Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:15 AM - Re: Re: Touchy (Bill Bradburry)
2. 06:30 AM - Re: B&C alternator question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 06:51 AM - Re: Re: Touchy (Tim Olson)
4. 07:16 AM - Re: Re: Touchy (Robert Borger)
5. 07:32 AM - Re: Re: Touchy (Dj Merrill)
6. 09:45 AM - Fusible links (B Tomm)
7. 11:42 AM - Re: Fusible links (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 01:55 PM - Re: Fusible links (B Tomm)
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 |
|
Stan,
Very well said. A similar problem with the list is when there is no
response at all. This happens to me quite frequently. I suppose it would
help if I had more interesting problems. :>)
Bill
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
speedy11@aol.com
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2014 11:31 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Touchy
Kelley,
First of all, let me apologize for including all of the emails in my reply.
That was a mistake.
Secondly, perhaps I am being a bit touchy, but I consistently see the same
crap on the aeroelectric list.
Someone asks for advice on a relatively simple subject and gets skewered by
several people who believe they are personally responsible for teaching the
writer the wrongs of his ways. Some people get off on rants implying that
their ideas and/or procedures must be followed or the writer has not
adequately researched the subject and made the proper decisions. It is the
reason this list is dying a slow painful death.
Many of us have been around GA airplanes for 40 years (I own an aircraft
maintenance company), but we may not know the best solution to a problem (or
as Bob likes to think - perhaps a non-problem) especially as new innovative
solutions are being tried.
>From personal experience you don't like full electronic ignition.
Personally I like full electronic ignition. But, when a writer asks a
question about something, he/she doesn't care our individual preferences.
They are interested in a response that may give them greater insight into
how to solve the particular problem for their particular airplane.
The response they often get is no response at all or a response telling them
how wrong they are. They aren't wrong! Just because someone decides to
stray from the classical norms doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong.
Justin may have given up on this forum to glean the information he desired.
Can't say I blame him. He is on the cutting edge of potential improvements.
His ideas may not work - then again they may work perfectly. I understand
his reasons for choosing to use two batteries for remote AK operations.
I agree with you that he may not be choosing the simplest solution, but it
is his decision. He was simply asking for advice on how he might implement
his decision. I'm surprised he didn't contact Paisley, Rotax and the
battery manufacturer on how to best design his system instead of coming to
the aeroelectric list for help (who knows, maybe he did). Nonetheless, I
believe the response to him should have been something like this:
1. Contact the manufacturers and follow their advise.
2. You can probably implement your chosen equipment in this manner ...
3. However, have you considered doing this instead ...
In other words, provide advice on how his idea might be accomplished and
then give him advice on other considerations (one of which might be "don't
do it because ...").
You said " If the best solution was so obvious, he would also know how to
implement". There may not be a best solution. You implied that in your
first sentence when you said "there are a number of ways to skin a cat".
Justin has chosen a way to skin the cat. It may not be the best way, but it
is his way. He was asking for advice on how to implement his skinning
method - not advice on whether his method is the best, or even desirable.
I find myself as frequently frustrated by responses on the aeroelectric list
as I am satisfied with them.
Touchy? Perhaps.
Maybe I've become a grumpy old man.
Safe flying to all,
Stan Sutterfield
Reno Race 84
Do not archive
For any question or problem there are a number of ways to skin the cat,
including it may not be a problem at all.
To object to folks questioning whether he needs to do what he wants is
just as valid a discussion and learning point as assuming he has
correctly parsed his situation, already knows the best solution and just
needs to know how to implement it.
If the best solution was so obvious, he would also know how to
implement. When you start incorporating the latest of everything, like
lithium batteries, electronic ignition, etc. you are on what is called
the bleeding edge for a reason.
Others like Bob and some of the rest of us have been around GA planes
for 30-40 years or more, worked our way through risk mitigation in a lot
of different environments and know what last century products work, and
what doesn't.
Some of us just don't agree on the reliability of various items. I for
one have personal experience with dual electronic mag failure which
pushes me towards having one conventional mag, but others see that
differently, even though there are some of the same differences between
auto alternators and auto ignition that change their reliability when
used in aircraft.
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: B&C alternator question |
At 09:08 2014-10-27, you wrote:
>What is your opinion on the Zeftonici regulators? I had nothing but
>trouble with regulators when I got my Pacer, and then heard about
>Zeftronics. They got an STC for the Pacer PA20, and I put one
>on. It has been absolutely trouble free for 20+ years, and I don't
>remember it being very expensive.
I knew the guy who started Zeftronics. We had many
enjoyable conversations at OSH. He was a capable
designer and manufacturer. I think the company is
in new hands now but I've heard nothing to indicate
that Zeftronics products are not of good value.
Zeftronics shows up on the qualified suppliers
lists for several devices at Cessna.
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 |
|
Stan,
While maybe a bit harsh, I get exactly what you're saying.
When you bring up Brownout protection, instead of getting
solutions, you get "why do you need brownout protection",
and "manufacturers should be building things tolerant of
starter-inrush brown-out events". While the fact remains,
there are systems that really should have brownout
protection and it can be a very useful thing. I could fill
a page on why brownout protection is important to me,
but nobody would want to spend the time to read through
that long enough to help with a solution. Sometimes you
just want it to be "ok" that you require it and you want
to get help with solutions. So I know what you mean.
I think if you just know some of the sticky topics going in,
maybe you can ask the pointed question and try to get
an answer from at least someone on the list. Like
"I am building a panel and absolutely require brownout
protection. I'm not interested in debating the NEED
for brownout protection, but would like to know some of
the best options for those items requiring it?"
Maybe at least that would bypass some of the frustration
causing portions of the discussion.
There are solutions out there for everything. I've been
very happy with my panel in my RV-10, and since I built
that, there are "out of the box" solutions from vendors
like TCW Tech that make things easier for the builder too.
So getting to what you need isn't impossible.
Tim
On 12/1/2014 11:30 PM, speedy11@aol.com wrote:
> Kelley,
> First of all, let me apologize for including all of the emails in my
> reply. That was a mistake.
> Secondly, perhaps I am being a bit touchy, but I consistently see the
> same crap on the aeroelectric list.
> Someone asks for advice on a relatively simple subject and gets skewered
> by several people who believe they are personally responsible for
> teaching the writer the wrongs of his ways. Some people get off on
> rants implying that their ideas and/or procedures must be followed or
> the writer has not adequately researched the subject and made the proper
> decisions. It is the reason this list is dying a slow painful death.
> Many of us have been around GA airplanes for 40 years (I own an aircraft
> maintenance company), but we may not know the best solution to a problem
> (or as Bob likes to think - perhaps a non-problem) especially as new
> innovative solutions are being tried.
> From personal experience you don't like full electronic ignition.
> Personally I like full electronic ignition. But, when a writer asks a
> question about something, he/she doesn't care our individual
> preferences. They are interested in a response that may give them
> greater insight into how to solve the particular problem for their
> particular airplane.
> The response they often get is no response at all or a response telling
> them how wrong they are. They aren't wrong! Just because someone
> decides to stray from the classical norms doesn't necessarily mean they
> are wrong.
> Justin may have given up on this forum to glean the information he
> desired. Can't say I blame him. He is on the cutting edge of potential
> improvements. His ideas may not work - then again they may work
> perfectly. I understand his reasons for choosing to use two batteries
> for remote AK operations.
> I agree with you that he may not be choosing the simplest solution, but
> it is his decision. He was simply asking for advice on how he might
> implement his decision. I'm surprised he didn't contact Paisley, Rotax
> and the battery manufacturer on how to best design his system instead of
> coming to the aeroelectric list for help (who knows, maybe he did).
> Nonetheless, I believe the response to him should have been something
> like this:
> 1. Contact the manufacturers and follow their advise.
> 2. You can probably implement your chosen equipment in this manner ...
> 3. However, have you considered doing this instead ...
> In other words, provide advice on how his idea might be accomplished and
> then give him advice on other considerations (one of which might be
> "don't do it because ...").
> You said " If the best solution was so obvious, he would also know how
> to implement". There may not be a best solution. You implied that in
> your first sentence when you said "there are a number of ways to skin a
> cat". Justin has chosen a way to skin the cat. It may not be the best
> way, but it is his way. He was asking for advice on how to implement
> his skinning method - not advice on whether his method is the best, or
> even desirable.
> I find myself as frequently frustrated by responses on the aeroelectric
> list as I am satisfied with them.
> Touchy? Perhaps.
> Maybe I've become a grumpy old man.
> Safe flying to all,
> Stan Sutterfield
> Reno Race 84
> Do not archive
>
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 |
|
Bill,
I understand your unanswered requests for help. It=99s not that
they are uninteresting. It=99s because I don=99t have an
answer and I don=99t want to be one of the ones cluttering up the
list with speculation or proposing alternatives you don=99t need.
Blue skies & tailwinds,
Bob Borger
Europa XS Tri, Rotax 914, Airmaster C/S Prop (75 hrs).
Little Toot Sport Biplane, Lycoming Thunderbolt AEIO-320 EXP
3705 Lynchburg Dr.
Corinth, TX 76208-5331
Cel: 817-992-1117
rlborger@mac.com <mailto:rlborger@mac.com>
On Dec 2, 2014, at 8:13 AM, Bill Bradburry <bbradburry@verizon.net>
wrote:
Stan,
Very well said. A similar problem with the list is when there is no
response at all. This happens to me quite frequently. I suppose it
would help if I had more interesting problems. :>)
Bill
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 |
|
While I see the value of the "why" type questions, I have to agree with
Stan and Tim. I've been on the receiving end of this myself trying to
get a relatively straight answer to an electrical question only to
continually get derailed with exactly the types of comments that Tim
mentions (and on the same topic as it turns out. :-) )
While the "why" can make for an interesting and thought provoking
discussion, there are times when people just need a little help with
decisions that they've made for their aircraft, which may not be the
same decisions that someone else might have made. That's okay, and one
of the reasons why we are in experimental aviation.
In my case I ended up going elsewhere for help because I could not get
the help I needed on the Aeroelectric list, even after doing as Tim
suggested and indicating I didn't want to discuss the "why" any longer,
but needed help with the "how".
Even more frustrating, I brought my solution back to the List in an
attempt to share with others, and was again berated for "why do you need
to do that". I am happy to report that my solution was implemented and
has been working fine for the past several months.
Bob Nuckolls wrote, "The List is not just a place to ask, "what's 2 + 3
and where do I buy some 3's?". While I agree that the list is not
*just* a place to ask the "how", the implication from previous
discussions is that the List is a place where you can't ask the "how"
without also providing a thesis on the "why". Is this the overall
intent of the List?
Again, I can absolutely see the value of the "why" discussions, to a
point. I can also see the value in helping someone with the "how" once
they have made their decision, and am hopeful that we could accommodate
these types of discussions as well.
My hope is that this message is taken as constructive feedback, and not
as a complaint.
My half cents, fwiw,
-Dj
On 12/02/2014 09:50 AM, Tim Olson wrote:
>
> Stan,
>
> While maybe a bit harsh, I get exactly what you're saying.
> When you bring up Brownout protection, instead of getting
> solutions, you get "why do you need brownout protection",
> and "manufacturers should be building things tolerant of
> starter-inrush brown-out events". While the fact remains,
> there are systems that really should have brownout
> protection and it can be a very useful thing. I could fill
> a page on why brownout protection is important to me,
> but nobody would want to spend the time to read through
> that long enough to help with a solution. Sometimes you
> just want it to be "ok" that you require it and you want
> to get help with solutions. So I know what you mean.
> I think if you just know some of the sticky topics going in,
> maybe you can ask the pointed question and try to get
> an answer from at least someone on the list. Like
>
> "I am building a panel and absolutely require brownout
> protection. I'm not interested in debating the NEED
> for brownout protection, but would like to know some of
> the best options for those items requiring it?"
> Maybe at least that would bypass some of the frustration
> causing portions of the discussion.
>
> There are solutions out there for everything. I've been
> very happy with my panel in my RV-10, and since I built
> that, there are "out of the box" solutions from vendors
> like TCW Tech that make things easier for the builder too.
> So getting to what you need isn't impossible.
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> On 12/1/2014 11:30 PM, speedy11@aol.com wrote:
>> Kelley,
>> First of all, let me apologize for including all of the emails in my
>> reply. That was a mistake.
>> Secondly, perhaps I am being a bit touchy, but I consistently see the
>> same crap on the aeroelectric list.
>> Someone asks for advice on a relatively simple subject and gets skewered
>> by several people who believe they are personally responsible for
>> teaching the writer the wrongs of his ways. Some people get off on
>> rants implying that their ideas and/or procedures must be followed or
>> the writer has not adequately researched the subject and made the proper
>> decisions. It is the reason this list is dying a slow painful death.
>> Many of us have been around GA airplanes for 40 years (I own an aircraft
>> maintenance company), but we may not know the best solution to a problem
>> (or as Bob likes to think - perhaps a non-problem) especially as new
>> innovative solutions are being tried.
>> From personal experience you don't like full electronic ignition.
>> Personally I like full electronic ignition. But, when a writer asks a
>> question about something, he/she doesn't care our individual
>> preferences. They are interested in a response that may give them
>> greater insight into how to solve the particular problem for their
>> particular airplane.
>> The response they often get is no response at all or a response telling
>> them how wrong they are. They aren't wrong! Just because someone
>> decides to stray from the classical norms doesn't necessarily mean they
>> are wrong.
>> Justin may have given up on this forum to glean the information he
>> desired. Can't say I blame him. He is on the cutting edge of potential
>> improvements. His ideas may not work - then again they may work
>> perfectly. I understand his reasons for choosing to use two batteries
>> for remote AK operations.
>> I agree with you that he may not be choosing the simplest solution, but
>> it is his decision. He was simply asking for advice on how he might
>> implement his decision. I'm surprised he didn't contact Paisley, Rotax
>> and the battery manufacturer on how to best design his system instead of
>> coming to the aeroelectric list for help (who knows, maybe he did).
>> Nonetheless, I believe the response to him should have been something
>> like this:
>> 1. Contact the manufacturers and follow their advise.
>> 2. You can probably implement your chosen equipment in this manner ...
>> 3. However, have you considered doing this instead ...
>> In other words, provide advice on how his idea might be accomplished and
>> then give him advice on other considerations (one of which might be
>> "don't do it because ...").
>> You said " If the best solution was so obvious, he would also know how
>> to implement". There may not be a best solution. You implied that in
>> your first sentence when you said "there are a number of ways to skin a
>> cat". Justin has chosen a way to skin the cat. It may not be the best
>> way, but it is his way. He was asking for advice on how to implement
>> his skinning method - not advice on whether his method is the best, or
>> even desirable.
>> I find myself as frequently frustrated by responses on the aeroelectric
>> list as I am satisfied with them.
>> Touchy? Perhaps.
>> Maybe I've become a grumpy old man.
>> Safe flying to all,
>> Stan Sutterfield
>> Reno Race 84
--
Dj Merrill - N1JOV - VP EAA Chapter 87
Sportsman 2+2 Builder #7118 N421DJ - http://deej.net/sportsman/
Glastar Flyer N866RH - http://deej.net/glastar/
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 |
|
I can't find the detail in the book. When making a fusible link, the inner
"fuse" wire is 22 AWG in this case. Is it necessary to strip the insulation
off?
Thanks
Bevan
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: Fusible links |
At 11:44 2014-12-02, you wrote:
>
>
>I can't find the detail in the book. When making a fusible link, the inner
>"fuse" wire is 22 AWG in this case. Is it necessary to strip the insulation
>off?
I presume you're asking about the insulation on the
22AWG wire? No, in fact, you ADD insulation over it
See http://tinyurl.com/msx5ofe
Where are you considering the use of a fusible link?
I crafted that comic-book waaayyy back when we were
wrestling with the notion of extending the BUS in a
fuse block up to a one-terminal-BUS at the input side
of the alternator field breaker. A breaker upstream
of a crow-bar ov protection module.
I think we also dabbled with the use of fusible links
on the meter-leads to a shunt. As a general rule, the
fusible link is attractive only when a fuse holder
is a little 'messy' . . . The TC fleet has used two
fuses in clips to protect ammeter wires for decades.
Emacs!
The last time I was able to walk down the A36
production line (about 10 years ago) the clipped-in
fuses for various 'minor' tasks were quite visible.
The need to extend the bus to accommodate the only
circuit breaker in the airplane was a special case.
Like Figure Z-13/20, and to some extend Z-19, I've
regretted having published the ideas. While useful
and appropriate to the special cases, they've
morphed into other forms that may or may not
have been through PCQDR (preliminary, critical
and qualification design review).
Can or should we talk about it?
Bob . . .
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 |
|
Thanks Bob,
I had done it on mine a couple years back, but the other day I was helping a
hangar neighbour make some improvements. He has a rear mounted battery on a
BD4 (engine in front). He has one electronic ignition which was powered by
an 18 awg wire connected on the firewall at the input power terminal at the
starter solenoid. This fat wire was only powered when the master solenoid
(located in back next to the battery) was active. Not ideal for
electrically dependant ignition. There was a spare 18 awg wire already
running all the way back to the battery and the owner wanted to use that. I
suggested that we fuse it but that fuse would have to activate "slower"
than the breaker on the panel. I therefore suggested a fusible link and
that is where I crossed the line. Since it was such a good idea, and I had
suggested it, it was suggested that I do it :) Not a problem since I had
materials left over. Just couldn't remember if the 22awg wire (now hidden
under the silicone impregnated sleeve) on my RV7 had been stripped or not.
My thinking initially was that it must have been stripped because we really
don't want any combustible material "inside" the fuse if possible. It didn't
strip well, so I re-did it without stripping as you have confirmed. Thank
you.
Bevan
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L.
Nuckolls, III
Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2014 11:41 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Fusible links
At 11:44 2014-12-02, you wrote:
I can't find the detail in the book. When making a fusible link, the inner
"fuse" wire is 22 AWG in this case. Is it necessary to strip the insulation
off?
I presume you're asking about the insulation on the
22AWG wire? No, in fact, you ADD insulation over it
See http://tinyurl.com/msx5ofe
Where are you considering the use of a fusible link?
I crafted that comic-book waaayyy back when we were
wrestling with the notion of extending the BUS in a
fuse block up to a one-terminal-BUS at the input side
of the alternator field breaker. A breaker upstream
of a crow-bar ov protection module.
I think we also dabbled with the use of fusible links
on the meter-leads to a shunt. As a general rule, the
fusible link is attractive only when a fuse holder
is a little 'messy' . . . The TC fleet has used two
fuses in clips to protect ammeter wires for decades.
Emacs!
The last time I was able to walk down the A36
production line (about 10 years ago) the clipped-in
fuses for various 'minor' tasks were quite visible.
The need to extend the bus to accommodate the only
circuit breaker in the airplane was a special case.
Like Figure Z-13/20, and to some extend Z-19, I've
regretted having published the ideas. While useful
and appropriate to the special cases, they've
morphed into other forms that may or may not
have been through PCQDR (preliminary, critical
and qualification design review).
Can or should we talk about it?
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! --
|