Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 08:11 AM - Re: Re: IVOprop current limiter project (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 08:23 AM - Re: Re: IVOprop current limiter project (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 09:41 AM - Question on Grounding (Rocketman1988)
4. 11:01 AM - Re: Question on Grounding (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 12:32 PM - Re: Question on Grounding (Rocketman1988)
6. 05:09 PM - Re: Question on Grounding (FLYaDIVE)
7. 05:36 PM - E-Bus Fuse Size (user9253)
8. 06:13 PM - Re: Question on Grounding (iiNet)
9. 06:32 PM - Re: Question on Grounding (Charlie England)
10. 07:10 PM - Re: Question on Grounding (Kelly McMullen)
11. 07:39 PM - Re: Question on Grounding (user9253)
12. 07:51 PM - Re: Re: Question on Grounding (Earl Schroeder)
13. 08:23 PM - Re: Question on Grounding (John B)
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: IVOprop current limiter project |
At 01:11 PM 10/30/2018, you wrote:
>
>Good job Bob Nuckolls and Todd Bartrim and Paul Fisher.
Thank you. This is a good example of what has
been described as 'spontaneous organization',
'the invisible hand', 'division of labor', and
countless other phrases for centuries.
Simply put, individuals with time, talents
and resources to move a particular activity
forward steps up to the task and gets 'er
done. The whole is at-risk until
all the bits an pieces are in place irrespective
of size and difficulty. Every contribution is
of paramount importance.
I am pleased to have been a participant in
this enhancement to the state of science
and art of our craft.
I'll get the drawings updated. I'd be
pleased to post the data package in the
DIY archives on aeroelectric.com
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: IVOprop current limiter project |
At 02:49 PM 10/30/2018, you wrote:
>
>Todd,
>Thanks for the explanation. You are right about the Gerber
>files. The other 7 files have pictures. I missed the Gerber file
>folder because I was looking for a picture. My bad. I have now
>downloaded the Gerber files.
> I use "Eagle" for making schematics and boards and generating
> Gerber files. Unfortunately it is not intuitive or user friendly
> unless used frequently. If I do not use the program for a long
> time, I have to relearn it. There have been threads in the past on
> this forum discussing other easier to use software.
There are several offerings out there. My particular
fav is ExpressPCB whiche does have a schematic capture
and bill of materials utility. Having 'cut my teeth'
on the schematic styles of the now century
old ARRL/QST publications, I've never warmed up to
the schematic/net-list features of ExpressPCB.
My artwork layout skills have roots in punched
out donuts and rolls of black, red or blue tape
on 1/10th grid mylar. So I was pleased that
ExpressPCB was particularly friendly to a layout
artist suffering from what might be considered arcane
habits.
ExpressPCB has excellent prototyping services
with 3-5 day turnaround . . . saved my arse
numerous times over the past 20 years. You
DO have to order one set of prototypes before
you can pay an extra fee for Gerber files.
No big deal since you probably want to stuff
at least one proof of concept board before
you order up a batch of production.
Further, like the AutoCAD symbols library I've
posted to aeroelectric.com, I have a library
of custom ExpressPCB components I can put up
on the server for anyone who's interested.
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 |
|
Subject: | Question on Grounding |
I have an RV-10 that has a dedicated ground cable running from the aft battery
to the firewall. This cable is connected to the firewall/panel (airframe) ground
AND is connected near the battery, to the airframe.
My question is:
Would it be better to remove the cable in the aft near the battery and have only
one connection to the airframe, the one at the firewall/panel?
Or is it ok to have two points of contact, one forward and one aft?
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484119#484119
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: Question on Grounding |
At 11:40 AM 10/31/2018, you wrote:
><Rocketman@etczone.com>
>
>I have an RV-10 that has a dedicated ground cable running from the
>aft battery to the firewall. This cable is connected to the
>firewall/panel (airframe) ground AND is connected near the battery,
>to the airframe.
>
>My question is:
>
>Would it be better to remove the cable in the aft near the battery
>and have only one connection to the airframe, the one at the firewall/panel?
>
>Or is it ok to have two points of contact, one forward and one aft?
Resistance in the wire is higher than
thru the airframe . . . the only thing
it adds is weight. But it doesn't hurt
anything from an electrical perspective.
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: Question on Grounding |
Thanks, Bob.
I will just leave both attached...
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484123#484123
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: Question on Grounding |
BOB!
Are you on DRUGS!
I got to here your explanation on this one!
You are really saying that the resistance through the air frame is LESS
than that of a singe run of COPPER wire?
WIRE HELL! It's CABLE, what, a #2 AWG.
AHhhhh let me guess??? You are thinking that just because there is more
surface area, the resistance will be lower?
This is DC not RF!
Well, ZERO is always ZERO. And the shortest Zero between two points wins.
That would be the Cable.
What about all the lap joints? Add some time to lap joints and you have a
failure mode. Maybe not much resistance, but even 1 mo is more than a
cable.
And when you really consider it... Since the CABLE is run in parallel with
the air frame. BOTH paths are winners.
Sure it adds weight. But I will gladly add weight and eliminate all those
possible failure points.
Gee, isn't it Piper that tried using ONLY the air frame as a ground and had
all types of failures, not only to the wiring but to the starter as well,
as it was drawing excessive current and had a higher current draw?
And then they got smart and started worrying about WEIGHT. So they went to
ALUMINUM Cables. SMART! Like dropping a brick on your foot, smart! Those
engineers must have gone to the same school as the engineers that used
aluminum wire for house wiring... Remember those house fires? Which lead
to higher insurance rates. Aluminum, which led to an AD on their planes,
an AD to replace the aluminum wire with Copper.
Totally Shocked,
Barry
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 2:09 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> At 11:40 AM 10/31/2018, you wrote:
>
> Rocketman@etczone.com>
>
> I have an RV-10 that has a dedicated ground cable running from the aft
> battery to the firewall. This cable is connected to the firewall/panel
> (airframe) ground AND is connected near the battery, to the airframe.
>
> My question is:
>
> Would it be better to remove the cable in the aft near the battery and
> have only one connection to the airframe, the one at the firewall/panel?
>
> Or is it ok to have two points of contact, one forward and one aft?
>
>
> Resistance in the wire is higher than
> thru the airframe . . . the only thing
> it adds is weight. But it doesn't hurt
> anything from an electrical perspective.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
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 |
|
A pilot recently experienced an instrument panel blackout at night. When he turned
on the E-Bus switch, the panel briefly came back on, but soon went black
again. Luckily the weather was good and he landed safely. You can read about
it here.
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=165520
The E-Bus was protected by 15 amp fuses. Evidently the second and third owners
of the aircraft connected more loads to the E-Ebus, eventually overloading it.
If two fuses are connected in series, even if one is bigger, either one or both
could blow in case of hard ground fault.
Should the E-Bus have main fuses?
If so, then how much larger should the main fuse be than a branch circuit fuse?
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484131#484131
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: Question on Grounding |
Sorry, far more shocked by your comments Barry.
#2 AWG is only required for start currents and is overkill for relatively l
ow current in-flight loads. There is already a big #2 AWG wire for positive t
o the starter motor and having another one for ground is simply unnecessary.
As they say, worry about the grams added to the aeroplane and let the kilog
rams take care of themselves.
Yes, arcing between the stands of ally wire caused fires, which is why Eric J
ones at Perihelion Design sells copper-clad (extruded) wire to stop oxidatio
n and varying potential between strands. So, choose copper (heavy) or copper
-clad ally (larger diameter but 45% lighter), but there is no need to add a g
round wire for normal inflight loads that are very easily serviced by an all
y airframe.
An extra big wire does little to improve start performance (if the wiring ha
s gas tight connections to the airframe, which would also apply to any extra
wire connected in parallel), so it adds nothing but unnecessary weight. The
argument for separate power and ground wires and a forest of common ground t
abs for smaller electrical items it=99s is a totally different story.
Kind regards, Stu
Sent from my iPhone
> On 1 Nov 2018, at 11:08, FLYaDIVE <flyadive@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> BOB!
>
> Are you on DRUGS!
>
> I got to here your explanation on this one!
>
> You are really saying that the resistance through the air frame is LESS th
an that of a singe run of COPPER wire?
> WIRE HELL! It's CABLE, what, a #2 AWG.
> AHhhhh let me guess??? You are thinking that just because there is more s
urface area, the resistance will be lower?
> This is DC not RF!
> Well, ZERO is always ZERO. And the shortest Zero between two points wins.
> That would be the Cable.
> What about all the lap joints? Add some time to lap joints and you have a
failure mode. Maybe not much resistance, but even 1 mo is more than a cabl
e.
> And when you really consider it... Since the CABLE is run in parallel wit
h the air frame. BOTH paths are winners.
>
> Sure it adds weight. But I will gladly add weight and eliminate all those
possible failure points.
> Gee, isn't it Piper that tried using ONLY the air frame as a ground and ha
d all types of failures, not only to the wiring but to the starter as well, a
s it was drawing excessive current and had a higher current draw?
> And then they got smart and started worrying about WEIGHT. So they went t
o ALUMINUM Cables. SMART! Like dropping a brick on your foot, smart! Thos
e engineers must have gone to the same school as the engineers that used alu
minum wire for house wiring... Remember those house fires? Which lead to h
igher insurance rates. Aluminum, which led to an AD on their planes, an AD t
o replace the aluminum wire with Copper.
>
> Totally Shocked,
> Barry
>
>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 2:09 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aer
oelectric.com> wrote:
>> At 11:40 AM 10/31/2018, you wrote:
one.com>
>>>
>>> I have an RV-10 that has a dedicated ground cable running from the aft b
attery to the firewall. This cable is connected to the firewall/panel (airf
rame) ground AND is connected near the battery, to the airframe.
>>>
>>> My question is:
>>>
>>> Would it be better to remove the cable in the aft near the battery and h
ave only one connection to the airframe, the one at the firewall/panel?
>>>
>>> Or is it ok to have two points of contact, one forward and one aft?
>>
>> Resistance in the wire is higher than
>> thru the airframe . . . the only thing
>> it adds is weight. But it doesn't hurt
>> anything from an electrical perspective.
>>
>>
>> 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: Question on Grounding |
Hi Barry,
If you squeeze that aluminum airframe into an air-free cylinder, what
gauge wire would be the same diameter? #0? #000? #0000000000? Give it
some thought.
And if you think aluminum is a bad choice for an electrical conductor,
you might want to move out of your house. (Check the triplex coming from
the pole to the meter base. Might be worth checking the run from the
meter to your panel, too.) Oh, you might want to stay away from any
structure that uses power off the grid, too. (See those high tension
lines running across the country?)
Aluminum got that bad rap due to improper mix of wire type & connector
type. Look at the cheap wall switches & outlets that use the spring
terminals in back for wire; they are marked for only copper. But if you
look at the higher quality screw terminal versions, many (most?) are
marked AL/CU; certified for either copper or aluminum wire. Guess which
got used back in the day when aluminum got that bad rap.
Charlie
On 10/31/2018 7:08 PM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
> BOB!
>
> Are you on DRUGS!
>
> I got to here your explanation on this one!
>
> You are really saying that the resistance through the air frame is
> LESS than that of a singe run of COPPER wire?
> WIRE HELL! It's CABLE, what, a #2 AWG.
> AHhhhh let me guess??? You are thinking that just because there is
> more surface area, the resistance will be lower?
> This is DC not RF!
> Well, ZERO is always ZERO. And the shortest Zero between two points wins.
> That would be the Cable.
> What about all the lap joints? Add some time to lap joints and you
> have a failure mode. Maybe not much resistance, but even 1 mo is more
> than a cable.
> And when you really consider it... Since the CABLE is run in parallel
> with the air frame. BOTH paths are winners.
>
> Sure it adds weight. But I will gladly add weight and eliminate all
> those possible failure points.
> Gee, isn't it Piper that tried using ONLY the air frame as a ground
> and had all types of failures, not only to the wiring but to the
> starter as well, as it was drawing excessive current and had a higher
> current draw?
> And then they got smart and started worrying about WEIGHT. So they
> went to ALUMINUM Cables. SMART! Like dropping a brick on your foot,
> smart! Those engineers must have gone to the same school as the
> engineers that used aluminum wire for house wiring... Remember those
> house fires? Which lead to higher insurance rates. Aluminum, which
> led to an AD on their planes, an AD to replace the aluminum wire with
> Copper.
>
> Totally Shocked,
> Barry
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 2:09 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com <mailto:nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>>
> wrote:
>
> At 11:40 AM 10/31/2018, you wrote:
>> <Rocketman@etczone.com <mailto:Rocketman@etczone.com>>
>>
>> I have an RV-10 that has a dedicated ground cable running from
>> the aft battery to the firewall. This cable is connected to the
>> firewall/panel (airframe) ground AND is connected near the
>> battery, to the airframe.
>>
>> My question is:
>>
>> Would it be better to remove the cable in the aft near the
>> battery and have only one connection to the airframe, the one at
>> the firewall/panel?
>>
>> Or is it ok to have two points of contact, one forward and one aft?
>
> Resistance in the wire is higher than
> thru the airframe . . . the only thing
> it adds is weight. But it doesn't hurt
> anything from an electrical perspective.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
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: Question on Grounding |
Sorry Barry,
If anyone is on drugs it is you. I don't know of any TC aircraft that
does not use the aluminum skin or steel tube frame for the ground path.
Take Mooney for instance. The battery(ies) location is behind the
baggage compartment. Forward of the baggage compartment the airframe is
steel tubes, with aluminum covering attached with #4 sheet metal screws.
The ground path is battery to the aluminum monocoque where it is
mounted, connected to that steel tube frame, connected to the stainless
firewall. Cessna mounted the battery where needed for W&B, grounded to
the aluminum airframe.
Vans has a pretty good reputation for experimental kits. Their wiring
diagram shows battery grounded to the airframe. Of course the builder
can deviate if they wish. Piper's problems were aluminum CABLES and
connectors, not the airframe or method of grounding.
Kelly
On 10/31/2018 5:08 PM, FLYaDIVE wrote:
> BOB!
>
> Are you on DRUGS!
>
>
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: Question on Grounding |
I agree with Bob
--------
Joe Gores
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484136#484136
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: Question on Grounding |
Me too
> On Oct 31, 2018, at 9:38 PM, user9253 <fransew@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I agree with Bob
>
> --------
> Joe Gores
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=484136#484136
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Question on Grounding |
Bob is correct. The airframe makes the ground wire superfluous. This
assumes that no corrosion develops between the fasteners and the various
fuselage skins and parts. After two or three decades, corrosion developed
in the airframes, and a formal ground wire, of copper, became necessary for
consistent engine starting. On a new RV-type aircraft, that heavy #2 wire
is just getting a free ride. It is unnecessary, electrically, UNTIL the
airframe corrodes to the point that excessive resistance is developed. IF
it corrodes at all. Modern epoxy primers and finishes may prevent
corrosion.
That 50-year-old Piper sitting on the ramp in the rain likely corroded
quite quickly, and became one of those airplanes that was "hard to start,"
and had other electrical problems, almost always caused by an inconsistent
ground.
Technically, Bob is right. Again. Many words were devoted to this very
subject in the Aeroelectric Connection book.
John B
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 7:14 PM FLYaDIVE <flyadive@gmail.com> wrote:
> BOB!
>
> Are you on DRUGS!
>
> I got to here your explanation on this one!
>
> You are really saying that the resistance through the air frame is LESS
> than that of a singe run of COPPER wire?
> WIRE HELL! It's CABLE, what, a #2 AWG.
> AHhhhh let me guess??? You are thinking that just because there is more
> surface area, the resistance will be lower?
> This is DC not RF!
> Well, ZERO is always ZERO. And the shortest Zero between two points wins.
> That would be the Cable.
> What about all the lap joints? Add some time to lap joints and you have a
> failure mode. Maybe not much resistance, but even 1 mo is more than a
> cable.
> And when you really consider it... Since the CABLE is run in parallel
> with the air frame. BOTH paths are winners.
>
> Sure it adds weight. But I will gladly add weight and eliminate all those
> possible failure points.
> Gee, isn't it Piper that tried using ONLY the air frame as a ground and
> had all types of failures, not only to the wiring but to the starter as
> well, as it was drawing excessive current and had a higher current draw?
> And then they got smart and started worrying about WEIGHT. So they went
> to ALUMINUM Cables. SMART! Like dropping a brick on your foot, smart!
> Those engineers must have gone to the same school as the engineers that
> used aluminum wire for house wiring... Remember those house fires? Which
> lead to higher insurance rates. Aluminum, which led to an AD on their
> planes, an AD to replace the aluminum wire with Copper.
>
> Totally Shocked,
> Barry
>
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 2:09 PM Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
> nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
>
>> At 11:40 AM 10/31/2018, you wrote:
>>
>> Rocketman@etczone.com>
>>
>> I have an RV-10 that has a dedicated ground cable running from the aft
>> battery to the firewall. This cable is connected to the firewall/panel
>> (airframe) ground AND is connected near the battery, to the airframe.
>>
>> My question is:
>>
>> Would it be better to remove the cable in the aft near the battery and
>> have only one connection to the airframe, the one at the firewall/panel?
>>
>> Or is it ok to have two points of contact, one forward and one aft?
>>
>>
>> Resistance in the wire is higher than
>> thru the airframe . . . the only thing
>> it adds is weight. But it doesn't hurt
>> anything from an electrical perspective.
>>
>>
>> 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! --
|