Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:11 AM - Re: Re: Timer circuit for led array (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 03:43 AM - Re: Re: Question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 04:00 AM - Re: Timer circuit for led array (Bob Verwey)
4. 07:22 AM - See and be seen fallacy (user9253)
5. 07:41 AM - Re: Timer circuit for led array (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 08:40 AM - Re: See and be seen fallacy (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 08:43 AM - Re: See and be seen fallacy (Ralph Finch)
8. 09:32 AM - See and be seen fallacy (Roger & Jean)
9. 07:14 PM - Re: Re: Timer circuit for led array (David Duperron)
10. 07:21 PM - Re: Re: Timer circuit for led array (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: | Re: Timer circuit for led array |
At 09:18 PM 3/10/2014, you wrote:
>I'm looking for a timer to shut off my cabin overhead utility light
>after about 10 minutes of operation. It's fed directly from the main
>battery buss and I would like to know that if I forgot to turn it
>off the timer would do it for me before draining the battery. Any ideas?
Are you wanting to DIY from scratch parts
or looking for a Plug-n-Play assembly?
There are dozens of ways to implement this
on-limit function. I have a micro-controller
that is configured to offer this functionality
but you have to wrap a few goodies around
it. It will eventually find its way into
a PnP product but for now, it's just the chip.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
At 08:14 PM 3/10/2014, you wrote:
I will chime in here as I built and fly a V-8 alternative engine
experimental...
Mine is a V-8 347 cu in stroker Ford using MSD ignition and a carb...
I also run a Holley "red": fuel pump that delivers 6 PSI...
The OP has a LS-1 that needs a high pressure fuel pump running ALL
the time so power demands are higher, but not out of sight..
My motor needs 1 amp for every 1000 rpms to run the ignition system
and 4 amps for the Holley fuel boost pump I ran for take offs and
landings.. I run a Optima Red Top 1000CCA battery for both rear
weight ballast and longevity in case of an alternator failure. The
DAR that inspected my plane asked that particular question and by my
calculations I figured I had enough spare power in the battery alone
to fly 7 hours, land, refuel, fly another 7 hours. land, refuel, fly
another 7 hours and by that time I would be getting close to the
point of ignition misfire from low power...
I told him if I was stupid enough to take off 3 times with a known
failed alternator I deserve to crash.... He agreed and signed off my
plane... 500+ hours later the V-8 runs perfectly.. In fact my plane
is on the top of the front cover of this months Kitplanes magazine... <GG>
As for the OP's question.. Your answer is in the capacity or your
battery... IMHO
Agreed. I know it's difficult to put down the
hammers and saws and get out the pencils to
craft a cogent requirements document to confidently
guide future hammer'n and saw'n.
I'm working on a pamphlet to be shared with my
present benefactors for gainful activity entitled
"The Quest for Elegant Requirements". The premise
of my offering suggests that much of what are
dubbed 'requirements' are in fact 'intellectual
band-aids' put in place to hide the fact that
there are many features for which the real
reliability requirements are not well known.
Another burden on $time$ to market cycle arises
when we do whizzy things simply because we can. Those
impressive features really look good in the marketing
brochures but fly in the face of simple-ideas that
go back hundreds of years.
7 centuries ago, William of Ockham posited the
idea, "Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate".
The statement translates roughly into the notion that
one should not multiply complexity un necessarily.
Similarly, Thomas Paine wrote only 2 centuries ago,
"The more simple any thing is, the less liable it is
to be disordered, and the easier repaired when disordered."
These ideas are core to the crafting of any system
and especially useful when failure of the system under
study has high risk implications. These are time-honored,
well demonstrated processes such as those described
in Ben's missive about his approach to system
reliability.
Ben's numbers may not translate directly into OP's
solution but the process by which they are deduced
and satisfied are the same.
Bob . . .
Message 3
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Timer circuit for led array |
Thanks for the responses.
I bumped into a "heat seeker" in the electronics store who was playing
around with LED light sequencing. When I aired my concept, he was only to
happy to have me test his "oscillator circuit" as he called it. "12 V
ready" to boot.
So I hooked it up and tested it, and found the time interval is dependent
on the no of LED bars, and was very noisy on the radio. I then added the
fat cap which silences the unit completely on audio. Probably overkill on
the Cap.
Apparently it is easy to add sequencing and variable on off
durations....might just try that out for a wig wag type setup.
A little video of the unit at work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51IfTgY_GTg
Best...
Bob Verwey
On 9 March 2014 18:59, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 11:30 AM 2/8/2014, you wrote:
>
>> Apologies for not properly defining the issue ....the unit consists of
>> four superbright LEds in a unit and is 12 v ready. So i want to take more
>> than one of these units and create a flashing beacon light.
>>
>
> Okay, we're mulling over the options for producing
> a white flashing beacon not unlike those sold as
> strobes. This brings to mind an array of lamps
> that is flashed about 60-90 times a minute
> with a duty-cycle on the order of 10%. The
> cool thing about the short duty cycle is that
> you can drive the lamps with greater than
> their continuous rated current without overheating
> them. This lets you get brighter flashes than
> might otherwise be secured with simple
> on/off flasher circuits.
>
> Doing the flasher for controlling 12v to the
> lamps is pretty simple. The venerable 555 timer
> has been incorporated into dozens of light
> flashing circuits over its 50+ market life.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/28tdjz
>
> At the same time, you might want to consider
> removing any resistors in the light assemblies
> and driving them with a constant current power
> supply specifically tailored to LED driving.
>
> Sorry, there's not a satisfying 'short answer'
> to your question. To confine a response to simply
> flashing the off the shelf fixtures you're
> working with would produce an outcome that's
> far short of the best we know how to do.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
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: | See and be seen fallacy |
Here is a quote from August 1996 Plane & Pilot, , page 52: "Information Gets Airborne",
CDTI Test Flight.
> The test lasted for about an l.5 hours and, in every instance, the Baron's PPI
picked up the intruders and gave us ample warning of the potential collision
course. At deliberate head on closing speeds of 280 knots (almost five miles
a minute) we had nearly two minutes of warning of a threat in the area.
> Despite knowing the relative altitude, distance and bearing of the threat
aircraft and all three of us staring intently at that section of sky as soon as
we spotted the blip, none of us ever acquired a target visually outside one
mile range. We did perhaps 20 to 25 intercepts during the test, and I was surprised
that we couldn't see the threats until they were very close.
> In short, there's little question CDTI works. Problem is, if you buy CDTI,
know there's an airplane out there and have its range, altitude and bearing,
will you see it in time?
>
The premise that collisions can be avoided by seeing other aircraft is based on
slow airspeeds of early aircraft. At the closure rate in the above example,
two pilots have 13 seconds to see each other, recognize a danger, and take evasive
action. And it takes the aircraft time to change course. How many pilots
just happen to be looking in the direction of another aircraft when it gets
within one mile? Pilots look at charts or a glass panel or at scenery on the
ground for several seconds at a time. If the pilot happens to look in the direction
of another aircraft, how many of those 13 seconds are left, if any? Strobes
and ATC traffic advisories can help but can not be depended on. ADS-B
is the best tool we have for avoiding collisions. And that could be improved
by adding voice commands such as, "Danger Traffic, climb and turn right immediately
!"
I am not suggesting that we stop looking out the window. But doing so will not
necessarily avoid a collision with another aircraft headed our way.
If the EAA or AOPA or FAA conducted a similar traffic avoidance test to the one
above using modern avionics, it might lead to improved safety.
Joe
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420139#420139
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: Timer circuit for led array |
At 05:59 AM 3/11/2014, you wrote:
Thanks for the responses.
I bumped into a "heat seeker" in the electronics store who was
playing around with LED light sequencing. When I aired my concept, he
was only to happy to have me test his "oscillator circuit" as he
called it. "12 V ready" to boot.
So I hooked it up and tested it, and found the time interval is
dependent on the no of LED bars,
Hmmmm . . . normally, one expects behavior of
'controls' to be independent of the nature
of 'loads' . . .
and was very noisy on the radio.
What was the nature of radio noise? Can you
share the schematic under discussion?
I then added the fat cap which silences the unit completely on
audio. Probably overkill on the Cap.
. . . again, a schematic would contribute greatly
to crafting a common image amongst the readers.
Apparently it is easy to add sequencing and variable on off
durations....might just try that out for a wig wag type setup.
I wasn't sure if you were setting out to craft
a beacon or wig-wag system. Beacons tend to be
high intensity, short burst, semi-spherical emissions
while the wig-wag adapts existing illumination fixtures
into a recognition lights system with attention
getting qualities only forward of the airplane.
If you're wanting to craft a wig-wag, you might
want to exploit the open source work we offered
here on the List about a year ago.
http://tinyurl.com/d9q6ntj
This link offers all the information to duplicate
or expand on the wig-wag project at any level.
I can offer programmed controllers for $5 each.
If you want a turn-key wig-wag controller, I have
those too.
By the way, any List readers who were monitoring
discussion and development of this project at
the time will recall that I was taken to task for
considering the addition of a HID warm-up delay feature
in the software. I was told that would violate a "patented"
wig-wag system currently offered to the OBAM aviation
community.
I downloaded the patent cited for study.
http://tinyurl.com/ms23j3f
This turned out to be a terribly written document
that is very broad and cites vague features like "current
manipulators". Further, it's a 'stealthy' attempt
to cloak an aviation wig-wag system in some other
design goal for 'extending bulb life'. The patent cuts a wide
swath with respect to variations on a theme. For example, on the
last page we read:
[]
This says that any combination of on/off switches combined with
any sort of flasher will in violation of the patent whether the transition
from warm-up to flash mode is accomplished manually or automatically
by timer or software.
Hence, I could be considered in violation of this
patent were I to advise anyone that my AEC9012 wig-wag
controller can be used with HID fixtures by simply commanding
to both-full-on for a minute before moving the switch
to wig-wag function. In the interest of collegial harmony
amongst the OBAM aviation community, I hereby refrain
from offering such advice.
In short, the gentleman who owns this patent should hit
the attorney up for getting his money back. It's so vague,
broad and loaded with floobydust (boat load of cited
references with dubious relevance) as to be essentially
worthless as a guardian ideas cited in textbooks and
manufacturer's published data masquerading as original
intellectual property.
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: See and be seen fallacy |
> The premise that collisions can be avoided by seeing other
> aircraft is based on slow airspeeds of early aircraft. At the
> closure rate in the above example, two pilots have 13 seconds to
> see each other, recognize a danger, and take evasive action. And
> it takes the aircraft time to change course. How many pilots just
> happen to be looking in the direction of another aircraft when it
> gets within one mile?
Exactly. About 15 years ago I participated in an ad hoc
gathering of techno-wennies, pilots and operators who
sifted through a host of simple ideas for collision
avoidance for exploiting then existing technologies. We met
at the EAA museum in OSH one January weekend that was
about as cold as I've ever experienced! I was amazed that
my travel companion's car even started the morning we
left for home . . . I think it was about 15 below that
morning.
In two days, we crafted a recommendation that
a host of objects of interest to pilots could be
'tagged' with a simple beacon that says, "Here I am! My
position is (LAT,LON), my speed over ground is (GS), my
course is (DEG), my height is (ALT) and my threat category
is (A thru H for fixed, drifting balloon, air recreational vehicle,
light plane, high performance, small air transport,
medium air transport, heavy air transport).
The data would be a simple squitter stream with a repetition
rate proportional to ground speed. The faster you're moving,
the greater your update rate.
Beacons could be fitted to mountain tops, towers, buildings,
airport obstructions, and all manner of flying machine.
The beacon would be independent of any receiver and associated
interpreter of data. It would be cheap and easy to install
beacons that could also serve as crash locators. The major
difference between beacons and locators being that the
beacons ran all the time.
Any owner/operator interested in utilizing this data would
add a receiver/interpreter that could supply all manner
of warning either aurally or visually. The data stream is
open source so any number of end users could exploit the
data for incorporation into their panel mounted offering.
That was a satisfying experience and a great study in
spontaneous organization. That little brain trust of about
20 folks produced what I believed was an exceedingly elegant
solution to a very difficult problem . . . how to make a
huge constellation of solid objects with closure speeds
of 10-400 MPH aware of each other irrespective of external
visual conditions . . . and supply quality data that
goes to reduction of risk for collision. It was a 'talk
and be heard philosophy'.
The white paper produced from that meeting was shared with
a number of 'high ranking' interests in aviation safety . . .
but the best we got out of it was clumsy enhancements to existing
monopolies . . . no opportunity for creative exploitation
of an open source technology.
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: See and be seen fallacy |
Doesn't surprise me. Haven't we all had the experience of hearing a
pilot call their position in the pattern, and us looking and looking
and not seeing them, until several seconds later?
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 7:21 AM, user9253 <fransew@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Here is a quote from August 1996 Plane & Pilot, , page 52: "Information Gets
Airborne", CDTI Test Flight.
>
>> The test lasted for about an l.5 hours and, in every instance, the Baron's PPI
picked up the intruders and gave us ample warning of the potential collision
course. At deliberate head on closing speeds of 280 knots (almost five miles
a minute) we had nearly two minutes of warning of a threat in the area.
>> Despite knowing the relative altitude, distance and bearing of the threat
aircraft and all three of us staring intently at that section of sky as soon
as we spotted the blip, none of us ever acquired a target visually outside one
mile range. We did perhaps 20 to 25 intercepts during the test, and I was surprised
that we couldn't see the threats until they were very close.
>> In short, there's little question CDTI works. Problem is, if you buy CDTI,
know there's an airplane out there and have its range, altitude and bearing,
will you see it in time?
>>
> The premise that collisions can be avoided by seeing other aircraft is based
on slow airspeeds of early aircraft. At the closure rate in the above example,
two pilots have 13 seconds to see each other, recognize a danger, and take
evasive action. And it takes the aircraft time to change course. How many pilots
just happen to be looking in the direction of another aircraft when it gets
within one mile? Pilots look at charts or a glass panel or at scenery on the
ground for several seconds at a time. If the pilot happens to look in the
direction of another aircraft, how many of those 13 seconds are left, if any?
Strobes and ATC traffic advisories can help but can not be depended on. ADS-B
is the best tool we have for avoiding collisions. And that could be improved
by adding voice commands such as, "Danger Traffic, climb and turn right immediately
!"
> I am not suggesting that we stop looking out the window. But doing so will
not necessarily avoid a collision with another aircraft headed our way.
> If the EAA or AOPA or FAA conducted a similar traffic avoidance test to the
one above using modern avionics, it might lead to improved safety.
> Joe
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=420139#420139
>
>
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: | See and be seen fallacy |
>
> The white paper produced from that meeting was shared with
> a number of 'high ranking' interests in aviation safety . . .
> but the best we got out of it was clumsy enhancements to existing
> monopolies . . . no opportunity for creative exploitation
> of an open source technology.
The "I didn't design it therefore it is of no value" philosophy
Roger
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: Timer circuit for led array |
Bob,
A PnP product would be ideal but I'm not opposed to building it if I have
instructions (schematic) and can find the parts I will need. David Duperron
Thanks Bob
davedup10@gmail.com
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 09:18 PM 3/10/2014, you wrote:
>
>> I'm looking for a timer to shut off my cabin overhead utility light after
>> about 10 minutes of operation. It's fed directly from the main battery buss
>> and I would like to know that if I forgot to turn it off the timer would do
>> it for me before draining the battery. Any ideas?
>>
>
> Are you wanting to DIY from scratch parts
> or looking for a Plug-n-Play assembly?
>
> There are dozens of ways to implement this
> on-limit function. I have a micro-controller
> that is configured to offer this functionality
> but you have to wrap a few goodies around
> it. It will eventually find its way into
> a PnP product but for now, it's just the chip.
>
>
> 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: Timer circuit for led array |
At 09:11 PM 3/11/2014, you wrote:
>Bob,
>A PnP product would be ideal but I'm not opposed to building it if I
>have instructions (schematic) and can find the parts I will need.
>David Duperron Thanks Bob
All the data to duplicate the effort
at any level is on the website. Look it
over and choose a level consistent
with your level of comfort/risk . . .
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! --
|