AeroElectric-List Digest Archive

Tue 10/07/14


Total Messages Posted: 6



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
    Time: 03:16:07 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    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
    Time: 03:22:45 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    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
    Time: 03:27:14 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Mag switch through d-sub connector
    From: Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail.com>
    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
    Time: 04:19:44 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Mag switch through d-sub connector
    From: "stearman456" <warbirds@shaw.ca>
    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
    Time: 05:09:14 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    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
    Time: 06:35:37 PM PST US
    From: Charlie England <ceengland7@gmail.com>
    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

  • 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
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse AeroElectric-List 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.

    -- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --