---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Thu 01/15/15: 10 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 07:48 AM - ASTM_F2245 (Eric M. Jones) 2. 08:14 AM - Re: Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 3. 08:20 AM - Re: ASTM_F2245 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 4. 10:42 AM - Re: Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER (Charlie England) 5. 11:05 AM - ASTM F2245 et al (David Josephson) 6. 12:01 PM - Re: Z-9 diagrm for Corvair (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 7. 12:06 PM - Re: ASTM F2245 et al (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 8. 12:38 PM - =?utf-8?Q?Re:__ASTM_F2245_et_al? () 9. 01:27 PM - review wanted of Renaissance battery charger (Skip) 10. 02:48 PM - Re: ASTM F2245 et al (user9253) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 07:48:02 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: ASTM_F2245 From: "Eric M. Jones" FWIW: Free http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/regulations/ASTM_F2245-07_Airplanes.pdf -------- Eric M. Jones www.PerihelionDesign.com 113 Brentwood Drive Southbridge, MA 01550 (508) 764-2072 emjones(at)charter.net Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437045#437045 ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 08:14:10 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER At 21:57 2015-01-14, you wrote: >Bob, > >I think there's been a slight mis-communication: > >ok, here we go, follow me down into the weeds... > >"The ASTM specs that the RV-12 is certificated under specifically > >prohibit the use of of a circuit protector > that is not resetable by the pilot." > >That quote is someone's interpretation of the >ASTM Standard - NOT an actual quote from the Standard. > >I was looking for wording in the ASTM document >that supported that claim and after reading the excerpt >you provided, I think we both concluded that the >above statement is not supported by the words in the >Standard. > >This is the kind of detail that can be difficult >to express in prose without getting wordy (and boring). If we >were sitting at the same table, we'd have it cleared up in less than a minute. You got that right. Let's pour another cup of coffee and sift through it . . . A2.9.2 Circuit Protection Requirements=97Circuit overload protection (fuses or circuit breakers) must: A2.9.2.1 Be installed on each circuit containing wiring, equipment, or other components rated for less than the maximum output of the battery and alternator or generator; A2.9.2.2 Be appropriately rated for each component installed on the protected circuit; A2.9.2.3 Be accessible to and in clear view of the pilot; A2.9.2.4 Open before the conductor emits smoke; and A2.9.2.5 Automatic re-set circuit breakers may not be used. I think it's A2.9.2.3 from which an ASSUMPTION might be made that the writers intend for all circuit protection to be accessible to (and extrapolated to include re-setable) the pilot. The spirit and intent is not clear. One might think that having a clear view is good as a tell . . . warning that a circuit protector has opened. Except you can't 'see' blown fuses. Further, a pilot is 100x more likely to detect loss of system functionality first than to see a popped breaker. We understand further that there are many more ways a system can be rendered inop than a simple fault on the power supply line. Hence, making the circuit protector visible and/or reachable becomes a distraction and adds no demonstrable value going to comfortable termination of the flight. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 08:20:26 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ASTM_F2245 At 09:45 2015-01-15, you wrote: > >FWIW: Free > >http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/regulations/ASTM_F2245-07_Airplanes.pdf Interesting. Mr. Bernsten seems to take a different interpretation of the 'agreement' . . . It's unfortunate that one is required to pay for copies extracted from mountains of pages of regulation, specification, process, law, etc. etc. that limit or drive the behaviors of honorable citizens in their daily exercise of spontaneous order . . . at the risk of experiencing FORCE for failure to comply. Doesn't seem quite right somehow . . . Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 10:42:05 AM PST US From: Charlie England Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: UN-FUSED MAIN BUS FEEDER On 1/15/2015 10:13 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > At 21:57 2015-01-14, you wrote: >> Bob, >> >> I think there's been a slight mis-communication: >> >> ok, here we go, follow me down into the weeds... >> >> "The ASTM specs that the RV-12 is certificated under specifically >> >prohibit the use of of a circuit protector that is not resetable by >> the pilot." >> >> That quote is someone's interpretation of the ASTM Standard - NOT an >> actual quote from the Standard. >> >> I was looking for wording in the ASTM document that supported that >> claim and after reading the excerpt >> you provided, I think we both concluded that the above statement is >> not supported by the words in the >> Standard. >> >> This is the kind of detail that can be difficult to express in prose >> without getting wordy (and boring). If we >> were sitting at the same table, we'd have it cleared up in less than >> a minute. > > You got that right. Let's pour another cup of coffee > and sift through it . . . > > *A2.9.2 **/Circuit Protection Requirements/Circuit overload > protection (fuses or circuit breakers) must: * > > * > A2.9.2.1 Be installed on each circuit containing wiring, > equipment, or other components rated for less than the maximum > output of the battery and alternator or generator; > A2.9.2.2 Be appropriately rated for each component installed > on the protected circuit; > > A2.9.2.3 Be accessible to and in clear view of the pilot; > > A2.9.2.4 Open before the conductor emits smoke; and > * > *A2.9.2.5 Automatic re-set circuit breakers may not be used. > > * > > I think it's A2.9.2.3 from which an ASSUMPTION might > be made that the writers intend for all circuit protection > to be accessible to (and extrapolated to include re-setable) > the pilot. > > The spirit and intent is not clear. One might think that > having a clear view is good as a tell . . . warning that > a circuit protector has opened. Except you can't 'see' blown > fuses. Further, a pilot is 100x more likely to detect > loss of system functionality first than to see a popped > breaker. We understand further that there are many more > ways a system can be rendered inop than a simple fault > on the power supply line. Hence, making the circuit protector > visible and/or reachable becomes a distraction and adds > no demonstrable value going to comfortable termination > of the flight. > > > Bob . . . > > What's really nonsensical is A2.9.2.2, which is contrary to the real reason for the protection (the wire), and impossible to implement if there's more than one device on a circuit. Charlie ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 11:05:19 AM PST US From: David Josephson Subject: AeroElectric-List: ASTM F2245 et al It's unfortunate that the ASTM standards aren't available for free public review, but they have no funding other than from their membership and sales of standards. The people working on their revision don't get paid at all. There's another route, that I would encourage anyone interested to follow. For $75 a year you can join ASTM and get all of the standards that apply to aviation for free (you want ASTM volume 15 with your membership.) And, you're then welcome to join the deliberation on what they should include. End-users and other interested people are just as eligible as producers of aircraft and actually have a bigger say in the outcome (each producer has only one vote) although few actually participate. It's a bit cumbersome but if you have something to contribute you should really be included in the process. Decisions are made by email and online review and balloting. There are several committees: F37 looks after the light-sport rules, F39 on aircraft systems, F44 is winding up to do the same for GA planes to replace FAR Part 23. For now, F44 is focusing only on capturing the language of Part 23 and simplifying it. When that's done, additional "tiers" will be added to allow other levels of airworthiness to be planned other than what's in the rules today. ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 12:01:06 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Z-9 diagrm for Corvair At 22:35 2015-01-14, you wrote: >Bob, > >My version of the AeroElectric book is from 2009 and the Z diagrams >began at 10. At some point, I downloaded a Z-9 from the website, I >think around 2009/10. I'm finishing the wiring on my plane and I >wanted to know if the Z-9 diagram has been updated or if the one I >have is still the best. > Revision (A) is the most current but it will be updated shortly to include REAL pinouts for the 4-function module have been firmed up . . . the device is going to production pretty soon. Z09 was crafted as a demonstration project for the AEC9024 4-function module as well as a talking paper for a List reader's intention to incorporate a Corvair engine in his project. I'll be updating Z09 for attachment to the AEC9024 installation manual as an exemplar system that might exploit the AEC9024's features. Let's talk about your intentions/desires. Are you going to use a single or three-phase alternator? Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 12:06:19 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ASTM F2245 et al At 13:03 2015-01-15, you wrote: > >It's unfortunate that the ASTM standards aren't available for free >public review, but they have no funding other than from their >membership and sales of standards. The people working on their >revision don't get paid at all. There's another route, that I would >encourage anyone interested to follow. > >For $75 a year you can join ASTM and get all of the standards that >apply to aviation for free (you want ASTM volume 15 with your >membership.) And, you're then welcome to join the deliberation on >what they should include. End-users and other interested people are >just as eligible as producers of aircraft and actually have a bigger >say in the outcome (each producer has only one vote) although few >actually participate. It's a bit cumbersome but if you have >something to contribute you should really be included in the >process. Decisions are made by email and online review and >balloting. There are several committees: F37 looks after the >light-sport rules, F39 on aircraft systems, F44 is winding up to do >the same for GA planes to replace FAR Part 23. For now, F44 is >focusing only on capturing the language of Part 23 and simplifying >it. When that's done, additional "tiers" will be added to allow >other levels of airworthiness to be planned other than what's in the >rules today. Excellent point . . . I'll do that. I'll also write to suggest that non-for profit distribution should be allowed . . . Like RTCA, ASTM is at risk for becoming 'siloed' . . . relatively isolated from accurate and useful feedback from the very folks who would are supposed to "benefit" by the best of what the specs have to offer . . . and like the EAA feedback into AC43-13 many years ago . . . a conduit for refinement. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 12:38:02 PM PST US From: Subject: =?utf-8?Q?Re:_AeroElectric-List:_ASTM_F2245_et_al? DQoNCg0KDQoNCg0KDQoNCj5Gb3IgJDc1IGEgeWVhciB5b3UgY2FuIGpvaW4gQVNUTSBhbmQgZ2V0 IGFsbCBvZiB0aGUgc3RhbmRhcmRzIHRoYXQgDQo+YXBwbHkgdG8gYXZpYXRpb24gZm9yIGZyZWUg KHlvdSB3YW50IEFTVE0gdm9sdW1lIDE1IHdpdGggeW91ciANCj5tZW1iZXJzaGlwLikNCiAgIEV4 Y2VsbGVudCBwb2ludCAuIC4gLiBJJ2xsIGRvIHRoYXQuIEknbGwgYWxzbw0KICAgd3JpdGUgdG8g c3VnZ2VzdCB0aGF0IG5vbi1mb3IgcHJvZml0IGRpc3RyaWJ1dGlvbg0KICAgc2hvdWxkIGJlIGFs bG93ZWQgLiAuIC4NCg0KICAgTGlrZSBSVENBLCBBU1RNIGlzIGF0IHJpc2sgZm9yIGJlY29taW5n ICdzaWxvZWQnIC4gLiAuDQogICByZWxhdGl2ZWx5IGlzb2xhdGVkIGZyb20gYWNjdXJhdGUgYW5k IHVzZWZ1bA0KICAgZmVlZGJhY2sgZnJvbSB0aGUgdmVyeSBmb2xrcyB3aG8gd291bGQgYXJlIHN1 cHBvc2VkDQogICB0byAiYmVuZWZpdCIgYnkgdGhlIGJlc3Qgb2Ygd2hhdCB0aGUgc3BlY3MgaGF2 ZSB0byBvZmZlcg0KICAgLiAuIC4gYW5kIGxpa2UgdGhlIEVBQSBmZWVkYmFjayBpbnRvIEFDNDMt MTMgbWFueQ0KICAgeWVhcnMgYWdvIC4gLiAuIGEgY29uZHVpdCBmb3IgcmVmaW5lbWVudC4NCg0K DQpCb2IgTi4sDQoNCg0KSSB3b3VsZCBiZSBtb3JlIHRoYW4gaGFwcHkgdG8gc3BsaXQgdGhpcyBj b3N0IG9mIG1lbWJlcnNoaXAsIGZvciBCb2IsIHdpdGggYW55b25lIGludGVyZXN0ZWQuICBXZSBo YXZlIHJlY2VpdmVkIG1hbnkgdGltZXMgbW9yZSB0aGFuIHRoaXMgaW4gZXhwZXJpZW5jZSBhbmQg Z3JlYXQgYWR2aWNlLiAgSSBhbSBzdXJlIHlvdSB3aWxsIGJlIGEgZ3JlYXQga25vd2xlZGdlYWJs ZSBvdXRzcG9rZW4gYWR2b2NhdGUgZm9yIHRoZSBPQkFNIGNvbW11bml0eS4NCg0KDQpBbnlvbmUg aW50ZXJlc3RlZCwgbGV0IHVzIGtub3cgaGVyZSBhbmQgd2UgY2FuIGVhc2lseSBtYWtlIGEgY29u dHJpYnV0aW9uIHRocm91Z2ggUGF5cGFsLiANCg0KDQpSb2dlcg= ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 01:27:01 PM PST US From: Skip Subject: AeroElectric-List: review wanted of Renaissance battery charger Does anyone have any experience with the "Renaissance" line of battery chargers? http://potentialtec.com/RC-1AU-Manual.pdf I am skeptical of most claims, but was surprised that the tiny lithium battery pack from Walmart would start my car, so I guess anything is possible. Thanks Skip ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 02:48:30 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: ASTM F2245 et al From: "user9253" Non-members and individuals are welcome to make suggestions to the ASTM committee. I made a suggestion today concerning fuses & circuit breakers. A2.9.2.3 Be accessible to and in clear view of the pilot. Go to http://www.astm.org/ASK_ASTM/index.html Click on "I am not an ASTM Member." Fill out the form and click on an item like, "A new Work Item to revise an existing standard" Enter F2245 for the Disignation. Make your suggestion. My suggestion was to add the following to A2.9.2.3 > (This standard shall not apply to fusible links). > This standard shall not prohibit protection for remote circuits nor shall it prohibit complying with A2.9.2.1 I described the recent engine fire as a reason to implement the change. Joe -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=437064#437064 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.