---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sun 01/05/14: 15 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:02:34 AM PST US From: "Carlos Trigo" 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 2 _____________________________________ Time: 06:16:02 AM PST US From: Bob McCallum 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 3 _____________________________________ Time: 06:55:41 AM PST US From: "Carlos Trigo" 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 .. L So I need you electron experts to help me design the correct circuits for version C. Thanks Carlos ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 08:49:34 AM PST US From: Bob McCallum Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:32:36 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:34:44 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 10:49:50 AM PST US From: Jeff Luckey Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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" =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 _____________________________________ Time: 11:42:47 AM PST US From: Bill Watson Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:51:31 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:03:09 PM PST US From: Jeff Luckey Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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" =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" =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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:15:28 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 03:26:48 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 05:56:55 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Proposed new Z diagram? From: Dj Merrill 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: > > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:08:25 PM PST US From: Bob McCallum Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 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: > > > > > > > > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 10:01:28 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message aeroelectric-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.