seem that a similar effect could occur on the positive side of the circuit. If the current of two or more loads shares the same conductor, then varying-current going to one load could affect the current going to another load. In Dan's airplane, maybe the voltage dropped across the E-Bus diode is causing the dynamo whine in the audio system. It would be interesting to know if shorting out that diode eliminates the noise. Another experiment to try would be to shut off unneeded loads on the E-Bus to see if reducing total current will reduce the noise. The ideal electrical system would be grounded at only one point; thus no current whatsoever would flow through the airframe. That is difficult to accomplish since avionics are internally grounded to their cases. Even if each load had discrete conductors, they all must eventually merge at the source (alternator or dynamo). Why doesn't the current of one load affect the current of another load, since they are combined at the source? Bob, do you have any words of wisdom to explain the physics involved? Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=370914#370914 ________________________________ Message 27 ____________________________________ Time: 11:24:03 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Open source product development for OBAM aircraft From: David I will stick my neck out and say that real programmers (aka software engineers) tell the company what language to use. David :) On Sun 04/15/12 6:53 PM , "Richard E. Tasker" retasker@optonline.net sent: > er@optonline.net> > My comment on "real programmers" was merely a response to the comment that > "real programmers program uCons in C". > In fact, real programmers program in either what they are told to use for > the particular project. Or, if they work for an intelligent company, they > program in whatever gets the job done most efficiently and the definition of that depends on what the constraints are. > If there is plenty of memory to store the program, then any language will > work. If the program storage is limited, then what language one chooses is also limited. > > Do not archive. > > Henador Titzoff wrote: > > I agree with David wholeheartedly but would like to > add one more simple comment. Real programmers these days do not program > because they're out of work. While machine code is efficient, real > > programmers are inefficient. They can do only the > simplest of tasks, and even a programmer using Basic will outrun him and > leave him in the dust. Guess which one will get the job done? The days > > of writing machine code are over except for the > simplest tasks that somehow need specialized hand tweaking.> > > So if you know any machine code real programmers, > they're probably bag boys at your local supermarket because they can't get > a job. The rest are either in the ground or on display at your local > > dinosaur museum. > > > > Henador Titzoff > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > --------------------------------------------------> *From:* David ainut@knolo > gy.net>> *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com> *Sent:* Saturday, April 14, 2012 11:07 > PM> *Subject:* Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Open source > product development for OBAM aircraft> > ainut@knolo > gy.net>>> > > Arghhhh..... > > > > REAL programmers cannot program complex notions in > machine (toggle switches!) or> assembler. It is simply too hard. It is hard > enough to do in third generation> languages like 'C' or 'Fortran' or Basic or Pascal > or ... Even as long ago as> the 1980's, real world tests showed that compilers > had gotten so good that> executables were better by all metrics when written > in a higher level language> than in assembler. > > > > I have written in assembler and even (once) did the > toggle thing on a PDP-11.> Once the translators are written (compilers), let > the computer do the donkey work> that they're good at and let the people work at the > conceptual levels, which they> are good at. > > > > In some environments, the slow speed of interpreter > execution is still good> enough, as you've said. > > > > What the world still needs is a good fourth or > fifth generation language but that> is REALLY hard to build and build well. In the > database world, we had a product> that used relational calculus (high level > programming) instead of relational> algebra (clunky SQL). The product was called ZIM > by Zanthe Information Systems> out of Canada at the time. Extremely powerful > language that even CEO's could use> to query their information. Sadly, it never caught > on in the marketplace. There> are some current attempts at 4th and 5th G > languages but they are still in their> infancy after 40 years of trying. > > > > David M. > > > > > > > > On Sat 04/14/12 4:16 PM , "Richard E. Tasker" > retasker@optonline.net retask > E. Tasker" retask> > er@optonline.net er@optonline > .net>>> > Uh, no... REAL programmers program in machine > code or at worst assembly...> > :-P > > > do not archive > > > > > > Jeff Luckey wrote: > > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > "Jeff> > Luckey"JLuckey@p > > > acbell.net>> > > > > Bob, > > > > > > > > Your assessment of the Picaxe is right on. > They> > are great for> beginners/simple/low performance > devices but their> > interpreter is at least a> couple of orders of > magnitude slower than devices> > programmed w/ a compiler.> > > > > There is a myriad of experimental > aviation> > applications where that level of> performance > would be adequate.> > > > > > > Several years ago when I first started > programming> > uControllers, I examined> PICAXE& Parallax > Stamps. I settled on the Stamps> > (They also have built-in> interpreters). They > are great for getting up and> > running simply& quickly,> which is key for the > initial learning curve, but I> > quickly outgrew them.> > > > > As I'm sure you are aware the standard in > BASIC> > programming w/ PICs is> microEngineering Labs > PICBASIC PRO Compiler. It is> > a great product and> reasonably priced at > $120-$270. I know several> > people who use& really like> it. > > > > > > > > And, of course, Real Programmers program uCons > in C> > ;)> > > > > -Jeff > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: > owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com>>> [owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com>] On > Behalf> > Of Robert L.> Nuckolls, III > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 19:37 > > > > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: > Re: Open> source > > > product development for OBAM> aircraft > > > > > > > > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > "Robert> > L. Nuckolls, III"> nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com > nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>>>> > > At 10:37 AM 4/10/2012, you wrote: > > > >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted > by:> > "gregmchugh"gregmchugh > > > @aol.com>>> > > > >> Bob, > > > >> > > > >> Looks good. Let's try to keep the option open > to> > drop in the PICAXE 8 pin>> chip in place of the > standard PIC chip.> > > I've been poking around the 'net trying to > get> > a better> picture of what the PICAXE is all > about. If I> > am reading> the postings right, PICAXE chips > have an> > on-board interpreter> for tokenized BASIC > commands . . . these tend> > to be very> slow with respect to what the chip > can do with> > optimized> object code. > > > > > > > > I saw some links for a basic compiler > that> > targets> PIC devices. > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.sfcompiler.co.uk/swordfish/>> > > I think this does a righteous > compilation> > of> the BASIC source code for much > more> > efficient> use of memory and greater speeds. > I'm> > going> out of town tomorrow with Dr. Dee. > She> > has> a conference to attend in Oklahoma > City> > and> I'll be driving her and three of > her> > students> to the conference. I'll have quite a > bit> > of> free time while they take care > of> > business.> I'll look a bit deeper into > the> > Swordfish> product and . . . there > are> > undoubtedly> others. > > > > > > > > I can see the allure of the > PICAXE> > product> for neophytes to get their > juices> > flowing> for herding bytes around in silicon. > It> > would> no doubt suffice for the > wig-wag> > project> too. But a serious compiler would > let> > you> run less expensive chips at > their> > best> speeds. I think there'a a place > for> > both> sets of tools. > > > > > > > > Since both tools target PIC > products,> > the> board layouts for things like > the> > do-much> architecture will work across > both> > tools.> > > > > > > > > Bob . . . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Please Note: > > > No trees were destroyed in the sending of this > message. We do concede,> > however,that a significant number of electrons > may have been temporarily> > inconvenienced.-- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > &grchive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, ; --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-Listhttp://foru > ms.matr &nbs//www.matronics.com/contribution" =======> > > > > > > > > > > http://forums.matronics.com>> http://forums.matronics.com>> http://forums.matronics.com>> http://forums.matronics.com>> * > > > > > > * > > -- > Please Note: > No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, > however,that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily > inconvenienced.-- > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.