Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:16 PM - Re: Lithium Battery Article in Kitplanes (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 03:22 PM - Re: Re: Mag switch through d-sub connector (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 03:27 PM - Re: Re: Mag switch through d-sub connector (Charlie England)
4. 04:19 PM - Re: Mag switch through d-sub connector (stearman456)
5. 05:09 PM - Re: Re: Mag switch through d-sub connector (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 06:35 PM - Re: Re: Mag switch through d-sub connector (Charlie England)
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: Lithium Battery Article in Kitplanes |
At 22:17 2014-10-06, you wrote:
>
>There is an article by Dean Sigler in the November 2014 issue of
>KitPlanes Magazine discussing lithium batteries. There is a picture
>of lithium batteries being charged inside of a fireplace. Should
>aircraft lithium battery boxes be made of firebrick? :)
Just got home from the little trip to Canada. Delightful time
but didn't get to do the kayak trip. Too cold. Quite
memorable for a host of other reasons.
I've done some preliminary charge/discharge experiments
and I've 'discovered' some interesting things which for
the moment I'll have to catalog as anecdotal because I
did not rigorously control test conditions or record
data. While sitting on airplanes (lots of them!) over the
past week, I've designed a test plan that requires some
fabrication and programming.
If my preliminary discoveries don't fall to closer
scrutiny, I'll have some interesting 'meat' to include
in my next installment of the lithium saga.
I tried to get the KP article but the website is
not responding at the moment. Will try again later.
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Mag switch through d-sub connector |
At 07:38 2014-10-05, you wrote:
>
>If you ran the P leads through the firewall using an old fashioned
>Cannon plug could you use a three pin plug and run both shields
>through one pin with no noise consequences, or would a separate pin
>for each shield be required?
>
Your subject speaks to the D-subs . . .
Emacs!
but you write about 'old fasion Cannon connectors
which I take to mean something more like this . . .
Emacs!
The classic D-Sub isn't a very robust connector
for service as a fire wall penetration but the
MS31xx series connectors are fine. You can combine
the shields on one pin. Ground the shields at
engine end only. Use the shields as ground conductor
for the "G" terminal on the mag switch.
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: Mag switch through d-sub connector |
No electrical difference, but lots more failure points. A failed-open point
won't stop the engine, but can be very dangerous on the ground (engine can
fire with switches off). A less than perfect job of installation (of any
splice/connector installation) could cause a failed-shorted problem, which
*could* stop the engine.
Charlie
On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 7:38 AM, stearman456 <warbirds@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> If you ran the P leads through the firewall using an old fashioned Cannon
> plug could you use a three pin plug and run both shields through one pin
> with no noise consequences, or would a separate pin for each shield be
> required?
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431522#431522
>
>
Message 4
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Mag switch through d-sub connector |
Thanks Bob. The MS31xx type of plug was what I had in mind. I hadn't thought
of grounding the switch through the shields but that makes sense. Thanks again.
Dan
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431628#431628
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: Mag switch through d-sub connector |
At 17:25 2014-10-07, you wrote:
>No electrical difference, but lots more failure points. A
>failed-open point won't stop the engine, but can be very dangerous
>on the ground (engine can fire with switches off).
A potentially latent failure than is pre-flight
detectable during run-up . . . low risk.
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: Mag switch through d-sub connector |
On 10/7/2014 7:05 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 17:25 2014-10-07, you wrote:
>> No electrical difference, but lots more failure points. A failed-open
>> point won't stop the engine, but can be very dangerous on the ground
>> (engine can fire with switches off).
>
> A potentially latent failure than is pre-flight
> detectable during run-up . . . low risk.
>
An in-flight failure would be detectable prior to shutdown, too. If
that's part of the shutdown procedure, but it rarely is.
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! --
|