---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 03/11/14: 10 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:11:07 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 03:43:55 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Question 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... 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:00:30 AM PST US From: Bob Verwey Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:22:18 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: See and be seen fallacy From: "user9253" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:41:04 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:40:00 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:43:23 AM PST US From: Ralph Finch Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 09:32:19 AM PST US From: "Roger & Jean" Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:14:39 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Timer circuit for led array From: David Duperron 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 ____________________________________ Time: 07:21:41 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.