Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:54 AM - Re: Welding cable ring connectors (John Morgensen)
2. 07:48 AM - Re: Re: Lee KR-2 System Architecture (Richard Girard)
3. 07:53 AM - Re: Re: Lee KR-2 System Architecture (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 11:21 AM - Re: Welding cable ring connectors (rayj)
5. 02:06 PM - Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset in flight? (mmayfield)
6. 03:00 PM - Re: Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset in flight? (Jeff Luckey)
7. 04:24 PM - =?utf-8?Q?Re:__Re:_Should_a_tripped_circuit_breaker_be_?= =?utf-8?Q?reset_in_flight=3F? ()
8. 04:49 PM - Re: Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset in flight? (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: Welding cable ring connectors |
Thanks!
On 10/13/2014 7:34 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 21:27 2014-10-13, you wrote:
>> <john@morgensen.com>
>>
>> I just acquired some #4 welding wire to fashion ground cables and
>> looking at the available connectors the #6 connectors seem to fit
>> with little or no slack. Am I missing something? Can I use the #6
>> connectors with #4 cable?
>
> Seems that connector sizing is a lot like shoe and
> dress sizing . . . that is . . . in the ballpark.
> Go by what fits best, not necessarily what's printed
> on the box.
>
>
> 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: Lee KR-2 System Architecture |
Bob, If you know Bob Lee's username on the Matronics Aeroelectric
Connection forum you could do a search and find all his posts. That would
be one way to garner information about your new project. Congratulations
and be sure to buy the latest revision of Bob N's book. It will become your
best source of information as you craft the electrical architecture of your
KR. Good luck and happy building.
Rick Girard
do not archive
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 8:09 PM, stickid <piney@mts.net> wrote:
>
> I have just bought Bob Lee's Kr2 project and am trying to gather any info
> that may pertain to the project. Do you have nay more posts or information
> about the electronics he used?
> Thanks
> Bob R
> Winnipeg Canada
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431818#431818
>
>
--
Believe those who are seeking the truth, doubt those who find it.
-Andre Gide
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: Lee KR-2 System Architecture |
At 20:09 2014-10-13, you wrote:
>
>I have just bought Bob Lee's Kr2 project and am trying to gather any
>info that may pertain to the project. Do you have nay more posts or
>information about the electronics he used?
When you say project . . . what stage of
completion? Are any of the electrical
system appliances operable either airborne
or on the ground?
I don't recall any conversations with Mr. Lee
here on the List. Depending on how many
'hard' decisions are already in place, you
might be well advices to pull out all the
'fuzzy' stuff and start over.
Is this your first project or do you have
some lessons-learned to draw on?
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: | Re: Welding cable ring connectors |
Buy a lot of dresses, do you???? :>) (Sorry, I just COULDN'T pass it up)
do not archive
Raymond Julian
Kettle River, MN
The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty,
understanding and feeling are the concomitants of failure in our system.
And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness,
egotism and self-interest are the traits of success. And while men
admire the quality of the first they love the produce of the second.
-John Steinbeck, novelist, Nobel laureate (1902-1968)
On 10/13/2014 09:34 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 21:27 2014-10-13, you wrote:
>> <john@morgensen.com>
>>
>> I just acquired some #4 welding wire to fashion ground cables and
>> looking at the available connectors the #6 connectors seem to fit with
>> little or no slack. Am I missing something? Can I use the #6
>> connectors with #4 cable?
>
> Seems that connector sizing is a lot like shoe and
> dress sizing . . . that is . . . in the ballpark.
> Go by what fits best, not necessarily what's printed
> on the box.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
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: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset in flight? |
Same in our airline. There are good reasons for not resetting tripped breakers,
eg., causing the production of smoke when before there was none. FWIW in the
never-ending "fuses versus breakers" debate, my design goals were:
1. The circuit protection shall be checked during preflight (a principle beaten
into me during both military flying and airline training), and so tripped circuit
protection devices must be easy to distinguish on the ground, and must be
investigated before getting airborne.
2. In the air, tripped circuit protection shall be easily identifiable but not
be reset/replaced unless I have a damn good reason for it.
3. In the air, circuit protection shall be easily reachable by system, such that
if things produce unauthorised smoke , corresponding circuit protection can
be manually tripped (as a backup to actually switching the system off).
I achieved these goals, slightly more easily IMHO, by using CBs rather than fuses
although with the advent of illuminated fuses there's probably no reason why
they couldn't achieve them too.
I do actually know of a couple of instances when I was in the military where boxes
produced smoke airborne and CBs had to be pulled.
--------
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431871#431871
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: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset in |
flight?
Mike,
All excellent points and it's good to hear from people who've had exposure to different
organizations. I'm not an airline pilot & never served in the military.
I would like to clarify one point. In this and other posts, people have referred
to fuse panels which have "fuse blown" indicators in the form of red LEDs mounted
next to the fuse. I think these are really neat!
But, keep in mind that the LED is only lit when the fuse is blown AND the device
on the other end is turned-on or at least capable of conducting a few milli-amps
to ground. This means that if the circuit w/ the blown fuse is turned-off,
the LED will not light and the blown fuse may go unnoticed.
An example will help illustrate. Let's say that while taxing back to your hangar
one night, the landing light fuse blows. No big deal - you're on the ground
& home - you'll fix it next weekend. Then, next weekend you get out to the
plane and you forget about the inop landing light. The "fuse blown" LED will
not light up when you power-up the buss because there is no path to ground for
the LED.
This is really not a big deal, however, if that had been a breaker instead of a
fuse, the breaker would still be 'popped' and sticking up when you got back to
the plane. The point being that a popped circuit breaker can be a conspicuous
reminder of a problem.
The argument could be made that a popped breaker is easier to detect than a blown
fuse as Mike points out.
-Jeff
On Tuesday, October 14, 2014 2:17 PM, mmayfield <mmayfield@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
Same in our airline. There are good reasons for not resetting tripped breakers,
eg., causing the production of smoke when before there was none. FWIW in the
never-ending "fuses versus breakers" debate, my design goals were:
1. The circuit protection shall be checked during preflight (a principle beaten
into me during both military flying and airline training), and so tripped circuit
protection devices must be easy to distinguish on the ground, and must be
investigated before getting airborne.
2. In the air, tripped circuit protection shall be easily identifiable but not
be reset/replaced unless I have a damn good reason for it.
3. In the air, circuit protection shall be easily reachable by system, such that
if things produce unauthorised smoke , corresponding circuit protection can
be manually tripped (as a backup to actually switching the system off).
I achieved these goals, slightly more easily IMHO, by using CBs rather than fuses
although with the advent of illuminated fuses there's probably no reason why
they couldn't achieve them too.
I do actually know of a couple of instances when I was in the military where boxes
produced smoke airborne and CBs had to be pulled.
--------
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=431871#431871
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: Q?Re:_AeroElectric-List:_Re:_Should_a_tripped_circuit_breaker_be_?= |
=?utf-8?Q?reset_in_flight=3F?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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: | Re: Should a tripped circuit breaker be reset |
in flight?
>The argument could be made that a popped breaker is easier to detect
>than a blown fuse as Mike points out.
Given that there are 100x more ways a thing can
fail that DOESN'T pop a fuse, it seems that the
whole argument over the utility of visible notification
is moot. If it's important that piece of equipment
work before flight . . . then exercise the critter
in preflight. If not working, then indeed a
fuse MIGHT be open but it's more likely that it is not.
Visual inspection any circuit protective device
offers no assurance whatsoever of any system's
operational integrity.
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! --
|