Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:52 AM - Re: Switch For Thermocouple Wires (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 05:06 AM - Re: G5 <-> S-Tec Sys 50 ()
3. 06:08 AM - Re: Switch For Thermocouple Wires (Charlie England)
4. 06:27 AM - Re: Switch For Thermocouple Wires (Bill Boyd)
5. 06:31 AM - Re: Switch For Thermocouple Wires (Alec Myers)
6. 07:54 AM - Re: Switch For Thermocouple Wires (Daniel Hooper)
7. 10:18 AM - Re: Switch For Thermocouple Wires (William Hunter)
8. 10:34 AM - Re: Switch For Thermocouple Wires (William Hunter)
9. 11:20 AM - Re: Switch For Thermocouple Wires (Eric Page)
10. 02:03 PM - Re: Switch For Thermocouple Wires (ARGOLDMAN@aol.com)
11. 02:14 PM - Re: Switch For Thermocouple Wires (Eric Page)
12. 02:40 PM - Re: G5 <-> S-Tec Sys 50 (Peter Pengilly)
13. 03:19 PM - Re: G5 <-> S-Tec Sys 50 ()
14. 04:48 PM - Re: G5 <-> S-Tec Sys 50 (Ralph E. Capen)
15. 05:05 PM - Re: Intermittent Battery Failure (user9253)
16. 08:31 PM - Tin Contact Finish (Art Zemon)
17. 11:04 PM - Re: Tin Contact Finish (Bob Verwey)
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: Switch For Thermocouple Wires |
At 12:31 AM 7/27/2016, you wrote:
>On Jul 26, 2016, at 5:29 PM, William Hunter
><<mailto:billhuntersemail@gmail.com>billhuntersemail@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>I am somewhat interested in knowing how hot a fire is...
>
>For gasoline, ignition temp is 232=C2=B0C and flame
>temp varies from ~945=C2=B0C to 1,950=C2=B0C depending on conditions.
>
>Eric
It's been about 30 years since I fiddled with
fire detection techniques. We looked at them as
a potential product for Electro-Mech about 1980.
No software back then . . . all discrete jelly
beans. There were two techniques that showed
promise. One involved temperature sensors at
ram air inlet and cooling outlet ports and
circuitry that watched for (1) outlet to
exceed xx degrees along with (2) a rate
of rise in the differential between the
two.
The other technique, and the one most popular
with our customers involved routing a kind
of linear thermistor around the engine's
potential hot spots during a fire. The
'thermistor' looked for all the world like
a piece of semi-rigid coax cable. Thin
metal jacket (stainless I think). Center
conductor of solid metal. A 'dielectric'
of thermistor material.
Looking into the end of the 'coax' one
would see an infinite number of thermistors
all tied in parallel. But should any portion
of the 'coax' be exposed to flame, the thermistor
material in that area would present a sharp
drop in resistance which was detected by
the electronics.
We never did pursue the opportunity beyond
the gee-what-if stage. I went off to work
the servoed pitch trim controller for the
Lears . . . Dean did an APU controller for
Duncan Aviation.
The long, temperature sensitive 'coax' was
kinda cool. You could route it as needed in
the engine space but it was a specialty
product that was custom-manufactured to
the design. Breathtaking start-up costs.
With software one could place one or more
temperature sensors about the engine spaces
and write scanning/interpretation routines
to identify abnormal temperature profiles.
For an OBAM aviation project, I can see
a kind of universal fire detection system
that is first installed in a 'learn' mode
and flown for xx hours. Once 'normal'
temperatures are identified and cataloged,
a 'operate' mode would raise a flag if
conditions markedly outside the normal
parameters was detected.
It's an interesting design study that
was very low on Electro-Mech's totem pole
of market opportunities. Under the cowl
fires just don't figure into a significant
percentage of bad-days-in-the-cockpit.
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: G5 <-> S-Tec Sys 50 |
I am not sure if it's myopia or strategy. They already have it approved for cert.
AC (the signs were that they would not; or not so fast).
BTW "not designed to interface with 3rd party autopilots" could, but does not necessarily
mean "not able". Will keep digging.
Rumen
do not archive
---- "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net> wrote:
============
It's a shame they're blind in the foresight department:
This device could replace every $12,000 HSI installation when the internal gyros
fail.
This device could get every homebuilder into glass screens.
This device could salvage Garmin's monopolistic reputation...
Remember IBM's MicroChannel architecture - and the Sony BetaMax VCR's...both were
proprietary monopolistic versions of other devices that nearly cost these companies
their existence.
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Pengilly
Sent: Jul 26, 2016 5:17 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: G5 <-> S-Tec Sys 50
Garmin says the G5 is not designed to interface with 3rd party autopilots ...
On 26 Jul 2016 19:46, <rd2@dejazzd.com> wrote:
Hi all,
The S-Tec Sys 50 Auto Pilot has a dedicated DG for heading mode and a dedicated
TC for leveling.
The new Garmin G5 interfaces with Garmin's GMC 30X AP interface.
Does anyone know, if G5 (used as stand alone) can interface with Sys 50 AP in terms
of steering Sys 50 via the heading bug (Sys 50 heading mode) and to serve
as its Turn Coordinator ?
Rumen
==========
-
Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
==========
FORUMS -
eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
==========
WIKI -
errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
==========
b Site -
-Matt Dralle, List Admin.
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
==========
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: Switch For Thermocouple Wires |
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 12:31 AM 7/27/2016, you wrote:
>
> On Jul 26, 2016, at 5:29 PM, William Hunter < billhuntersemail@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> I am somewhat interested in knowing how hot a fire is...
>
>
> For gasoline, ignition temp is 232=C3=82=C2=B0C and flame temp varies fro
m ~945=C3=82=C2=B0C
> to 1,950=C3=82=C2=B0C depending on conditions.
>
> Eric
>
>
> It's been about 30 years since I fiddled with
> fire detection techniques. We looked at them as
> a potential product for Electro-Mech about 1980.
>
> No software back then . . . all discrete jelly
> beans. There were two techniques that showed
> promise. One involved temperature sensors at
> ram air inlet and cooling outlet ports and
> circuitry that watched for (1) outlet to
> exceed xx degrees along with (2) a rate
> of rise in the differential between the
> two.
>
> The other technique, and the one most popular
> with our customers involved routing a kind
> of linear thermistor around the engine's
> potential hot spots during a fire. The
> 'thermistor' looked for all the world like
> a piece of semi-rigid coax cable. Thin
> metal jacket (stainless I think). Center
> conductor of solid metal. A 'dielectric'
> of thermistor material.
>
> Looking into the end of the 'coax' one
> would see an infinite number of thermistors
> all tied in parallel. But should any portion
> of the 'coax' be exposed to flame, the thermistor
> material in that area would present a sharp
> drop in resistance which was detected by
> the electronics.
>
> We never did pursue the opportunity beyond
> the gee-what-if stage. I went off to work
> the servoed pitch trim controller for the
> Lears . . . Dean did an APU controller for
> Duncan Aviation.
>
> The long, temperature sensitive 'coax' was
> kinda cool. You could route it as needed in
> the engine space but it was a specialty
> product that was custom-manufactured to
> the design. Breathtaking start-up costs.
>
> With software one could place one or more
> temperature sensors about the engine spaces
> and write scanning/interpretation routines
> to identify abnormal temperature profiles.
>
> For an OBAM aviation project, I can see
> a kind of universal fire detection system
> that is first installed in a 'learn' mode
> and flown for xx hours. Once 'normal'
> temperatures are identified and cataloged,
> a 'operate' mode would raise a flag if
> conditions markedly outside the normal
> parameters was detected.
>
> It's an interesting design study that
> was very low on Electro-Mech's totem pole
> of market opportunities. Under the cowl
> fires just don't figure into a significant
> percentage of bad-days-in-the-cockpit.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
A number of years ago, there were a few guys playing with optical flame
sensors (triggered by the light spectrum of actual flame, instead of heat).
Idea was quicker & more discriminating detection of actual fire, vs just
high temps. Conversation kinda faded away, so I don't know if they ever got
it implemented. IIRC, the detectors were a bit pricey, so given the rather
low odds of fire, I never pursued it for myself. William may have more
motivation, flying a pusher.
Charlie
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: Switch For Thermocouple Wires |
I'm thinking extreme analog/tinker-toy technology, here, but why not a
cotton string across the cowl outlet that holds open a spring-loaded N.O.
switch. Fire would presumably burn it through quickly. A cross-check with
a cowl air temp indicator would help confirm actual fire vs. "the old
string finally rotted-through between annuals."
Since we now fly in the digital age, the obvious modern solution is a belly
cam to show the flames licking out of the cowl exit.
-Stormy
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 12:31 AM 7/27/2016, you wrote:
>
> On Jul 26, 2016, at 5:29 PM, William Hunter < billhuntersemail@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> I am somewhat interested in knowing how hot a fire is...
>
>
> For gasoline, ignition temp is 232=C3=82=C2=B0C and flame temp varies fro
m ~945=C3=82=C2=B0C
> to 1,950=C3=82=C2=B0C depending on conditions.
>
> Eric
>
>
> It's been about 30 years since I fiddled with
> fire detection techniques. We looked at them as
> a potential product for Electro-Mech about 1980.
>
> No software back then . . . all discrete jelly
> beans. There were two techniques that showed
> promise. One involved temperature sensors at
> ram air inlet and cooling outlet ports and
> circuitry that watched for (1) outlet to
> exceed xx degrees along with (2) a rate
> of rise in the differential between the
> two.
>
> The other technique, and the one most popular
> with our customers involved routing a kind
> of linear thermistor around the engine's
> potential hot spots during a fire. The
> 'thermistor' looked for all the world like
> a piece of semi-rigid coax cable. Thin
> metal jacket (stainless I think). Center
> conductor of solid metal. A 'dielectric'
> of thermistor material.
>
> Looking into the end of the 'coax' one
> would see an infinite number of thermistors
> all tied in parallel. But should any portion
> of the 'coax' be exposed to flame, the thermistor
> material in that area would present a sharp
> drop in resistance which was detected by
> the electronics.
>
> We never did pursue the opportunity beyond
> the gee-what-if stage. I went off to work
> the servoed pitch trim controller for the
> Lears . . . Dean did an APU controller for
> Duncan Aviation.
>
> The long, temperature sensitive 'coax' was
> kinda cool. You could route it as needed in
> the engine space but it was a specialty
> product that was custom-manufactured to
> the design. Breathtaking start-up costs.
>
> With software one could place one or more
> temperature sensors about the engine spaces
> and write scanning/interpretation routines
> to identify abnormal temperature profiles.
>
> For an OBAM aviation project, I can see
> a kind of universal fire detection system
> that is first installed in a 'learn' mode
> and flown for xx hours. Once 'normal'
> temperatures are identified and cataloged,
> a 'operate' mode would raise a flag if
> conditions markedly outside the normal
> parameters was detected.
>
> It's an interesting design study that
> was very low on Electro-Mech's totem pole
> of market opportunities. Under the cowl
> fires just don't figure into a significant
> percentage of bad-days-in-the-cockpit.
>
>
> 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: Switch For Thermocouple Wires |
>> The other technique, and the one most popular
with our customers involved routing a kind
of linear thermistor around the engine's
potential hot spots during a fire. The
'thermistor' looked for all the world like
a piece of semi-rigid coax cable. Thin
metal jacket (stainless I think). Center
conductor of solid metal. A 'dielectric'
of thermistor material.
-There's something that looks a lot like this run in a circle around the wheel
wells of various jet transport aircraft I've see, presumably to detect brake/tire
fires when the undercarriage is retracted.
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: Switch For Thermocouple Wires |
That=92s an interesting idea=85
If you=92re just looking at an =91extreme rise=92 temperature, you could
put a bunch of NTCs* in parallel down a length of wire, and when the
impedance drops somewhere, you would get an indication. Electrically
it=92s pretty similar to the thermistor snake.
Probably a good bit of fab work, but just the cost of some wire,
heatshrink, and a handful of NTCs!**
*Negative thermal coefficient thermistors
> On Jul 27, 2016, at 6:49 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
<nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
> The other technique, and the one most popular
> with our customers involved routing a kind
> of linear thermistor around the engine's
> potential hot spots during a fire.
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: | Switch For Thermocouple Wires |
Good information and great ideas (I especially like the string idea)!!!
The Velocity design is such that the engine cooling air gets ducted to the
top of the engine via NACA ducts on the top aft portion of the airplane
roof. This cooling air flows through sealed ducting to a plenum on top of
the engine and then the air is forced down through the cylinder cooling fins
to the bottom of the engine where the exhaust system is located. The air
then flows around the exhaust system and then gets sucked out through the
aft cowling holes by the propeller.
Like in a traditional Cessna, the air at the top half of the engine is cool
ambient air and then as it flows down through the engine and flows against
the exhaust pipes it heats up. The Velocity engine compartment can get
rather hot in the front of the engine between the engine and the firewall
(especially at the top) because the air can stagnate. I am working on
designing cooling louvers in the bottom cowling so as to help draw the hot
air out of the forward section of the engine compartment. Here is a picture
of a really professional installation I stole from the internet so you can
get the idea.
Mounted directly to the firewall on the passenger compartment side (cold
side) of the firewall is a 5 gallon fuel collector tank made of fiberglass.
Since this booger might want to turn into a Molotov Cocktail if the
conditions are right (by "right" I really mean "really.REALLY.WRONG") I am
keenly interested in proactively monitoring the engine cowling temperature.
On a tractor airplane, if there is a fire in the engine compartment the
cowling will belch smoke and the paint will bubble and flames would be
visible.On a pusher airplane.not so much.
I think my strategy will be to install a thermocouple at the top of the
firewall on a "L" bracket with the thermocouple sensor end pointing down and
I will cover the wires in Aeroquip fire sleeve from the probe all the way to
the firewall penetration pass through.
I will then place the cowling temperature digital readout on the Skyview
screen in a location under the CHT readouts. The digital readout will
just look like "COWL 285F" in white text. I will monitor the readout for a
few flights and if the temp routinely gets to 300F but no higher I will then
set the Skyview system to change the digits from white to yellow at 400F and
then to red at 500F as a wake up.
If I am ever flying along fat, dumb, and happy and I see the digits rapidly
change from white to yellow to red as the indication shoots up to the 4
digits.and then.the digits begin to display "XXXX" then I guess the day has
become bad and I am still fat.and dumb.but no longer happy.
THANKS AGAIN for your advice!!!
..
Cheers!!!
Bill Hunter
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Daniel
Hooper
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 7:53 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Switch For Thermocouple Wires
That's an interesting idea.
If you're just looking at an 'extreme rise' temperature, you could put a
bunch of NTCs* in parallel down a length of wire, and when the impedance
drops somewhere, you would get an indication. Electrically it's pretty
similar to the thermistor snake.
Probably a good bit of fab work, but just the cost of some wire, heatshrink,
and a handful of NTCs!**
*Negative thermal coefficient thermistors
On Jul 27, 2016, at 6:49 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
<nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com <mailto:nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> >
wrote:
The other technique, and the one most popular
with our customers involved routing a kind
of linear thermistor around the engine's
potential hot spots during a fire.
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: Switch For Thermocouple Wires |
Good information and great ideas (I especially like the string idea)!!!
I think my strategy will be to install a thermocouple at the top of the
firewall on a "L" bracket with the thermocouple sensor end pointing down and
I will cover the wires in Aeroquip fire sleeve from the probe all the way to
the firewall penetration pass through.
I will then place the cowling temperature digital readout on the Skyview
screen in a location under the CHT readouts. The digital readout will
just look like "COWL 285F" in white text. I will monitor the readout for a
few flights and if the temp routinely gets to 300F but no higher I will then
set the Skyview system to change the digits from white to yellow at 400F and
then to red at 500F as a wake up.
If I am ever flying along fat, dumb, and happy and I see the digits rapidly
change from white to yellow to red as the indication shoots up to the 4
digits.and then.the digits begin to display "XXXX" then I guess the day has
become bad and I am still fat.and dumb.but no longer happy.
THANKS AGAIN for your advice!!!
.
Cheers!!!
Bill Hunter
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Daniel
Hooper
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 7:53 AM
Subject: Re: Switch For Thermocouple Wires
That's an interesting idea.
If you're just looking at an 'extreme rise' temperature, you could put a
bunch of NTCs* in parallel down a length of wire, and when the impedance
drops somewhere, you would get an indication. Electrically it's pretty
similar to the thermistor snake.
Probably a good bit of fab work, but just the cost of some wire, heatshrink,
and a handful of NTCs!**
*Negative thermal coefficient thermistors
On Jul 27, 2016, at 6:49 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
<nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com <mailto:nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> >
wrote:
The other technique, and the one most popular
with our customers involved routing a kind
of linear thermistor around the engine's
potential hot spots during a fire.
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: Switch For Thermocouple Wires |
On Jul 27, 2016, at 4:49 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroelect
ric.com> wrote:
> The other technique, and the one most popular with our customers involved r
outing a kind of linear thermistor around the engine's potential hot spots d
uring a fire. The 'thermistor' looked for all the world like a piece of semi
-rigid coax cable. Thin metal jacket (stainless I think). Center conductor o
f solid metal. A 'dielectric' of thermistor material.
>
> Looking into the end of the 'coax' one would see an infinite number of the
rmistors all tied in parallel. But should any portion of the 'coax' be expo
sed to flame, the thermistor material in that area would present a sharp dro
p in resistance which was detected by the electronics.
That's the technique that Bombardier uses in their products (at least the on
es I flew). The thermistor loops are installed around the hot section and p
ylon of each engine, along the anti-ice bleed air ducts, inside the APU encl
osure and on the ceiling of the main wheel wells. Unfortunately I no longer
have access to the electronic manuals and my hard copy is in a box somewher
e, so I can't post the technical description.
Boeing took a different route that, to my mind, seems a bit more fiddly and l
ess robust. See the attached PDF excerpt from the B-737NG systems manual. I
'm not sure if this system is a relic from the original 1960's design, or a l
ater revision.
Eric
P.S. In case the PDF doesn't come through, here's the pertinent text: "Eac
h engine contains two overheat/fire detector loops. Each loop provides both f
ire and overheat detection. When the temperature reaches the Overheat Set Po
int, the gas in the detector loop expands, closing the Overheat Pressure Swi
tch. This decreases the resistance of the detector. The Engine and APU Fire D
etection Module uses the decrease in resistance to set the overheat conditio
n. As temperature increases to the Fire Set Point, the gas continues to expa
nd and closes the Fire Pressure Switch, further decreasing the resistance. T
he Engine and APU Fire Detection Module uses the decrease in resistance to s
et the fire condition."
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: Switch For Thermocouple Wires |
Of course you could always use the technique that Burt Rutan used in the
SS1 engine.. I think that he wrapped a copper (or other low fusing wire
around the engine, ran a small current through it and if there were a bre
ach in
the containment vessel, the wire would burn through and open the circuit.
Alternately use an EGT probe in the area of question.
Rich
In a message dated 7/27/2016 1:23:55 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
sportav8r@gmail.com writes:
I'm thinking extreme analog/tinker-toy technology, here, but why not a
cotton string across the cowl outlet that holds open a spring-loaded N.O.
switch. Fire would presumably burn it through quickly. A cross-check wi
th a
cowl air temp indicator would help confirm actual fire vs. "the old strin
g
finally rotted-through between annuals."
Since we now fly in the digital age, the obvious modern solution is a
belly cam to show the flames licking out of the cowl exit.
-Stormy
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 7:49 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III
<_nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com_ (mailto:nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com) >
wrote:
At 12:31 AM 7/27/2016, you wrote:
On Jul 26, 2016, at 5:29 PM, William Hunter <_
billhuntersemail@gmail.com_ (mailto:billhuntersemail@gmail.com) > wrote:
I am somewhat interested in knowing how hot a fire is...
For gasoline, ignition temp is 232=C2=B0C and flame temp varies from ~945
=C2=B0C
to 1,950=C2=B0C depending on conditions.
Eric
It's been about 30 years since I fiddled with
fire detection techniques. We looked at them as
a potential product for Electro-Mech about 1980.
No software back then . . . all discrete jelly
beans. There were two techniques that showed
promise. One involved temperature sensors at
ram air inlet and cooling outlet ports and
circuitry that watched for (1) outlet to
exceed xx degrees along with (2) a rate
of rise in the differential between the
two.
The other technique, and the one most popular
with our customers involved routing a kind
of linear thermistor around the engine's
potential hot spots during a fire. The
'thermistor' looked for all the world like
a piece of semi-rigid coax cable. Thin
metal jacket (stainless I think). Center
conductor of solid metal. A 'dielectric'
of thermistor material.
Looking into the end of the 'coax' one
would see an infinite number of thermistors
all tied in parallel. But should any portion
of the 'coax' be exposed to flame, the thermistor
material in that area would present a sharp
drop in resistance which was detected by
the electronics.
We never did pursue the opportunity beyond
the gee-what-if stage. I went off to work
the servoed pitch trim controller for the
Lears . . . Dean did an APU controller for
Duncan Aviation.
The long, temperature sensitive 'coax' was
kinda cool. You could route it as needed in
the engine space but it was a specialty
product that was custom-manufactured to
the design. Breathtaking start-up costs.
With software one could place one or more
temperature sensors about the engine spaces
and write scanning/interpretation routines
to identify abnormal temperature profiles.
For an OBAM aviation project, I can see
a kind of universal fire detection system
that is first installed in a 'learn' mode
and flown for xx hours. Once 'normal'
temperatures are identified and cataloged,
a 'operate' mode would raise a flag if
conditions markedly outside the normal
parameters was detected.
It's an interesting design study that
was very low on Electro-Mech's totem pole
of market opportunities. Under the cowl
fires just don't figure into a significant
percentage of bad-days-in-the-cockpit.
Bob . . .
Message 11
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: Switch For Thermocouple Wires |
On Jul 27, 2016, at 4:49 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
wrote:
> The other technique, and the one most popular with our customers involved routing
a kind of linear thermistor around the engine's potential hot spots during
a fire. The 'thermistor' looked for all the world like a piece of semi-rigid
coax cable. Thin metal jacket (stainless I think). Center conductor of solid
metal. A 'dielectric' of thermistor material.
>
> Looking into the end of the 'coax' one would see an infinite number of thermistors
all tied in parallel. But should any portion of the 'coax' be exposed to
flame, the thermistor material in that area would present a sharp drop in resistance
which was detected by the electronics.
That's the technique that Bombardier uses in their products (at least the ones
I flew). The thermistor loops are installed around the hot section and pylon
of each engine, along the anti-ice bleed air ducts, inside the APU enclosure and
on the ceiling of the main wheel wells. Unfortunately I no longer have access
to the electronic manuals and my hard copy is in a box somewhere, so I can't
post the technical description.
Boeing took a different route; one that, to my mind, seems a bit more fiddly and
less robust. The following is an excerpt from the B-737NG systems manual.
I'm not sure if this system is a relic of the original 1960's design, or a later
revision.
>>>
Each engine contains two overheat/fire detector loops. Each loop provides both
fire and overheat detection. When the temperature reaches the Overheat Set Point,
the gas in the detector loop expands, closing the Overheat Pressure Switch.
This decreases the resistance of the detector. The Engine and APU Fire Detection
Module uses the decrease in resistance to set the overheat condition.
As temperature increases to the Fire Set Point, the gas continues to expand
and closes the Fire Pressure Switch, further decreasing the resistance. The Engine
and APU Fire Detection Module uses the decrease in resistance to set the
fire condition.
<<<
Eric
Message 12
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: G5 <-> S-Tec Sys 50 |
Grand Rapids Mini looks like potentially a more flexible device. I have had
one for 18 months, so far reliable.
Peter
On 27 Jul 2016 13:21, <rd2@dejazzd.com> wrote:
>
> I am not sure if it's myopia or strategy. They already have it approved
> for cert. AC (the signs were that they would not; or not so fast).
> BTW "not designed to interface with 3rd party autopilots" could, but does
> not necessarily mean "not able". Will keep digging.
> Rumen
> do not archive
>
> ---- "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> ============
> recapen@earthlink.net>
>
> It's a shame they're blind in the foresight department:
> This device could replace every $12,000 HSI installation when the internal
> gyros fail.
> This device could get every homebuilder into glass screens.
>
> This device could salvage Garmin's monopolistic reputation...
>
> Remember IBM's MicroChannel architecture - and the Sony BetaMax
> VCR's...both were proprietary monopolistic versions of other devices that
> nearly cost these companies their existence.
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Peter Pengilly
>
> Sent: Jul 26, 2016 5:17 PM
>
> To: Aeroelectric List
>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: G5 <-> S-Tec Sys 50
>
>
> Garmin says the G5 is not designed to interface with 3rd party autopilots
> ...
>
> On 26 Jul 2016 19:46, <rd2@dejazzd.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
> The S-Tec Sys 50 Auto Pilot has a dedicated DG for heading mode and a
> dedicated TC for leveling.
>
>
> The new Garmin G5 interfaces with Garmin's GMC 30X AP interface.
>
>
> Does anyone know, if G5 (used as stand alone) can interface with Sys 50 AP
> in terms of steering Sys 50 via the heading bug (Sys 50 heading mode) and
> to serve as its Turn Coordinator ?
>
>
> Rumen
>
>
> ==========
>
> -
>
> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
> ==========
>
> FORUMS -
>
> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>
> ==========
>
> WIKI -
>
> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
>
> ==========
>
> b Site -
>
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>
> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> ==========
>
>
Message 13
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: G5 <-> S-Tec Sys 50 |
Tx, will check it out.
R
---- Peter Pengilly <peter@sportingaero.com> wrote:
============
Grand Rapids Mini looks like potentially a more flexible device. I have had
one for 18 months, so far reliable.
Peter
On 27 Jul 2016 13:21, <rd2@dejazzd.com> wrote:
>
> I am not sure if it's myopia or strategy. They already have it approved
> for cert. AC (the signs were that they would not; or not so fast).
> BTW "not designed to interface with 3rd party autopilots" could, but does
> not necessarily mean "not able". Will keep digging.
> Rumen
> do not archive
>
> ---- "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> ============
> recapen@earthlink.net>
>
> It's a shame they're blind in the foresight department:
> This device could replace every $12,000 HSI installation when the internal
> gyros fail.
> This device could get every homebuilder into glass screens.
>
> This device could salvage Garmin's monopolistic reputation...
>
> Remember IBM's MicroChannel architecture - and the Sony BetaMax
> VCR's...both were proprietary monopolistic versions of other devices that
> nearly cost these companies their existence.
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Peter Pengilly
>
> Sent: Jul 26, 2016 5:17 PM
>
> To: Aeroelectric List
>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: G5 <-> S-Tec Sys 50
>
>
> Garmin says the G5 is not designed to interface with 3rd party autopilots
> ...
>
> On 26 Jul 2016 19:46, <rd2@dejazzd.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
>
> The S-Tec Sys 50 Auto Pilot has a dedicated DG for heading mode and a
> dedicated TC for leveling.
>
>
> The new Garmin G5 interfaces with Garmin's GMC 30X AP interface.
>
>
> Does anyone know, if G5 (used as stand alone) can interface with Sys 50 AP
> in terms of steering Sys 50 via the heading bug (Sys 50 heading mode) and
> to serve as its Turn Coordinator ?
>
>
> Rumen
>
>
> ==========
>
> -
>
> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
> ==========
>
> FORUMS -
>
> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>
> ==========
>
> WIKI -
>
> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
>
> ==========
>
> b Site -
>
> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>
> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
> ==========
>
>
Message 14
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: G5 <-> S-Tec Sys 50 |
I'm looking at it right now as well.
Trying to determine if it will interface with my S-Tec-30 using ARINC-429....
-----Original Message-----
>From: rd2@dejazzd.com
>Sent: Jul 27, 2016 6:17 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: G5 <-> S-Tec Sys 50
>
>
>Tx, will check it out.
>R
>---- Peter Pengilly <peter@sportingaero.com> wrote:
>
>============
>Grand Rapids Mini looks like potentially a more flexible device. I have had
>one for 18 months, so far reliable.
>Peter
>
>On 27 Jul 2016 13:21, <rd2@dejazzd.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I am not sure if it's myopia or strategy. They already have it approved
>> for cert. AC (the signs were that they would not; or not so fast).
>> BTW "not designed to interface with 3rd party autopilots" could, but does
>> not necessarily mean "not able". Will keep digging.
>> Rumen
>> do not archive
>>
>> ---- "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> ============
>> recapen@earthlink.net>
>>
>> It's a shame they're blind in the foresight department:
>> This device could replace every $12,000 HSI installation when the internal
>> gyros fail.
>> This device could get every homebuilder into glass screens.
>>
>> This device could salvage Garmin's monopolistic reputation...
>>
>> Remember IBM's MicroChannel architecture - and the Sony BetaMax
>> VCR's...both were proprietary monopolistic versions of other devices that
>> nearly cost these companies their existence.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>
>> From: Peter Pengilly
>>
>> Sent: Jul 26, 2016 5:17 PM
>>
>> To: Aeroelectric List
>>
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: G5 <-> S-Tec Sys 50
>>
>>
>>
>> Garmin says the G5 is not designed to interface with 3rd party autopilots
>> ...
>>
>> On 26 Jul 2016 19:46, <rd2@dejazzd.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>>
>> The S-Tec Sys 50 Auto Pilot has a dedicated DG for heading mode and a
>> dedicated TC for leveling.
>>
>>
>>
>> The new Garmin G5 interfaces with Garmin's GMC 30X AP interface.
>>
>>
>>
>> Does anyone know, if G5 (used as stand alone) can interface with Sys 50 AP
>> in terms of steering Sys 50 via the heading bug (Sys 50 heading mode) and
>> to serve as its Turn Coordinator ?
>>
>>
>>
>> Rumen
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ==========
>>
>> -
>>
>> Electric-List" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>
>> ==========
>>
>> FORUMS -
>>
>> eferrer" target="_blank">http://forums.matronics.com
>>
>> ==========
>>
>> WIKI -
>>
>> errer" target="_blank">http://wiki.matronics.com
>>
>> ==========
>>
>> b Site -
>>
>> -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
>>
>> rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>>
>> ==========
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 15
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: Intermittent Battery Failure |
Bob,
You might try cooling the battery. If that does not bring it to life, try some
gentle pounding with your fists.
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=458806#458806
Message 16
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: | Tin Contact Finish |
Folks,
This has nothing to do with airplanes.
I was idling away my evening browsing through digikey.com (don't ask me why
this is fun!) and noticed some connectors are brass colored and others,
like
http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/te-connectivity-amp-connectors/170032-5/A100888CT-ND/2259557
, are grey. By carefully reading the specs, I see that the grey one is
brass with a tin "contact finish".
Why would you choose all brass vs. brass with a tin contact finish?
Thanks,
-- Art Z.
http://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
"If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, what
am I? And if not now, when?" Hillel
Message 17
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: Tin Contact Finish |
Art my guess would be that the brass wants to go back to the sea when there
is a hint of moisture...it turns green with envy, which leads to other
problems!
On Thursday, 28 July 2016, Art Zemon <art@zemon.name> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> This has nothing to do with airplanes.
>
> I was idling away my evening browsing through digikey.com (don't ask me
> why this is fun!) and noticed some connectors are brass colored and others,
> like
> http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/te-connectivity-amp-connectors/170032-5/A100888CT-ND/2259557
> , are grey. By carefully reading the specs, I see that the grey one is
> brass with a tin "contact finish".
>
> Why would you choose all brass vs. brass with a tin contact finish?
>
> Thanks,
> -- Art Z.
>
> http://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/
>
> "If I am not for myself, who is for me? And if I am only for myself, what
> am I? And if not now, when?" Hillel
>
--
Best...
Bob Verwey
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! --
|