Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:59 AM - Re: Contactors (Eric M. Jones)
2. 07:48 AM - Sometimes even the pros get it wrong . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 08:12 AM - Re: Sometimes even the pros get it wrong . . . (Eric M. Jones)
4. 08:33 AM - Re: Sometimes even the pros get it wrong . . . (Robert Sultzbach)
5. 08:59 AM - Re: Contactors (John Evens)
6. 09:11 AM - Re: Contactors (John Evens)
7. 10:03 AM - Re: Re: Contactors (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 10:43 AM - Re: Re: Contactors (jan)
9. 01:07 PM - dimmable LED cockpit lighting (Bill Allen)
10. 01:32 PM - Re: Contactors (Eric M. Jones)
11. 01:42 PM - Re: dimmable LED cockpit lighting (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 01:45 PM - Re: Re: Contactors (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 01:45 PM - Re: dimmable LED cockpit lighting (Peter Pengilly)
14. 02:15 PM - Re: Contactors (Eric M. Jones)
15. 03:59 PM - Re: dimmable LED cockpit lighting (Robert Borger)
16. 04:05 PM - Making fat wire fatter (Jeff Luckey)
17. 04:31 PM - Re: Making fat wire fatter (Charlie England)
18. 05:58 PM - Re: Re: Contactors (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
19. 05:59 PM - Re: Making fat wire fatter (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
20. 07:06 PM - Re: Questions about Z-08 (Thomas E Blejwas)
21. 07:21 PM - Re: Questions about Z-08 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
22. 07:45 PM - Re: Making fat wire fatter (Jeff Luckey)
23. 08:32 PM - Re: Making fat wire fatter (Tim Rhodenbaugh)
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 |
|
Dj--
> Hi Eric,
> Thank you for responding. I don't really feel that answers my
> question though, at least I don't think it answers it from my
> perspective as a typical experimental guy on a budget.
Flying is a pretty expensive sport no matter how you do it. But I don't encourage
everyone to immediately change to the latest and greatest. If you are happy
with what you have, then by reading this list and doing some investigation, you
at least know what's available. If you want to build an aircraft to be a stellar
example of wonderfulness, and aren't so concerned about budget, then different
choices might apply.
Even Bob N's book and writings show "simple, more complicated, sophisticated" approaches
and Z-diagrams. Over the years my aspirations have slipped from whiz-bang
to much-simpler. For example I don't want a dual battery system, an inverted
fuel system, and probably won't have an AOA either. I'll probably put off
the autopilot for later.
As for the 122F spec limit, If your contactor is under-cowl, then it is a real
limitation. Evidence seems to indicate that the modern type-70 is not the same
device it was some years prior.
So what do you get for an additional $104? A lot better, safer, lower hold-current,
higher-temp device. It makes sense in my checkbook, but might not in everyone's.
But I am still aiming at a contactor-free simple design.
ps, I'm building a Glastar.
pps, The Gigavac and Kilovac designs use bidirectional Zeners as coil suppressors.
Wonder why? Because the diodes recirculate the current and slow the opening
of the armature, causing arcing; the bidirectional Zeners don't.
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=413643#413643
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: | Sometimes even the pros get it wrong . . . |
About 9:30 local last night, a B747 variant (cargo
version) landed at Jabara Airport, about 8 miles short
of its intended destination.
http://tinyurl.com/ko4g9z9
Fortunately, our 'little' feeder field has 6,000 x 100
foot concrete and the airplane was able to get stopped
without further mishap. However, they are flying in
a special crew to take the airplane out about noon today.
One has to wonder how, with ALL the navigation capabilities
on board, did they manage to step in the bucket of
stinky stuff. Then too, how did 3 seasoned, 'certified'
pilots manage to land short in San Francisco last spring?
I'm reading complaints by many ATC rated pilots that
the evolution of operations philosophies is steadily
reducing their cockpit duties toward the condition of
being "along for the ride in a multi-million dollar
video game."
The advances in management of information has found
its way into cockpits of all sizes. Combinations of GPS,
dirt cheap microprocessors, Internet connectivity to
huge data bases and pocket sized touch screens has
opened the book on a wealth of information.
The relative ease with which we can expand cockpit
capabilities does not come without risks. It's common
knowledge that technology driven distraction of car drivers
is a demonstrably bad thing. In airplanes the risks
are compounded by an especially unforgiving nature of the
environment in which airplanes operate.
I ran across the pilot's operating 'handbooks' for
the C-120/140 series airplanes.
http://tinyurl.com/kkgkjlg
http://tinyurl.com/n2tfs6t
It's interesting how much the 'handbook' evolved over the
interval from certification to volume production.
. . . an excellent sample from the past . . . for an
airplane with NO cockpit distractions beyond dropping
a cigarette or spilling the coffee.
In no way would I suggest that the OBAM airplane builder
forsake real advantages for having useful bells and whistles
in the cockpit . . . I recall with fondness the discovery
that certain hand-held GPS receivers for under $150 would
function very well in airplanes . . .
http://tinyurl.com/n5d9zu2
I also recall the feeling of climbing into the first
rental fitted with GPS . . . and the 2" thick "Pilot's
Reference Manual" that went with it. I left the panel
mounted GPS OFF and dug my $200, dual-GPS nav system out of
the flight bag.
The point of this missive is to encourage the OBAM aviation
community to be wary of stacking a lot of cool capabilities
into their project's panel. In retrospect, I cannot imagine
any way I would use an airplane today that would become
less risky for having more 'stuff' on the panel than what
I was flying 13 years ago.
I humbly suggest that there is increased risk for adding
lots of stuff . . . stuff that becomes so complex or prone
to entry errors that the crew gets bad information . . . or
doesn't even bother to use it.
I'm quite certain that if the B747 pilots who landed at
the wrong airport last night had punched 37.623N/97.267W
into one of my $100 hand-held radios, they would not be giving
up their airplane to another crew tasked with extricating
it from the wrong airport.
Before you buy and bolt to your airplane, consider the
return on $investment$ along with potential for unhappy
distraction.
Bob . . .
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: Sometimes even the pros get it wrong . . . |
Definitions:
Certified: Endorsed by authorities as having met specific requirements or possessing
certain qualities; e.g. " Certified Public Accountant", i.e., a person skilled
at altering or destroying documents, ignoring or failing to investigate
shell companies created by insiders who grotesquely enriched themselves while
hiding mounting corporate debt in "off-balance-sheet companies"; Ignoring knowledgeable
whistleblowers and accounting "red flags" that indicate massive fraud
is taking place; misleading investors who continued pouring their money into
failing companies. See Enron.
Certifiable: Determined to be insane or non compos mentis; e.g. I know who I am.
No one else knows who I am. If I was a giraffe, and someone said I was a snake,
I'd think, no, actually I'm a giraffe. - Richard Gere
Certificated: A person or object that has been judged to meet certain standards,
e.g. airworthiness or as in certificated flight instructor. The term signifies
that a printed official-looking paper (a ticket, slang for certificate) is
somewhere to be found.
Discussion--The FAA is reasonably careful to avoid the word certify except in the
sense of swear to the truthfulness of or affirm. For example:
you only have to certify that you have no medical defect
You must certify the application form by reading, answering, signing, and dating.
to certify the record is true and complete.
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=413651#413651
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: Sometimes even the pros get it wrong . . . |
Bob,
You might be interested in a presentation given to AA pilots a while back called
"Children of the Magenta." It can be found on YouTube. It talks about automation
and it's effects on piloting skills.
Bob Sultzbach
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 |
|
On 11/20/2013 Dj Merrill wrote:
"For clarity, the 14 year old contactor has never had diodes (or
zeners) installed on it, and it is still working. I don't really have
any reason to replace it except for that one blip a few months back,
and that I am completely re-doing a bunch of electrical items on the
plane and it is convenient to do it while I have everything apart. The
new one that I will be installing will get a diode across it. Maybe it
will last 28 years instead of only 14... ;-)"
I just want to point out that the "blip" you experienced was very
possibly caused by the switch controlling the contactor, not the
contactor itself. A diode is usually installed to protect the switch
contacts from excessive arcing, and not the contactor itself. I don't
believe that the diode will directly do anything to help the contactor
have a longer life.
John Evens
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 |
|
On 11/20/2013 Dj Merrill wrote:
"For clarity, the 14 year old contactor has never had diodes (or
zeners) installed on it, and it is still working. I don't really have
any reason to replace it except for that one blip a few months back,
and that I am completely re-doing a bunch of electrical items on the
plane and it is convenient to do it while I have everything apart.
The new one that I will be installing will get a diode across it.
Maybe it will last 28 years instead of only 14... ;-)"
I just want to point out that the "blip" you experienced was very
possibly
caused by the switch controlling the contactor, not the contactor
itself.
A diode is usually installed to protect the switch contacts from
excessive
arcing, and not the contactor itself. I don't believe that the diode
will
directly do anything to help the contactor have a longer life.
John Evens
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
11/20/13
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 |
|
As for the 122F spec limit, If your contactor is under-cowl, then it
is a real limitation. Evidence seems to indicate that the modern
type-70 is not the same device it was some years prior.
And in what way are these 'differences' a step-down
from what was done in the past?
Please do not side-step this question Eric. In what
way have you discovered that the modern incarnation
of the 70-series contactor is inferior to that which
first flew on the C140 in 1948 or any other era in
between?
Published temp limits are founded in the outcome of an
MTBF study where operating temperature strongly influences
service life of organics (insulation and molded
bobbins). A 70-series contactor on a golf-cart
or fork-lift is subject to 100x the service-stress of a
battery contactor in a light airplane. The question
to be asked and answered is assuming that a 70-series
device at 122F is good for xx,xxx operations at
full switching load and 122F, how badly does that
xx,xxx number degrade at say . . . 160F?
So what do you get for an additional $104? A lot better, safer, lower
hold-current, higher-temp device. It makes sense in my checkbook, but
might not in everyone's.
Quantify 'better' and 'safer' . . . cite any instances
where failure-to-perform by a 70 series contactor has
presented anything other than a maintenance event.
Cite also the outcome of a failure mode effects analysis
that should the demonstrably low probability contactor
failure actually happen in flight. Have you deduced
a heretofore unidentified risk to airframe/people in
an airplane fitted with an e-bus?
But I am still aiming at a contactor-free simple design.
No problem. Lamar offers a line of all solid state
contactors which they say are suited to both
battery and starter control. Aircraft Spruce
offers them right now.
http://tinyurl.com/or73cxr
pps, The Gigavac and Kilovac designs use bidirectional Zeners as coil
suppressors. Wonder why? Because the diodes recirculate the current
and slow the opening of the armature, causing arcing; the
bidirectional Zeners don't.
I proved this assertion incorrect some years back on
the bench. The plain vanilla diode does extend operating
delay but has no measurable effect on transition velocity
(arcing). The operating delay is on the order of milliseconds
and transparent to the pilot and ship's systems.
Consider Figures 5 thru 8 of this document.
http://tinyurl.com/36783n7
Particularly the arc signature of a spreading relay
contact where (1) the coil is not suppressed in any
way and (2) suppressed with a plain vanilla diode.
If this document is in error, I need to know. Help
me out . . .
Consider this article published in the Cessna 120/140
Forum. http://tinyurl.com/oe2m52v
Here the author claims to have measured the effects of
coil spikes induced directly onto the bus of his
C182. He cites some startling numbers . . .
We have discovered through simple bench tests and rudimentary
logic that 99.99% of the energy from a collapsing contactor/relay
coil is expended across the contacts of the controlling
switch . . . that in fact, the energy does not propagate out
onto the system. It would be nice if he had published
a wiring diagram for his experiment so that it could
be repeated.
Eric, if your wish is to be a persuasive teacher,
you're going to have to bring your science to
the discussion. If you have evidence that argues with my
deductions, nobody would be happier than I to know that
what I've been teaching is in error.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
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 |
|
Hi Jeff,
I am well aware of the issue around pre-charging of capacitors. That is
bread and butter stuff to anyone involved in the EV industry or dealing with
any systems that have large capacitors ...
What was so frustrating in our experience was that what Gigavac was
proposing as an alternative to the EV200 ... all looked right on paper ..
but did not work in our application ... the EV200 did .. and still do. More
frustrating was the Gigavac was not able to come up with a answer to the
problem. He we had to pull them all. And re-fit EV200 ...
Anyway ... as a starter or main contactor on a light aircraft ... Well .. I
have no further comment to add.
Jan
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric M.
Jones
Sent: 21 November 2013 00:54
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Contactors
<emjones@charter.net>
Jan,
>
> I hope they have improved. We changed from EV200 to Gigavac and had
nothing but problems .. This was in high voltage EV applications - must have
used more than 1000 units .. all had to go back .... it was a few years ago
...
> so things may have changed ...
I have heard of problems with big contactors in EVs charging supercaps.
Inless the caps are "pre-charged" or there is a line resistor, the current
is ~infinite. These lessons were learned painfully in EVs. But Gigavac makes
good stuff and they deserve a look. Gigavac makes scores of different
contactors.
Jeff,
There are main battery contactors. Maybe more. They would be overkill for
40A.
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=413621#413621
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: | dimmable LED cockpit lighting |
Hi All;
1.Can anyone point me to a source of "dimable"12v LEDs for cockpit/panel
lighting
2. Also a source for 12v flashing LEDs for use a warning lights.
Many thanks.
Bill Allen
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 |
|
It would be nice to have gotten an answer from Gigavac. I'll contact them and try
to dig up what happened.
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=413665#413665
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: dimmable LED cockpit lighting |
At 03:05 PM 11/21/2013, you wrote:
>Hi All;
>
>1.Can anyone point me to a source of "dimable"12v LEDs for
>cockpit/panel lighting
>
>2. Also a source for 12v flashing LEDs for use a warning lights.
>
>Many thanks.
>
>Bill Allen
There are no 'generic' 12v LEDS. The light emitting diode
is a current driven device with a voltage drop on the
order of 2 volts for red ones and up to 4 volts for
white and other colors.
You operate an LED by causing the desired current flow
through it. This is often accomplished with the selection
of a series resistor. Hence, many "12V" red LED fixtures
operating at say, 20mA, will mount the red diode in a
package and add a resistor that turns the 10V difference
between diode and supply into a 20mA current flow.
R = 10/.02 or 500 ohms.
ALL LEDS are dimable . . you simply control the current
from max down to zero (the very tiniest of currents
will produce a visible glow on the device).
There are a family of LEDs with built in flashing
features, but I've never found one that produced enough
light output to be a useful warning light on an airplane
panel. If you want bright, dimable and flashing, you'll
probably want to craft a suitable suite of electronics
to go with it.
How was it that you wanted to use LEDs? What colors?
Do any of the applications call for multiple diodes
to increase light output or coverage?
Bob . . .
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I just want to point out that the "blip" you experienced was very possibly
caused by the switch controlling the contactor, not the contactor itself.
A diode is usually installed to protect the switch contacts from excessive
arcing, and not the contactor itself. I don't believe that the diode will
directly do anything to help the contactor have a longer life.
John Evens
AGREED!
Bob . . .
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: dimmable LED cockpit lighting |
12v LED strip from the local store (such as this
<http://beta.maplin.co.uk/c/components/leds-and-displays/led-strips>),
hooked up to one of these
<http://www.periheliondesign.com/egpavr.htm>dimmers should work for the
cockpit?
Something like this
<http://beta.maplin.co.uk/p/security-flashing-led-un42v> for a flashing LED?
Peter
On 21/11/2013 21:05, Bill Allen wrote:
> Hi All;
>
> 1.Can anyone point me to a source of "dimable"12v LEDs for
> cockpit/panel lighting
>
> 2. Also a source for 12v flashing LEDs for use a warning lights.
>
> Many thanks.
>
> Bill Allen
> *
>
> *
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 |
|
EMJ said-As for the 122F spec limit, If your contactor is under-cowl, then it
is a real limitation. Evidence seems to indicate that the modern
type-70 is not the same device it was some years prior.
> And in what way are these 'differences' a step-down
> from what was done in the past?
>
> Please do not side-step this question Eric. In what way have you discovered that
the modern incarnation of the 70-series contactor is inferior to that which
first flew on the C140 in 1948 or any other era in between?
The photo you showed of the type-70 with the red RTV seal. I haven't opened many
type-70s. In 1948 they probably had phenolic bobbins, now they have nylon bobbins.
> Published temp limits are founded in the outcome of an
> MTBF study where operating temperature strongly influences
> service life of organics (insulation and molded
> bobbins). A 70-series contactor on a golf-cart
> or fork-lift is subject to 100x the service-stress of a
> battery contactor in a light airplane. The question
> to be asked and answered is assuming that a 70-series
> device at 122F is good for xx,xxx operations at
> full switching load and 122F, how badly does that
> xx,xxx number degrade at say . . . 160F?
>
The historical engineering data is not available for the type 70. I have tried.
All we can go by is the published specifications. Why does this bother you?
So what do you get for an additional $104? A lot better, safer, lower
hold-current, higher-temp device. It makes sense in my checkbook, but
might not in everyone's.
> Quantify 'better' and 'safer' . . . cite any instances where failure-to-perform
by a 70 series contactor has presented anything other than a maintenance event.
Better and safer means higher temp and fuel proof....for a start. Previously I
published a comparison of the type-70 with the EV200. Maybe I'll do it again.
> Cite also the outcome of a failure mode effects analysis that should the demonstrably
low probability contactor failure actually happen in flight. Have you
deduced a heretofore unidentified risk to airframe/people in
> an airplane fitted with an e-bus?
Sounds too much like a waste of time for anyone whose mind is made up. The 122F
limit is enough to have it put on the Do Not Use List.
But I am still aiming at a contactor-free simple design.
> No problem. Lamar offers a line of all solid state contactors which they say
are suited to both battery and starter control. Aircraft Spruce
> offers them right now.
pps, The Gigavac and Kilovac designs use bidirectional Zeners as coil
suppressors. Wonder why? Because the diodes recirculate the current
and slow the opening of the armature, causing arcing; the
bidirectional Zeners don't.
> I proved this assertion incorrect some years back on the bench. The plain vanilla
diode does extend operating delay but has no measurable effect on transition
velocity (arcing). The operating delay is on the order of milliseconds
> and transparent to the pilot and ship's systems.
>
> Consider Figures 5 thru 8 of this document.
>
>
> Particularly the arc signature of a spreading relay contact where (1) the coil
is not suppressed in anyway and (2) suppressed with a plain vanilla diode.
>
> If this document is in error, I need to know. Help me out . . .
At the time I didn't like your test. I won't dig it up now. Sometimes just doing
the best engineering approach is the logical thing to do. Since you know using
a p/n diode SLOWS the contactor opening and causes arcing...why would you do
that?
> Consider this article published in the Cessna 120/140
> Forum. http://tinyurl.com/oe2m52v
>
> Here the author claims to have measured the effects of
> coil spikes induced directly onto the bus of his
> C182. He cites some startling numbers . . .
>
> We have discovered through simple bench tests and rudimentary
> logic that 99.99% of the energy from a collapsing contactor/relay
> coil is expended across the contacts of the controlling
> switch . . . that in fact, the energy does not propagate out
> onto the system. It would be nice if he had published
> a wiring diagram for his experiment so that it could
> be repeated.
The article has some issues which I will answer later. The key problem is that
neither he nor you seem to understand why a bidirectional zener is far better
to use in coil suppression service, and what it does that a diode does not do.
NOBODY makes a commercial contactor that uses a p/n diode for coil suppression
for good reasons. NOBODY. The sine qua non of coil suppression is to reduce
the opening time. I don't think everyone ought to tear out the parts and replace
them, but when buiding a system from scratch, why not do the right thing?
If you want to claim the wrong way is "good enough", okay.
> Eric, if your wish is to be a persuasive teacher, you're going to have to bring
your science to the discussion. If you have evidence that argues with my
> deductions, nobody would be happier than I to know that what I've been teaching
is in error.
> Bob . . .
No, you wouldn't. But I respect your work.
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=413671#413671
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: dimmable LED cockpit lighting |
Bill,
Search Amazon for 12v LED Light Strips. They also have dimmers,
connectors, etc. for the strips.
I recently ordered a reel of the LED strip, power/dimmer & connectors.
Won=92t arrive till after Thanksgiving as they are probably shipped from
somewhere in China.
You can also find your individual warning lights there as well.
Blue skies & tailwinds,
Bob Borger
Europa XS Tri, Rotax 914, Airmaster C/S Prop.
Little Toot Sport Biplane, Lycoming Thunderbolt AEIO-320 EXP
3705 Lynchburg Dr.
Corinth, TX 76208-5331
Cel: 817-992-1117
rlborger@mac.com
On Nov 21, 2013, at 3:45 PM, Peter Pengilly <peter@sportingaero.com>
wrote:
12v LED strip from the local store (such as this), hooked up to one of
these dimmers should work for the cockpit?
Something like this for a flashing LED?
Peter
On 21/11/2013 21:05, Bill Allen wrote:
> Hi All;
>
> 1.Can anyone point me to a source of "dimable"12v LEDs for
cockpit/panel lighting
>
> 2. Also a source for 12v flashing LEDs for use a warning lights.
>
> Many thanks.
>
> Bill Allen
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: | Making fat wire fatter |
I need to terminate a piece of #2 or #4 (not sure which) welding cable with
a #0 wire terminal.- So I want to increase the diameter of the stranded
copper a little bit so that it fits snugly within the #0 wire terminal.=0A
=0AI'm thinking about inserting the copper from some #12 solid wire into th
e center of the #2 (or #4) to fatten it up and then crimping it... Or maybe
using a #6 brass machine screw inserted the same way.=0A=0A=0ASuggestions?
=0A=0A-Jeff=0A
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: Making fat wire fatter |
On 11/21/2013 6:04 PM, Jeff Luckey wrote:
> I need to terminate a piece of #2 or #4 (not sure which) welding cable
> with a #0 wire terminal. So I want to increase the diameter of the
> stranded copper a little bit so that it fits snugly within the #0 wire
> terminal.
>
> I'm thinking about inserting the copper from some #12 solid wire into
> the center of the #2 (or #4) to fatten it up and then crimping it...
> Or maybe using a #6 brass machine screw inserted the same way.
>
> Suggestions?
>
> -Jeff
I'm pretty sure that Bob has a comic book on his site describing just
that technique, using copper wire.
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 |
|
The photo you showed of the type-70 with the red RTV seal. I haven't
opened many type-70s. In 1948 they probably had phenolic bobbins, now
they have nylon bobbins.
Yes. Ownership and marketing of the 70-series devices
has changed several times over the years. Most certainly,
they have benefited from a host of changes that were either
(1) consistent with processes and materials of the new
owners and/or (2) process and materials improvements
that did not degrade original design goals.
It's easy to fall into the 'trap' for taking notice
of new, faster, cheaper or convenient changes and translate
them into some nefarious or incompetent decision to reduce costs
while sacrificing original design goals. The cars we all
drive are much cheaper than machines we used to purchase
50 years ago yet they come with more features and longer
service lives. Your notice of historical variation in
design as a driver for safety and reliability is without
foundation.
No doubt this DOES happen but I challenge any notion
that the present incarnation of the 70-series contactor
is in any way a poorer return on investment than it was
in 1949.
The historical engineering data is not available for the type 70. I
have tried. All we can go by is the published specifications. Why
does this bother you?
It doesn't bother me in the least. How did a lack of
historical data offered by manufacturers become a solid
foundation for declaring a product of poor value and an
operational hazard? I don't know much about the internal
decisions that produced the cars I drive either . . . but
no way would I spend the same money in 2013 dollars for
a 1960's automobile as a point A to point B transportation
machine. Given the service life and features of the last
5 cars I've owned I can confidently assert that cheaper
is better.
Better and safer means higher temp and fuel proof....for a start.
Previously I published a comparison of the type-70 with the EV200.
Maybe I'll do it again.
I didn't see that. Was it published here on the AeroElectric
List? I'd like to read it. But if it's simply a tit-for-tat
listing of features on the promotional literature, be sure
to explain how the lack of some new feature posed
a risk to cost of ownership or safety.
>Cite also the outcome of a failure mode effects analysis that
should the demonstrably
>low probability contactor failure actually happen in flight. Have
>you deduced a heretofore unidentified risk to airframe/people in an
>airplane fitted with an e-bus?
Sounds too much like a waste of time for anyone whose mind is made
up. The 122F limit is enough to have it put on the Do Not Use List.
Waste of time? How so? If your assertion is that I preach
the gospel of bad science, poor design goals and risky
decisions based on bad science, then I must be a menace to
children and other living things. What is the science upon
which your opinion is based? My mind is not 'made up' . . .
show me (or more important - the members of this List)
where I'm wrong. I don't write for you and I don't ask you
to write for me . . . do it for the membership of this List.
At the time I didn't like your test. I won't dig it up now. Sometimes
just doing the best engineering approach is the logical thing to do.
Since you know using a p/n diode SLOWS the contactor opening and
causes arcing...why would you do that?
How do I KNOW that? Can you do an experiment
on the bench that demonstrates it? If you didn't
like my test then, why did you let it slide?
The article has some issues which I will answer later. The key
problem is that neither he nor you seem to understand why a
bidirectional zener is far better to use in coil suppression
service, and what it does that a diode does not do. NOBODY makes a
commercial contactor that uses a p/n diode for coil suppression for
good reasons. NOBODY. The sine qua non of coil suppression is to
reduce the opening time. I don't think everyone ought to tear out the
parts and replace them, but when buiding a system from scratch, why
not do the right thing?
Really? How about the S701 series starter contactors
I sold for years with a plain vanilla diode factory
installed? How about the fact that plain vanilla
diodes have been installed on the Cessna single
engine products for decades . . . with no overt
demonstrations of bad engineering? I aware of no
contactors with factory installed, zener based
coil suppression . . . lots of devices are sold with
plain vanilla diodes.
Small relays are offered with bi-directional devices
so that the system designer can use them in both
simple power management -and- controls where drop
out delay could become an issue.
If you want to claim the wrong way is "good enough", okay.
> Eric, if your wish is to be a persuasive teacher, you're going to
have to bring your science to the discussion. If you have evidence
that argues with my
> deductions, nobody would be happier than I to know that what I've
been teaching is in error.
> Bob . . .
No, you wouldn't. But I respect your work.
You respect my work but I'm lying? Okay Eric. I think
this conversation is over. Until such time that you
conduct and publish the outcome of demonstrations that
argue with what I have published and defended, you are
asked to keep your opinions on contactors off this List.
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: Making fat wire fatter |
At 06:04 PM 11/21/2013, you wrote:
>I need to terminate a piece of #2 or #4 (not sure which) welding
>cable with a #0 wire terminal. So I want to increase the diameter
>of the stranded copper a little bit so that it fits snugly within
>the #0 wire terminal.
Why not acquire the proper terminal?
Bob . . .
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Questions about Z-08 |
I haven't figured out how to easily insert my response with parts of the message
to which I'm responding. Sorry for the difficulty this creates in understanding
my comments.
1. Bob, do I understand correctly, that a simple switch is suitable for "Engine
A" in Z-08 (now Z-07) because the switch will not usually be opened but rather
the Main Battery Contactor will be opened instead?
Assuming that the Motive Bus is in my cockpit, I don't see why the relay for "Engine
B" is in the engine compartment instead of in the cockpit, requiring two
wires penetrating the firewall, instead of just one.
2 & 3. I appreciate your suggestions on securing stud-nut and engine-block connections.
Thanks.
4. You suggested a double pole switch and the circuit breaker of the crowbar circuit
could meet my needs, but this would allow the alternator and battery turned
on together and then the alternator disconnected. But I want to keep the
alternator connected while I disconnect the battery, as well as possibly disconnecting
the alternator using the circuit breaker. Think I need a 2-10 switch
for this. Correct?
Thanks.
Tom
Sent from my iPad
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: Questions about Z-08 |
At 09:05 PM 11/21/2013, you wrote:
><tomblejwas@yahoo.com>
>
>I haven't figured out how to easily insert my response with parts of
>the message to which I'm responding. Sorry for the difficulty this
>creates in understanding my comments.
Just hit 'reply' and the proposed outgoing
message will start off with a copy of the
message to which you are responding. Then
simply edit to insert your comments/questions
between line items of the subject matter.
>1. Bob, do I understand correctly, that a simple switch is suitable
>for "Engine A" in Z-08 (now Z-07) because the switch will not
>usually be opened but rather the Main Battery Contactor will be
>opened instead? Assuming that the Motive Bus is in my cockpit, I
>don't see why the relay for "Engine B" is in the engine compartment
>instead of in the cockpit, requiring two wires penetrating the
>firewall, instead of just one.
The relay is a mini-battery contactor. It's purpose
is to disconnect a battery feeder as close as practical
to the battery. Engine A is not a battery feeder, Engine B
is. Hence, the disconnect relay at the battery.
>2 & 3. I appreciate your suggestions on securing stud-nut and
>engine-block connections. Thanks.
>
>4. You suggested a double pole switch and the circuit breaker of
>the crowbar circuit could meet my needs, but this would allow the
>alternator and battery turned on together and then the alternator
>disconnected. But I want to keep the alternator connected while I
>disconnect the battery, as well as possibly disconnecting the
>alternator using the circuit breaker. Think I need a 2-10 switch
>for this. Correct?
Do you KNOW that you want to run the alternator
without a battery? This is not commonly done . . .
but it can be if you've conducted experiments to
explore the conditions under which you can operate
alternator only.
Even if you use the 2-10 as suggested, there are
no provisions for operating the altenrator without
also having a battery on line.
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: Making fat wire fatter |
If that were possible, I wouldn't be asking this question ;)=0A=0AWithout g
oing into great detail - the terminal in question is built in to an existin
g fixture in a ground power connector plug.=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A______________
__________________=0A From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroele
ctric.com>=0ATo: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com =0ASent: Thursday, Novembe
r 21, 2013 5:59 PM=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Making fat wire fatter
" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>=0A=0AAt 06:04 PM 11/21/2013, you wrote:
=0A> I need to terminate a piece of #2 or #4 (not sure which) welding cable
with a #0 wire terminal.- So I want to increase the diameter of the stra
nded copper a little bit so that it fits snugly within the #0 wire terminal
.=0A=0A- Why not acquire the proper terminal?=0A=0A=0A=0A- 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: | Re: Making fat wire fatter |
I made small pieces of #12 copper wire sharpened them on one end and tapped t
hem into the welding cable inside the terminal. when tight I then soldered i
t. Then placed heavy shrink tubing over the terminal and wire as a stress r
eliever.
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 21, 2013, at 7:04 PM, Jeff Luckey <jluckey@pacbell.net> wrote:
> I need to terminate a piece of #2 or #4 (not sure which) welding cable wit
h a #0 wire terminal. So I want to increase the diameter of the stranded co
pper a little bit so that it fits snugly within the #0 wire terminal.
>
> I'm thinking about inserting the copper from some #12 solid wire into the c
enter of the #2 (or #4) to fatten it up and then crimping it... Or maybe usi
ng a #6 brass machine screw inserted the same way.
>
> Suggestions?
>
> -Jeff
>
>
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
==========================
=========
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! --
|