Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:02 AM - Illuminated Rocker switches - revisited (Carlos Trigo)
2. 06:16 AM - Re: Illuminated Rocker switches - revisited (Bob McCallum)
3. 06:55 AM - Re: Illuminated Rocker switches - revisited (Carlos Trigo)
4. 08:49 AM - Re: Illuminated Rocker switches - revisited (Bob McCallum)
5. 10:32 AM - Re: Wiring Verification (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 10:34 AM - Re: Proposed new Z diagram? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 10:49 AM - Re: Viking engine duel battery setup (Jeff Luckey)
8. 11:42 AM - Re: Illuminated Rocker switches - revisited (Bill Watson)
9. 12:51 PM - Re: Viking engine duel battery setup (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 03:03 PM - Re: Proposed new Z diagram? (Jeff Luckey)
11. 03:15 PM - Re: Proposed new Z diagram? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 03:26 PM - Re: Wiring Verification (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 05:56 PM - Re: Proposed new Z diagram? (Dj Merrill)
14. 07:08 PM - Re: Proposed new Z diagram? (Bob McCallum)
15. 10:01 PM - Re: Proposed new Z diagram? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Illuminated Rocker switches - revisited |
Guys
You remember my before-Christmas query about those Honeywell illuminated
rocker switches.
They are DPST switches, and with your help I came to the conclusion that the
2 upper vertical tabs are the 2 (independent) lamp contacts.
So, I just have to use one pair of the lower horizontal tabs (one pole) to
control the circuits I need, and the 2 upper vertical tabs to illuminate the
lamp.
Right!
Now, the reason why I am now posting again about these switches is the way I
am going to use them.
Apologizing for the quality of the drawing, I designed the circuits in 3
versions:
I have no doubt that version A and version B above are going to do what they
are supposed to (explained below each version).
My problem is version C, if I want the switch lamp to lit in both situations
:
- In night operation, the switch lamp will illuminate when I turn
On the Panel Lights (through the Dimmer),
and/or
- Whenever I turn On the switch itself (for example, when I turn On
the Landing Light in day operation, and want the switch lamp to be lit to
warn me the LND Light is On when taxiing)
I suppose that the version C above will give a nice short-circuit .. L
So I need you electron experts to help me design the correct circuits for
version C.
Thanks
Carlos
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: | Illuminated Rocker switches - revisited |
Simply place a diode in the lead from the dimmer to avoid back feeding the
rest of the dimmed lamps.
(This circuit "C" will illuminate the switch at full brightness whenever the
switch is "on" regardless of dimmer position.)
Bob McC
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carlos
Trigo
Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2014 7:00 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Illuminated Rocker switches - revisited
Guys
You remember my before-Christmas query about those Honeywell illuminated
rocker switches.
They are DPST switches, and with your help I came to the conclusion that the
2 upper vertical tabs are the 2 (independent) lamp contacts.
So, I just have to use one pair of the lower horizontal tabs (one pole) to
control the circuits I need, and the 2 upper vertical tabs to illuminate the
lamp.
Right!
Now, the reason why I am now posting again about these switches is the way I
am going to use them.
Apologizing for the quality of the drawing, I designed the circuits in 3
versions:
I have no doubt that version A and version B above are going to do what they
are supposed to (explained below each version).
My problem is version C, if I want the switch lamp to lit in both situations
:
- In night operation, the switch lamp will illuminate when I turn On
the Panel Lights (through the Dimmer),
and/or
- Whenever I turn On the switch itself (for example, when I turn On
the Landing Light in day operation, and want the switch lamp to be lit to
warn me the LND Light is On when taxiing)
I suppose that the version C above will give a nice short-circuit .. :-(
So I need you electron experts to help me design the correct circuits for
version C.
Thanks
Carlos
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: | Illuminated Rocker switches - revisited |
Thanks Bob McC
So, in version "C", what changes should I make in the circuits, if I want
the panel lights dimmer to dim the switch lamp whenever the switch is "On"?
Carlos
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
McCallum
Sent: domingo, 5 de Janeiro de 2014 14:13
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Illuminated Rocker switches - revisited
Simply place a diode in the lead from the dimmer to avoid back feeding the
rest of the dimmed lamps.
(This circuit "C" will illuminate the switch at full brightness whenever the
switch is "on" regardless of dimmer position.)
Bob McC
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carlos
Trigo
Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2014 7:00 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Illuminated Rocker switches - revisited
Guys
You remember my before-Christmas query about those Honeywell illuminated
rocker switches.
They are DPST switches, and with your help I came to the conclusion that the
2 upper vertical tabs are the 2 (independent) lamp contacts.
So, I just have to use one pair of the lower horizontal tabs (one pole) to
control the circuits I need, and the 2 upper vertical tabs to illuminate the
lamp.
Right!
Now, the reason why I am now posting again about these switches is the way I
am going to use them.
Apologizing for the quality of the drawing, I designed the circuits in 3
versions:
I have no doubt that version A and version B above are going to do what they
are supposed to (explained below each version).
My problem is version C, if I want the switch lamp to lit in both situations
:
- In night operation, the switch lamp will illuminate when I turn
On the Panel Lights (through the Dimmer),
and/or
- Whenever I turn On the switch itself (for example, when I turn On
the Landing Light in day operation, and want the switch lamp to be lit to
warn me the LND Light is On when taxiing)
I suppose that the version C above will give a nice short-circuit .. L
So I need you electron experts to help me design the correct circuits for
version C.
Thanks
Carlos
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: | Illuminated Rocker switches - revisited |
Not quite sure what it is you're trying to achieve.
Circuit "A" gives night time illumination of the switch controlled by the
dimmer but no indication if the switch is on or off.
Circuit "B" gives full brightness indication of whether the switch is on or
off but no night time illumination to identify the switch if it's off.
Circuit "C" (with the addition of the diode) gives night time identification
of the switch controlled by the dimmer and also full brightness indication
of the on/off state day or night. (basically the functionality of both "A" &
"B" combined)
Are you asking for "C" to give night time illumination of the switch
controlled by the dimmer, day time ONLY indication of the on/off state at
full brightness and no indication of the on/off state at night???? This
seems a bit odd as the illumination of the switch would indicate different
things at different times depending upon the position of other switches.
Could be confusing???
OR
Are you asking that the "ON" condition of the switch is indicated by
illumination of the lamp but also dimmed by the dimmer????
If this is the case then use circuit "B" but supply the lamp power from the
dimmer circuit rather than B+ as you've shown.
Bob McC
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carlos
Trigo
Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2014 9:54 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Illuminated Rocker switches - revisited
Thanks Bob McC
So, in version "C", what changes should I make in the circuits, if I want
the panel lights dimmer to dim the switch lamp whenever the switch is "On"?
Carlos
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
McCallum
Sent: domingo, 5 de Janeiro de 2014 14:13
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Illuminated Rocker switches - revisited
Simply place a diode in the lead from the dimmer to avoid back feeding the
rest of the dimmed lamps.
(This circuit "C" will illuminate the switch at full brightness whenever the
switch is "on" regardless of dimmer position.)
Bob McC
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carlos
Trigo
Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2014 7:00 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Illuminated Rocker switches - revisited
Guys
You remember my before-Christmas query about those Honeywell illuminated
rocker switches.
They are DPST switches, and with your help I came to the conclusion that the
2 upper vertical tabs are the 2 (independent) lamp contacts.
So, I just have to use one pair of the lower horizontal tabs (one pole) to
control the circuits I need, and the 2 upper vertical tabs to illuminate the
lamp.
Right!
Now, the reason why I am now posting again about these switches is the way I
am going to use them.
Apologizing for the quality of the drawing, I designed the circuits in 3
versions:
I have no doubt that version A and version B above are going to do what they
are supposed to (explained below each version).
My problem is version C, if I want the switch lamp to lit in both situations
:
- In night operation, the switch lamp will illuminate when I turn On
the Panel Lights (through the Dimmer),
and/or
- Whenever I turn On the switch itself (for example, when I turn On
the Landing Light in day operation, and want the switch lamp to be lit to
warn me the LND Light is On when taxiing)
I suppose that the version C above will give a nice short-circuit .. :-(
So I need you electron experts to help me design the correct circuits for
version C.
Thanks
Carlos
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wiring Verification |
Hi Bob,
I attended one of your seminars in Nashville, TN some years ago as
well as purchased a second updated copy of your book which I refer to
often. However, not being an electrical engineer, I'd like to verify
my wing rewiring plan for my 12 volt all metal Luscombe if possible.
Hi Ron . . . it's been some time! I'm sure we can sort
out your concerns . . .
The wing run is approximately 16 feet to the wing root from the wing
tip, 14 feet from the landing light to wing root, and another 6+ feet
to the switches on each side from the wing root. I plan to install a
disconnect of some sort at each wing root to allow for an
uncomplicated removal of the wing. Also, by the way, I will be
installing a Plane Power Alternator and a B&C Starter in this rebuild
if that should make any difference.
I am wiring an Aeroflash power supply, (1.8 amp-23.4 watts) in each
wingtip . . .
Okay, a power wire coming in from each load to join at the
panel switch for STROBES. 4A total load with half carried
by the individual wires. I would recommend 20AWG for these
conductors . . . not so much for electrical capability but
for mechanical robustness. The difference in weight has
no demonstrable down-side . . .
piggybacking onto my 26 watt Whelen position lights,
. . . again, 20AWG conductors to each fixture brought
all the way to the POSITION LTS switch.
and a 100 watt landing light in each wing.
These are about 8A each. Is one adjusted for taxi illumination
with the other directed for landing?
Suggest 16AWG wire to each fixture. Control each with
its own switch.
I plan to switch to LED landing lights in the future but not anytime
soon. My plan is to run three wires adjacent to one another up to
the landing light where they will divide and separate. They will not
run in a conduit but will run bundled only by a periodic small wedge
clamp through the wing leading edge. I am utilizing Tefzel 22759 wire.
Use the same wires and switches for the LED fixtures.
There is no sin in having wires that are 'too heavy' . . .
only in having wires that are 'too light'.
I have determined the plan through my mathmatical calculations
utilizing your book. To be on the safe side, I expect to be using a
16 gauge wire for my power supply and position lights and a 14 gauge
wire for my landing lights. None of these wires are to be shielded
at this point. Aeroflash indicated that if the power supply was
mounted in the wing tip, it was unnecessary to utilize a shielded
wire in the run. I do not know if I need shielding on the landing
lights and need your advice.
The 20AWG wire is 10 milliohms per foot. Your proposed
20-foot runs to the nav and strobe lights offers a
.010 x 20 x 2 = .4 volt drop in each segment for
3% in your 14-volt system. Entirely within practical guidelines.
Going the next step larger in wire would only drop your
losses by 40% of 3% to just under 2% . . . an unobservable
difference.
16AWG on the landing lights is more like 0.004 x 20 x
8 for a drop of 0.64 volts or 4.5% . . . again
quite within limits for legacy design goals of 5%
max loss in wiring. Of course, that will become
a non-issue with the LED upgrade.
Let me also indicate that I am in the group who wants to get it
correct the first time so I am seeking qualified advice prior to
pulling the wire. If possible, please advise your recommendations or
if my plan is solid. Also, what sort of disconnect would you
install at each wing root?
Do you plan to remove the wings often? The most robust
service connections are knife splices covered in heat-
shrink. Given the small number of wires, I'd personally
go that route.
Emacs!
I may have other wiring questions and will be happy to pay for this service.
Not necessary. Let's carry out the conversation here
on the List for sharing . . .
Wishing you the very best in 2014 and thanking you in advance for
your reply, I remain,
You too my friend! Nice airplane by the way . . . got
a lot of time in a 120+ (electrical system added)
flying Young Eagles. Real blast . . .
Bob . . .
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Proposed new Z diagram? |
So we've gone through a couple of pages of questions and answers, but
I feel like I haven't really gotten any feedback at all on the
diagram itself as presented.
Clearly, your design goals are substantially different than
those which drive the z-figures . . . which is not a bad
thing . . . just different.
Will it work?
I've never encountered an alternative approach that did
not function as intended . . . where function is defined
as, "flip that switch and expect this action to follow."
You can easily confirm functionality with some judicious
ground tests. Get an ac mains power supply to emulate
the alternator and do the electrical system 'Walter Mitty'
thing with the wheels on the ground.
Are there any obvious or not so obvious flaws?
The z-figures are evolutionary . . . they form a
kind of pyramid that spans the simplest to most
complex, each tailored to a combination of aircraft/
mission/pilot. When useful 'tweaks' were identified
the figures evolved independently as well.
What are your concerns, if any, in the diagram as presented?
As with any new adventure in design, some 'gotchas' may
be discovered by analysis and comparison with lessons
learned . . . others may not bubble up until the system
is operated either as laboratory mock up (which we do
in TC aircraft) or fly on the test-bed aircraft (like
Burt Rutan does it).
Those-who-know-more-about-airplanes-than-we-do are
fond of the 75-hour test stand runs for engines
and 40-hour fly-offs for airframes. But BOTH protocols
presume that the person conducting the test isn't
just along for the ride but is also getting answers
to questions.
The risks associated with discovery of glitches are low.
Only a the smallest fraction of sad days in aviation
have roots in failure of a component of the electrical
system. Your development process will be refined on
the flying test-bed . . . so flight into marginal
environment for the first hundred hours or so is
discouraged . . . with experiments conducted to
validate every design goal.
The highest risks will arise not from design and
selection of components but from craftsmanship
. . . as illustrated by numerous NTSB narratives
on unhappy events. These were not based on the massaging
of a 'z-figure' but more for lack of understanding of
processes.
Have I communicated the basic design goals clearly enough to follow,
taking in to account the end-user "wants" in addition to ensuring
that the basic design will function properly?
Based on inspection of your work-product and review of
your design goals I have no particular concerns with
respect to either risk or functionality.
You've embarked on a new "z-figure" with a design philosophy
based not so much on economies of energy, weight, functionality
and risk but on decisions and desires personal to you. This
makes your project more a one-of-a-kind work of art as
opposed to a competitively merchantable collection of
ideas. There is nothing 'golden' about either . . .
they just need to satisfy the end-user's perceptions for
return on investment.
As with any such endeavor, cautious and introspective
experimentation is the key to your success.
Bob . . .
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Viking engine duel battery setup |
It occurs to me that this topic gets pretty design-specific in a hurry and
without specifying a design, this will turn into an exercise in arm waving.
- =0A=0A=0ATherefore, I have included some general comments sprinkled amo
ng Bob's remarks, below.=0A=0A=0A-Jeff=0A=0A_______________________________
_=0A From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>=0ATo:
aeroelectric-list@matronics.com =0ASent: Saturday, January 4, 2014 5:15 AM
=0ASubject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Viking engine duel battery setup=0A =0A
olls.bob@aeroelectric.com>=0A=0AAt 01:49 PM 1/3/2014, you wrote:=0A> for ma
ny of the same reasons that (I imagine) you put a "buss tie" contactor in t
he Z-14 drawings.=0A=0A- But what might those reasons be? In other words,
we=0A- add a component to a system to effect some desired=0A- function
ality that figures into the overall performance,=0A- failure tolerance an
d risks.=0A=0A- If diodes were incorporated in the manner suggested=0A-
to feed the two batteries, how would we expect these=0A- to operate and
for what purpose?=0A=0AThe diodes are to isolate the batteries and their sy
stems from each other.- If you simple run a wire from the alternator B te
rminal to batt A and then to batt B you have paralleled the batteries when
your intent was only to charge them.- It could be an unintended side-effe
ct.- If your mission is to charge the batts then make sure your circuit d
oes that.- If your mission is to parallel the batts then do that, but don
't let one just happen as a side effect of the other.=0A=0A- I'm not tryi
ng to be obtuse here my friend. I=0A- AM encouraging all of my readers to
understand=0A- the application of every component they choose=0A- to a
dd to their system. Suppose I offered a description=0A- for the buss-tie
contactor like, "This contactor=0A- offers pilot control of the phramista
t to prevent=0A- inadvertent operation of the whatsadozit and=0A- poten
tial damage to the dingusfuzzy."=0A=0A- The inquiring builder would proba
bly want some=0A- detailed expansion on that statement . . . un-=0A- fo
rtunately, others will assume the statement=0A- correct and useful based
on the reputation=0A- (deserved or otherwise) of the writer.=0A=0AIt is d
ifficult to control the assumptions made by readers.=0A=0A- I encourage y
ourself and others to KNOW why=0A- a part is included and UNDERSTAND what
useful=0A- things it will do for you. Hence my question=0A- as to any
value you perceive for having those=0A- diodes in place as suggested.=0A
-=0AI know why - been there done that - and repaired the damage from some
=====
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Illuminated Rocker switches - revisited |
Carlos, based on my experience with these switches (350+ hours, <10%
@night), I'd suggest taking a different approach to using the lights.
I know you aren't necessarily looking for a different approach so I'll
first mention 2 problems with using the lights to indicated on/off
functionality:
1) The lights at full brightness are blinding at night. I'd suggest
that they must be (adjustably) dimmed in all modes unless they are
intended to signify a fault of some sort. I think that's what you are
trying to accomplish in Version C. In that case, I'm not sure how you
would accomplish full bright during daytime versus on and dimmed at
night. Additionally, the dimmer would need to be setup so that at it's
lowest setting, it would still be visible during day and night (difficult).
2) The switch lights are subject to a high frequency of failure. If the
application was for gear retract and 'light-on' meant 'all green', I'm
sure one would want to use a Honeywell series with an integrated lamp
wired to indicate on/off status. What's the problem with this series?
Well, once you've switched to LEDs, you've eliminated incandescent bulb
failures and that's good. None of my LED bulbs have failed. But the
bulbs do not seat reliably in these switches, at least not reliably
enough on our vibrating panels . If used for landing gear status -
you'd end up aborting the occasional landing for lamp socket unseats.
They may be okay for indicating a landing light is on but my experience
is that they will occasionally unseat. In my case, I use some
un-switched indicators with the same lamp socket. For my low oil fault
indicator, I glued the lamp in place to prevent unseats and avoid
missing a fault indication.
That said, I'm very happy with my panel switches but I took a slightly
different approach that aligns well with the switches' characteristics.
On my panel, the occasional bulb unseat is just a nuisance that is
easily detected and corrected.
The lighting on these switches are just 'back lighting' on my panel. At
night, their backlighting completely eliminates the need for post lights
or map lights to find, monitor and operate switches. At high intensity,
they look great in full daylight though they are not really needed.
Dimmed at night they are simply GREAT!
The key point is that the labeling on the switches makes each switch's
function and status clearly visible, day or night. When 'off', the word
'off' appears at the top of the switch. When 'on', only the function
label is visible on the switch. There's no real need to have a light
come on or off to indicate status. The status is visible and
'touchable'. The backlighting combined with the switch design and
switch labeling make it east to find, monitor and operate each switch.
And when a bulb unseats, I can easily see that one of my switches is
unlit and needs to be tweaked. But otherwise, the (mal)functioning of
the back light is meaningless.
So, to anyone using this good looking series of Honeywell rockers, I
suggest the following:
- Using the lamps only for backlighting the switch top. It must be
dimmable. Use LEDs with integral resistors.
- Get custom labeling for each switch top. For simple on/off function,
put 'off' at the top of each switch.
- Consider using the good looking AML41 series of indicators for
indicator lamps. They visually match the AML34 switch series, use the
same lamps, etc. The indicator tops are available in colors (green,
yellow, red). A two bulb model can be used for stuff like "Door L/R"
open indications. For 'Door' and 'Oil Pressure', I used red tops, left
the indicators undimmed and glued the LED bulbs in place. For 'Master
Warn', 'Low Voltage', and 'Boost Pump', I used yellow and green
indicator tops and made them dimmable since they may come on and stay on
at night.
Sources for these switches, indicators, LED bulbs, and labeling have all
been listed on this forum. I had to do some additional searching for
the switch models I needed for AP Nav Source switching and Flaps.
Having the Flap switch physically resemble all my other switches looks
good, but some will prefer a different type of switch. Works well for
me though.
Carlos, I know you weren't necessarily looking for that much input but
hope it's useful.
Bill "N215TG is halfway thru year 3" Watson
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Viking engine duel battery setup |
>
>
> If diodes were incorporated in the manner suggested
> to feed the two batteries, how would we expect these
> to operate and for what purpose?
>
>The diodes are to isolate the batteries and their systems from each
>other. If you simple run a wire from the alternator B terminal to
>batt A and then to batt B you have paralleled the batteries when
>your intent was only to charge them. It could be an unintended
>side-effect. If your mission is to charge the batts then make sure
>your circuit does that. If your mission is to parallel the batts
>then do that, but don't let one just happen as a side effect of the other.
Agreed. I can deduce no practical purpose for
these diodes. As long as the alternator is
operating normally, it charges both batteries.
If alternator fails, you get a low-voltage
warning light and you then separate the
batteries onto their respective tasks.
In other words, the system can service as many
batteries in parallel as dictated by the
alternator-out operating conditions. Simply
parallel through hard contacts for normal ops;
separate for alternator-out ops.
A 'dead' battery will not accept 'charge' from
a fully charged battery. If the batteries are
remarkably different in size, the smaller one
might want to be OFF during cranking.
Bob . . .
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Proposed new Z diagram? |
... cautious and introspective experimentation is the key to your success..
.=0A=0Asounds like something you'd find in a fortune cookie, grasshopper
- ;)=0A=0A=0A=0A=0A________________________________=0A From: "Robert L. N
uckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>=0ATo: aeroelectric-list@matro
nics.com =0ASent: Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:33 AM=0ASubject: Re: AeroElect
ric-List: Proposed new Z diagram?=0A =0A=0A--> AeroElectric-List message po
sted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>=0A=0A=0A
So we've gone through a couple of pages of questions and answers, but I fee
l like I haven't really gotten any feedback at all on the diagram itself as
presented.=0A=0A- Clearly, your design goals are substantially different
than=0A- those which drive the z-figures . . . which is not a bad=0A-
thing . . . just different.=0A=0AWill it work?=0A=0A- I've never encounte
red an alternative approach that did=0A- not function as intended . . . w
here function is defined=0A- as, "flip that switch and expect this action
to follow."=0A- You can easily confirm functionality with some judicious
=0A- ground tests. Get an ac mains power supply to emulate=0A- the alte
rnator and do the electrical system 'Walter Mitty'=0A- thing with the whe
els on the ground.=0A=0AAre there any obvious or not so obvious flaws?=0A
=0A- The z-figures are evolutionary . . . they form a=0A- kind of pyram
id that spans the simplest to most=0A- complex, each tailored to a combin
ation of aircraft/=0A- mission/pilot. When useful 'tweaks' were identifie
d=0A- the figures evolved independently as well.=0A=0AWhat are your conce
rns, if any, in the diagram as presented?=0A=0A- As with any new adventur
e in design, some 'gotchas' may=0A- be discovered by analysis and compari
son with lessons=0A- learned . . . others may not bubble up until the sys
tem=0A- is operated either as laboratory mock up (which we do=0A- in TC
aircraft) or fly on the test-bed aircraft (like=0A- Burt Rutan does it).
=0A=0A- Those-who-know-more-about-airplanes-than-we-do are=0A- fond of
the 75-hour test stand runs for engines=0A- and 40-hour fly-offs for airf
rames. But BOTH protocols=0A- presume that the person conducting the test
isn't=0A- just along for the ride but is also getting answers=0A- to q
uestions.=0A=0A- The risks associated with discovery of glitches are low.
=0A- Only a the smallest fraction of sad days in aviation=0A- have root
s in failure of a component of the electrical=0A- system. Your developmen
t process will be refined on=0A- the flying test-bed . . . so flight into
marginal=0A- environment for the first hundred hours or so is=0A- disc
ouraged . . . with experiments conducted to=0A- validate every design goa
l.=0A=0A- The highest risks will arise not from design and=0A- selectio
n of components but from craftsmanship=0A- . . . as illustrated by numer
ous NTSB narratives=0A- on unhappy events. These were not based on the ma
ssaging=0A- of a 'z-figure' but more for lack of understanding of=0A- p
rocesses.=0A=0AHave I communicated the basic design goals clearly enough to
follow, taking in to account the end-user "wants" in addition to ensuring
that the basic design will function properly?=0A=0A- Based on inspection
of your work-product and review of=0A- your design goals I have no partic
ular concerns with=0A- respect to either risk or functionality.=0A=0A-
You've embarked on a new "z-figure" with a design philosophy=0A- based no
t so much on economies of energy, weight, functionality=0A- and risk but
on decisions and desires personal to you. This=0A- makes your project mor
e a one-of-a-kind work of art as=0A- opposed to a competitively merchanta
ble collection of=0A- ideas. There is nothing 'golden' about either . . .
=0A- they just need to satisfy the end-user's perceptions for=0A- retur
n on investment.=0A=0A- As with any such endeavor, cautious and introspec
tive=0A- experimentation is the key to your success.=0A=0A=0A- Bob . .
==============
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Proposed new Z diagram? |
At 04:59 PM 1/5/2014, you wrote:
>... cautious and introspective experimentation is the key to your success...
>
>sounds like something you'd find in a fortune cookie, grasshopper ;)
That would be a good one for the cookie . . . but
in fact a simple reality taught and practiced by
every competent practitioner of both the arts and
sciences. It's the hammer-n-tongs for implementation of
spontaneous order, a concept that has been around
for better than 2300 years . . .
Bob . . .
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wiring Verification |
At 03:47 PM 1/5/2014, you wrote:
Bob,
Thanks for your consideration and kind reply.
I was figuring a total of 24 feet of wire run for the wing tip lamps
and power supply to the switch including the disconnect at the wing
root, and a 20 foot run for the landing lights including the
disconnect at the wing root. Perhaps I was vague on this measurement
and did not explain it very well or perhaps the wires don't add
together for the total drop. I confess my knowledge about wiring is
lacking in general although I am attempting to come up to speed with
respect to this task at hand. I neglected to include both runs
together for the total of .8 volt drop. However using the 24 foot
run, I come up with .96 volt or near 1 volt. Divided by a 13 volt
system, I read that as .076 or beyond the 5% legacy. The Aeroflash
documentation suggested the use of an 18 AWG but I'm not aware of
what wire length run was used for the calculation. Luscombes have a
35 foot wingspan. So I figured a 16 gauge would include my margin of error.
If this is a metal airplane, grounding the devices locally
provides a much lower ground path resistance . . . essentially
negligible . . .
I do not plan on removing the wings often, perhaps not at all,
however, I'd like to provide for it now to eliminate a random cutting
when it occurs, because it will occur. In looking at the old
Luscombe documentation, initially some sort of junction block was
located at each wing root but those connections have long ago been
changed when the wings were swapped out.
If you can wire it up without junctions, so much the
better. Just put a service loop of wire at the wing
root . . . 3-4 inches in diameter. This will offer
'slack' from which future splices can be implemented
should it become necessary.
I was thinking of a using a triple Seal-All type conductor for the
disconnect at the wing root but hadn't considered the knife
splices. Actually, to my knowledge, I have never employed a knife
splice in any of my wiring.
The ideal configuration is no connector at all. Once
you break the wires, putting them back together is
pretty much a toss-up. Cessna started using Mate=n=Lok
plastic connectors at the root and other locations
as a production aid back about 1967. The car-guys have
been doing it too for decades. Risks are low no matter
what technology you choose.
This leading edge location is very tight also providing for the
aileron control cables and fuel lines coming in through the leading
edge with a pulley positioned right at the juncture of the leading
edge carrying the control cables. So, I anticipated bringing the
three wires into the fuselage through the leading edge and securing
on the last wing root rib and positioning my disconnect at that
location. The wires would then reconnect through the splice and
continue on through and around the front door upright and down to the
rear of the instrument panel.
You did not mention anything about shielded wiring. Would the
total wire runs as I have listed above adjust your recommendations on
the wire sizing?
None of those wires would benefit from shielding.
When I purchased radios I also purchased a wiring harness to connect
to my buss and fuses or switches as appropriate. Hopefully, that
will be more straight forward but I'm sure I'll have questions there.
No problem . . . that's what we're here for . . .
Thanks again for your reply on this cold winter afternoon in Kansas.
You got that right. It was about 4F when I got up
this morning . . . supposed to get down to 0F
tonight. But looking at the nation-wind chill-indexes,
we've got it easy.
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: Proposed new Z diagram? |
When I decided to post my draft diagram on the list, my hope was to
get a peer review from others, and an independent verification that the
circuit design would function properly and as desired. In a basic
sense, I would really like to have someone with far more experience than
I to go over the diagram, and reply with a clear "YES, it will work as
you expect", or "NO, you missed (blah), or you will smoke the circuit
because of (blah)." I believe I have learned a lot on this list over
the years, enough to feel confident to post a circuit diagram, but I am
far from an expert and am still learning. A "look over the shoulder"
from a guru now and then is a great help to a student to tell if they
are on the right track, or not, much the same as constructing a wing or
installing critical flight controls. In other words, I am pleading for
a technical review if there are people out there willing to do so.
Bob, I've read through your recent response several times, and it
is not clear to me if you did a review of the circuit diagram, or are
simply telling me in a sense, "good luck" in far more elegant and
lengthy prose (which I do appreciate! :-) ). Based on one sentence, I
think you have looked it over, ie "Based on inspection of your
work-product and review of your design goals I have no particular
concerns with respect to either risk or functionality." I think what
you are saying here is that yes, the circuit should work as desired, but
I'm not certain (You could simply be saying that you have no concerns
about it working, which is not quite the same thing). Would you be
willing to answer the question with a simple "yes" or "no", will this
circuit diagram work properly and as desired given the guidelines and
design goals that we've talked about over the past few messages?
An interesting and unexpected side effect - I've received emails
direct from others that say they are also interested in this type of
architecture, specifically the automatic "redundant" bus feature for
critical devices to get power from either the primary or secondary power
buses. Since this appears to have an interest going beyond my personal
implementation, I'd be honored if you would consider pursuing this
further, and possibly entertaining the idea of including something like
this as a Z diagram in a future version of the Connection.
Thank you,
-Dj
On 1/5/2014 1:33 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>
>
> So we've gone through a couple of pages of questions and answers, but
> I feel like I haven't really gotten any feedback at all on the diagram
> itself as presented.
>
> Clearly, your design goals are substantially different than
> those which drive the z-figures . . . which is not a bad
> thing . . . just different.
>
> Will it work?
>
> I've never encountered an alternative approach that did
> not function as intended . . . where function is defined
> as, "flip that switch and expect this action to follow."
> You can easily confirm functionality with some judicious
> ground tests. Get an ac mains power supply to emulate
> the alternator and do the electrical system 'Walter Mitty'
> thing with the wheels on the ground.
>
> Are there any obvious or not so obvious flaws?
>
> The z-figures are evolutionary . . . they form a
> kind of pyramid that spans the simplest to most
> complex, each tailored to a combination of aircraft/
> mission/pilot. When useful 'tweaks' were identified
> the figures evolved independently as well.
>
> What are your concerns, if any, in the diagram as presented?
>
> As with any new adventure in design, some 'gotchas' may
> be discovered by analysis and comparison with lessons
> learned . . . others may not bubble up until the system
> is operated either as laboratory mock up (which we do
> in TC aircraft) or fly on the test-bed aircraft (like
> Burt Rutan does it).
>
> Those-who-know-more-about-airplanes-than-we-do are
> fond of the 75-hour test stand runs for engines
> and 40-hour fly-offs for airframes. But BOTH protocols
> presume that the person conducting the test isn't
> just along for the ride but is also getting answers
> to questions.
>
> The risks associated with discovery of glitches are low.
> Only a the smallest fraction of sad days in aviation
> have roots in failure of a component of the electrical
> system. Your development process will be refined on
> the flying test-bed . . . so flight into marginal
> environment for the first hundred hours or so is
> discouraged . . . with experiments conducted to
> validate every design goal.
>
> The highest risks will arise not from design and
> selection of components but from craftsmanship
> . . . as illustrated by numerous NTSB narratives
> on unhappy events. These were not based on the massaging
> of a 'z-figure' but more for lack of understanding of
> processes.
>
> Have I communicated the basic design goals clearly enough to follow,
> taking in to account the end-user "wants" in addition to ensuring that
> the basic design will function properly?
>
> Based on inspection of your work-product and review of
> your design goals I have no particular concerns with
> respect to either risk or functionality.
>
> You've embarked on a new "z-figure" with a design philosophy
> based not so much on economies of energy, weight, functionality
> and risk but on decisions and desires personal to you. This
> makes your project more a one-of-a-kind work of art as
> opposed to a competitively merchantable collection of
> ideas. There is nothing 'golden' about either . . .
> they just need to satisfy the end-user's perceptions for
> return on investment.
>
> As with any such endeavor, cautious and introspective
> experimentation is the key to your success.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Proposed new Z diagram? |
First; it would appear that what you have drawn will function.
Is that function what you intend?? Or expect?? I'm not sure. It will power
the components you mention from either of two sources redundantly, but is it
what you want?? My second point below may be the gotcha you're alluding to
and may not have considered but I don't know.
Second; turning off either the primary or secondary power (master?) switch,
as the circuit is drawn, will not turn off the respective primary or
secondary buss so long as the alternator is functioning. The alternator will
support the buss directly without benefit of the corresponding battery. The
master switches only serve to disconnect the batteries not turn off the
buss. If this is your desired goal then it will work.
This is not necessarily any sort of functional problem, just that you may
turn off one of these two master switches expecting the corresponding buss
to shut down and it won't. As long as you know that this is "normal" for the
way you've wired the circuit and are expecting this result then all is well.
Is there any conceivable instance when you would wish to shut down a buss
utilizing the corresponding master switch?? I so, then you need to be aware
that for this to happen you must also shut down the alternator.
The down side is that in the case (heaven forbid) of a "crash" or "accident"
turning off the master switches does not "kill all power" as the electrical
system is still kept alive by the alternator if it is functioning and the
engine is turning. (even wind milling). Your wiring requires the
manipulation of three switches to fully shut down electrical power.
Bob McC
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-
> server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dj Merrill
> Sent: Sunday, January 05, 2014 8:56 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Proposed new Z diagram?
>
>
> When I decided to post my draft diagram on the list, my hope was to
> get a peer review from others, and an independent verification that the
> circuit design would function properly and as desired. In a basic
> sense, I would really like to have someone with far more experience than
> I to go over the diagram, and reply with a clear "YES, it will work as
> you expect", or "NO, you missed (blah), or you will smoke the circuit
> because of (blah)." I believe I have learned a lot on this list over
> the years, enough to feel confident to post a circuit diagram, but I am
> far from an expert and am still learning. A "look over the shoulder"
> from a guru now and then is a great help to a student to tell if they
> are on the right track, or not, much the same as constructing a wing or
> installing critical flight controls. In other words, I am pleading for
> a technical review if there are people out there willing to do so.
>
> Bob, I've read through your recent response several times, and it
> is not clear to me if you did a review of the circuit diagram, or are
> simply telling me in a sense, "good luck" in far more elegant and
> lengthy prose (which I do appreciate! :-) ). Based on one sentence, I
> think you have looked it over, ie "Based on inspection of your
> work-product and review of your design goals I have no particular
> concerns with respect to either risk or functionality." I think what
> you are saying here is that yes, the circuit should work as desired, but
> I'm not certain (You could simply be saying that you have no concerns
> about it working, which is not quite the same thing). Would you be
> willing to answer the question with a simple "yes" or "no", will this
> circuit diagram work properly and as desired given the guidelines and
> design goals that we've talked about over the past few messages?
>
> An interesting and unexpected side effect - I've received emails
> direct from others that say they are also interested in this type of
> architecture, specifically the automatic "redundant" bus feature for
> critical devices to get power from either the primary or secondary power
> buses. Since this appears to have an interest going beyond my personal
> implementation, I'd be honored if you would consider pursuing this
> further, and possibly entertaining the idea of including something like
> this as a Z diagram in a future version of the Connection.
>
> Thank you,
>
> -Dj
>
>
> On 1/5/2014 1:33 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> > <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
> >
> >
> > So we've gone through a couple of pages of questions and answers, but
> > I feel like I haven't really gotten any feedback at all on the diagram
> > itself as presented.
> >
> > Clearly, your design goals are substantially different than
> > those which drive the z-figures . . . which is not a bad
> > thing . . . just different.
> >
> > Will it work?
> >
> > I've never encountered an alternative approach that did
> > not function as intended . . . where function is defined
> > as, "flip that switch and expect this action to follow."
> > You can easily confirm functionality with some judicious
> > ground tests. Get an ac mains power supply to emulate
> > the alternator and do the electrical system 'Walter Mitty'
> > thing with the wheels on the ground.
> >
> > Are there any obvious or not so obvious flaws?
> >
> > The z-figures are evolutionary . . . they form a
> > kind of pyramid that spans the simplest to most
> > complex, each tailored to a combination of aircraft/
> > mission/pilot. When useful 'tweaks' were identified
> > the figures evolved independently as well.
> >
> > What are your concerns, if any, in the diagram as presented?
> >
> > As with any new adventure in design, some 'gotchas' may
> > be discovered by analysis and comparison with lessons
> > learned . . . others may not bubble up until the system
> > is operated either as laboratory mock up (which we do
> > in TC aircraft) or fly on the test-bed aircraft (like
> > Burt Rutan does it).
> >
> > Those-who-know-more-about-airplanes-than-we-do are
> > fond of the 75-hour test stand runs for engines
> > and 40-hour fly-offs for airframes. But BOTH protocols
> > presume that the person conducting the test isn't
> > just along for the ride but is also getting answers
> > to questions.
> >
> > The risks associated with discovery of glitches are low.
> > Only a the smallest fraction of sad days in aviation
> > have roots in failure of a component of the electrical
> > system. Your development process will be refined on
> > the flying test-bed . . . so flight into marginal
> > environment for the first hundred hours or so is
> > discouraged . . . with experiments conducted to
> > validate every design goal.
> >
> > The highest risks will arise not from design and
> > selection of components but from craftsmanship
> > . . . as illustrated by numerous NTSB narratives
> > on unhappy events. These were not based on the massaging
> > of a 'z-figure' but more for lack of understanding of
> > processes.
> >
> > Have I communicated the basic design goals clearly enough to follow,
> > taking in to account the end-user "wants" in addition to ensuring that
> > the basic design will function properly?
> >
> > Based on inspection of your work-product and review of
> > your design goals I have no particular concerns with
> > respect to either risk or functionality.
> >
> > You've embarked on a new "z-figure" with a design philosophy
> > based not so much on economies of energy, weight, functionality
> > and risk but on decisions and desires personal to you. This
> > makes your project more a one-of-a-kind work of art as
> > opposed to a competitively merchantable collection of
> > ideas. There is nothing 'golden' about either . . .
> > they just need to satisfy the end-user's perceptions for
> > return on investment.
> >
> > As with any such endeavor, cautious and introspective
> > experimentation is the key to your success.
> >
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
>
>
> --
> Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87
> Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
> Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
>
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
> _-
> =====================================================
> =====
>
>
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: Proposed new Z diagram? |
Bob, I've read through your recent response several times, and
it is not clear to me if you did a review of the circuit diagram, or
are simply telling me in a sense, "good luck" in far more elegant and
lengthy prose (which I do appreciate! :-) ). Based on one sentence,
I think you have looked it over, ie "Based on inspection of your
work-product and review of your design goals I have no particular
concerns with respect to either risk or functionality."
DJ, what you ask is not unlike somebody laying a recipe
in front of an experienced chef and asking, will this
accomplish what I want? But without articulating exactly
what it is you want and why.
When we produced system designs for the military we
first offered a proposal . . . followed by a preliminary
design review . . . followed by a critical design
review. I had to stand in front of a team of sharp reviewers
and defend my work product twice.
I think what you are saying here is that yes, the circuit should
work as desired, but I'm not certain (You could simply be saying that
you have no concerns about it working, which is not quite the same
thing). Would you be willing to answer the question with a simple
"yes" or "no", will this circuit diagram work properly and as desired
given the guidelines and design goals that we've talked about over
the past few messages?
Define "properly" . . . I believe your drawing accurately
illustrates the goals you've cited .
I'm looking at your drawing without benefit of knowing
the foundation for your design goals which becomes
a task not unlike reverse-engineering . . . attempt
to deduce original intent from a document . . . we
can all sit around and talk about it, like visitors
to an art gallery and hypothesize about the mind-set,
tools and techniques of the artist . . . who has
probably been dead for a few hundred years.
You've said you don't want any always hot busses . . .
in spite of the fact that a quarter million airplanes
were built with the benefit of always hot busses.
Okay, defend the design goal. You've got some power
diodes for which I can deduce no value . . . defend
the decision to put them in. Trade off the pros and cons
of your proposal with the features of other proven
philosophies, mine or anyone else.
Do you have a reason to be different or just want
to be different?
An interesting and unexpected side effect - I've received emails
direct from others that say they are also interested in this type of
architecture, specifically the automatic "redundant" bus feature for
critical devices to get power from either the primary or secondary
power buses. Since this appears to have an interest going beyond my
personal implementation, I'd be honored if you would consider
pursuing this further, and possibly entertaining the idea of
including something like this as a Z diagram in a future version of
the Connection.
I had a builder reject a proposal for a
system on his proposed light jet because "it
didn't have a big enough circuit breaker panel."
I was a bit stunned . . . the most I could offer
was the idea that he could make the panel as
large as he wanted, nobody would demand that
all the breakers were hooked up to do anything.
He got p@#$Sd off and fired me . . . for which
I was thankful. If others are finding value
in your proposal, then perhaps they can defend
its features . . . or perhaps they are captivated
by colors and brush strokes . . . I don't know.
We're not producing works of art or recipes
for gourmet meals . . . I'm always interested
in ideas that advance the state of our art and
science but it shouldn't be just one more page
in a 1000-page cookbook.
Bob . . .
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|