Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:21 AM - Re: 12v vs 14v System? (mmayfield)
2. 04:49 AM - Re: Re: 12v vs 14v System? (Werner Schneider)
3. 06:20 AM - Re: Re: 12v vs 14v System? (Bob McCallum)
4. 08:06 AM - Re: Risks associated with unproven crimp tools . . . (GLEN MATEJCEK)
5. 10:26 AM - Re: Re: Risks associated with unproven crimp tools . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 11:11 AM - Re: Re: Risks associated with unproven crimp tools . . . (Kent or Jackie Ashton)
7. 11:12 AM - Re: Re: Risks associated with unproven crimp tools . . . (Ron Walker)
8. 12:23 PM - Re: Re: Risks associated with unproven crimp tools . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
9. 01:30 PM - Re: weird radio trouble (Justin Jones)
10. 01:43 PM - Re: Re: Risks associated with unproven crimp tools . . . (C&K)
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: 12v vs 14v System? |
I didn't ask for "standard voltages". I wrote "standard terms". That is, standard
"terminology" to describe a type of system.
You have some manufacturers calling it a "12v system" and others a "14v system".
What's so hard about keeping the terminology consistent when they're talking
about the exact same thing?
--------
Mike
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=438440#438440
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: 12v vs 14v System? |
Mike agree with your confusion about standards. We might put it a bit
like following:
-with engine stopped you will have a 12V system
-with engine running you will have a 14V system
this not taking into account the digits behind the decimal as well as
assuming a standard PB battery
Cheers Werner
On 17.02.2015 13:19, mmayfield wrote:
>
> I didn't ask for "standard voltages". I wrote "standard terms". That is, standard
"terminology" to describe a type of system.
>
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: 12v vs 14v System? |
Throwing charging voltages into the mix is where the confusion arises.
Going back 100 or so years=2C cars were 6 volt=2C then in the early 50's al
ong came the improvement to 12 volt. No one mentioned that those 6 volt bat
teries were charged at some higher voltage (which they were) and no one men
tioned that the "new" 12 volt cars charged at a higher voltage still. Almos
t everyone referes to car electrical systems as "12 volt" and doesn't worry
about the subtle detail of actual measured voltages unless trouble shootin
g for some perceived problem. When was the last time you heard anyone refer
to their 14 volt car???? Aircraft are fundamentally the same. With aircraf
t (smaller ones at least) the "standard" systems have traditionally been 12
or 24 volt systems. While bringing the fact of higher charging voltages in
to the mix is technically correct=2C there is no need to play semantics of
whether the system is 12V or 14V. (or 14.2V or 13.9V) It's the same system.
The details of actual measured voltages at any point in time do not change
the fact the system is either 12 volt or 24 volt even if you can measure 2
8.4 volts with your voltmeter. Keep it simple as you're unlikely to be tech
nically accurate at any point in time.
Bob McC
> Date: Tue=2C 17 Feb 2015 13:48:09 +0100
> From: glastar@gmx.net
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: 12v vs 14v System?
>
t>
>
> Mike agree with your confusion about standards. We might put it a bit
> like following:
>
> -with engine stopped you will have a 12V system
> -with engine running you will have a 14V system
>
> this not taking into account the digits behind the decimal as well as
> assuming a standard PB battery
>
> Cheers Werner
>
> On 17.02.2015 13:19=2C mmayfield wrote:
.com.au>
> >
> > I didn't ask for "standard voltages". I wrote "standard terms". That is
=2C standard "terminology" to describe a type of system.
> >
>
===========
===========
===========
===========
>
>
>
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: Risks associated with unproven crimp tools . . |
.
I was going down that very path, but the fellow at the rather large welding
supply house told me it would take $10 per terminal to do the crimps, or
for $10 I could by my own tool. This particular widget can be bolted to a
bench or held in a substantial vise and then operated with an appropriately
calibrated Inertial Motivator, in this case a 2 1/2 pound sledge. Works
like a charm. I did solder the ring end of the crimps, both to
definitively seal and electrically bond the joint. The cable end of the
crimp is treated with liquid electrical tape and heat shrink tubing. One
caution: If there is to be a bend in the cable close to the terminal,
approximate the bend prior to setting the crimp. The final product will be
much easier to use.
>
> ***SNIP***
> If you use welding cable for your fat-wires, the weld shop
> where you bought the wire can probably sell you terminals and
> install them with proven tools.
> ***SNIP***
>
>
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: Risks associated with unproven crimp tools |
. . .
Just for grins, I put new terminals on the end of
the test article I received. Voltage drop across
the segment (terminal to terminal) went down from
9+ millivolts to 2.6 millivolts . . . the calculated
drop for the wire itself. In other words, joint resistance
at the terminal interface added no resistance I could
measure . . .
At 10:05 2015-02-17, you wrote:
I was going down that very path, but the fellow
at the rather large welding supply house told me
it would take $10 per terminal to do the crimps,
or for $10 I could by my own tool.
Yes. A few months back we discussed this item from
Harbor Freight . . .
http://tinyurl.com/3tfwav3
I just checked the reviews again and they're good.
Comes with a broad range of die sets that cover
the probable range of needs in our airplanes.
I may pop for one of these and do an article
on it. If you have more than a half-dozen
fat wire terminals to install . . . and you don't
want to solder . . . this is a good value option.
=C2 This particular widget can be bolted to a
bench or held in a substantial vise and then
operated with an appropriately calibrated
Inertial Motivator, in this case a 2 1/2 pound
sledge.=C2 Works like a charm.=C2 I did solder the
ring end of the crimps, both to definitively seal
and electrically bond the joint.=C2 The cable end
of the crimp is treated with liquid electrical tape and heat shrink tubing.
=C2
The operative word here is SOLDER . . . keep in mind
that the design goal calls for 'gas tight' interface
between wire strands and the terminal's wire-trip
barrel.
The minimum-fuss technique calls for a rather well
calibrated mash of wire grip barrel around the strands.
One stroke . . . done right. The other technique
described in my article calls for filling all voids
of the joint with solder and (as necessary) copper
wedges. EITHER technique (or as Glen points out)
a COMBINATION of processes all go to achievement
of the gas-tight design goal . . . lack of
calibration for hammer blows becomes moot.
The terminals I just installed were solder only.
The terminal was snug on the wire so no wedges
were called for.
One caution: =C2 If there is to be a bend in the
cable close to the terminal, approximate the bend
prior to setting the crimp.=C2 The final product will be much easier to
use.
Yes . . . 'aircraft' wire is exceedingly picky
for bend allowances. I MUCH prefer welding cable.
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: Risks associated with unproven crimp tools |
. . .
Bob, had any experience soldering terminals to copper-cladded aluminum (CCA)
cable? I tried a couple of time using a propane torch with flux added and w
ithout flux. The solder just did not want to merge with the materials. Alw
ays found it pretty easy with copper cable.
-kent
> On Feb 17, 2015, at 1:24 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroele
ctric.com> wrote:
>
> The operative word here is SOLDER . . . keep in mind
> that the design goal calls for 'gas tight' interface
> between wire strands and the terminal's wire-trip
> barrel.
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: Risks associated with unproven crimp tools |
. . .
First hand experience with this product. I've used it for all
battery/ground cables for my 7a and 10. Crimps the copper terminals to
the welding cable with ease.
--Ron
On 2/17/2015 12:24 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> * Yes. A few months back we discussed this item from
> Harbor Freight . . .
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3tfwav3
>
> I just checked the reviews again and they're good.
> Comes with a broad range of die sets that cover
> the probable range of needs in our airplanes.
> I may pop for one of these and do an article
> on it. If you have more than a half-dozen
> fat wire terminals to install . . . and you don't
> want to solder . . . this is a good value option.*
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: Risks associated with unproven crimp tools |
. . .
At 13:10 2015-02-17, you wrote:
Bob, had any experience soldering terminals to copper-cladded
aluminum (CCA) cable? I tried a couple of time using a propane torch
with flux added and without flux. The solder just did not want to
merge with the materials. Always found it pretty easy with copper cable.
-kent
Yes. At least the cable that Eric was selling
a few years ago. He sent me a sample and I successfully
crimped and soldered terminals to the wire.
Not sure about how much copper cladding 'washes'
off into the solder/copper amalgam of a finished
joint. To be sure, if the copper is too thin to
solder, aluminum exposed by solder at the base
of the melt would pose new questions as to the
joint's quality.
But of course, copper terminals onto copper wire
is a low-risk effort.
Bob . . .
Message 9
| 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: weird radio trouble |
Condensation forming on all exterior surfaces can also equal condensation on
internal surfaces.
Make sure all radio connections (especially antenna connections) are clean, d
ry, and free from corrosion.
I have seen these symptoms with moisture inside of a connector. Good on the g
round but when you take off and fly, the temperature drops and the moisture f
reezes causing increased resistance.
Be sure to recheck all grounds as well. Pay close attention to the grounds t
hat were touched in the replacement of the engine.
Good luck
Justin
> On Feb 16, 2015, at 10:19, B Tomm <fvalarm@rapidnet.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> A hangar neighbor did an engine overhaul last fall. The airplane didn't f
ly for about 5 months. It sat in a hangar the whole time. Now that it's fly
ing again, there's a new weird radio problem that we can't figure out.
>
> Initial radio operation (on the ground) is... not stellar but OK (maybe 4/
5 for clarity). After airborne for a short time (less than 1/2 hour) commu
nications becomes so poor that radio contact with the tower cannot be mainta
ined.
>
> Aircraft is BD4 (aluminum skins)
> Comm antenna is on top ala Cessna 172 etc
>
> The alternator is also new with the engine overhaul. Plane Power internal
ly regulated.
>
> At first we thought it was a low battery (sitting for 5 months) or alterna
tor problem but a recently added multimeter reveals 14.5V while flying.
>
> The hangar has been very humid at times with condensation forming on all t
he exterior surfaces. So we are wondering about corrosion or connection iss
ues. But comms on the ground are much better than in the air. That may be j
ust following the trend that initial communications is always better. It see
ms to deteriorate a little after being airborne.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Bevan
>
>
>
>
>
>
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3
D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
Message 10
| 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: Risks associated with unproven crimp tools |
. . .
Could it be the flux? I've never worked with CCA but it might be worth
trying one of the newer electronic solders while being careful not to
overheat. In comparison my old standby rosin core solder performs poorly
on less than perfectly clean tinned joints. I was given a partial roll
that is only identified as a Kester product but it works much better.
Ken
On 17/02/2015 3:21 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>
> At 13:10 2015-02-17, you wrote:
> Bob, had any experience soldering terminals to copper-cladded aluminum
> (CCA) cable? I tried a couple of time using a propane torch with flux
> added and without flux. The solder just did not want to merge with
> the materials. Always found it pretty easy with copper cable.
> -kent
>
> Yes. At least the cable that Eric was selling
> a few years ago. He sent me a sample and I successfully
> crimped and soldered terminals to the wire.
>
> Not sure about how much copper cladding 'washes'
> off into the solder/copper amalgam of a finished
> joint. To be sure, if the copper is too thin to
> solder, aluminum exposed by solder at the base
> of the melt would pose new questions as to the
> joint's quality.
>
> But of course, copper terminals onto copper wire
> is a low-risk effort.
>
>
> 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! --
|