---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 08/13/19: 9 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 06:49 AM - FYI: Touch Screens...Navy thinks they are terrible. (Eric M. Jones) 2. 07:45 AM - Re: FYI: Touch Screens...Navy thinks they are terrible. (Werner Schneider) 3. 08:54 AM - Re: FYI: Touch Screens...Navy thinks they are terrible. (H. Ivan Haecker) 4. 11:34 AM - Re: FYI: Touch Screens...Navy thinks they are terrible. (Earl Schroeder) 5. 02:35 PM - Re: FYI: Touch Screens...Navy thinks they are terrible. (Ken Ryan) 6. 05:50 PM - Dual Alternator "Failure" (Art Zemon) 7. 06:44 PM - Re: Please critique my Z-11-based electrical design (fidot) 8. 07:31 PM - Re: Please critique my Z-11-based electrical design (user9253) 9. 08:15 PM - Re: Dual Alternator "Failure" (Charlie England) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 06:49:18 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: FYI: Touch Screens...Navy thinks they are terrible. From: "Eric M. Jones" Worth reviewing and thinking about... https://tinyurl.com/Navy-touch-screens Basically, real buttons, knobs, handles and toggle switches are preferable. Don't let "modern" be the enemy of the practicable. -------- 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=490830#490830 ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 07:45:34 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: FYI: Touch Screens...Navy thinks they are terrible. From: Werner Schneider Hi Eric, interesting did read that same story yesterday, but main issue was as well, that the status was unclear between different stations on the ship which caused the issue that one station wa scontrolling the left engine and the 2nd station the right one (wonder in what situation this would be needed) I think it is down to a team without any real operation experience designing a system :) But true and behold not everithing we love on our tablets will work in another environment ;) Cheers Werner On 13.08.2019 15:47, Eric M. Jones wrote: > > Worth reviewing and thinking about... > https://tinyurl.com/Navy-touch-screens > > Basically, real buttons, knobs, handles and toggle switches are preferable. > > Don't let "modern" be the enemy of the practicable. > > -------- > 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=490830#490830 > > ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 08:54:06 AM PST US From: "H. Ivan Haecker" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: FYI: Touch Screens...Navy thinks they are terrible. Wow. And I always thought that I was the only one who disliked touchscreens. And I prefer manual elevator trim and manual flaps. My vehicles also have manual transmissions, so that tells you something about my mental state. Ivan Haecker On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 8:54 AM Eric M. Jones wrote: > emjones@charter.net> > > Worth reviewing and thinking about... > https://tinyurl.com/Navy-touch-screens > > Basically, real buttons, knobs, handles and toggle switches are preferable. > > Don't let "modern" be the enemy of the practicable. > > -------- > 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=490830#490830 > > ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 11:34:46 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: FYI: Touch Screens...Navy thinks they are terrible. From: Earl Schroeder Some predict that most of the systems will eventually change back to previous control methods away from touch screens. Years ago the control by deviation allowed hundreds of process controllers to be monitored by just a few people. Basically a red pointer showing from behind the green area on the controller display was reason for an employees attention. A study by the military (led by my Son [FAA employee]) determined the control by exception was preferred rather than reading number digits requiring the mind to decide if that was normal or not. This retired GE process control tech (over 30+ yrs experience) has not welcomed touch screens and their digital displays from the beginning. I hope that the change back comes sooner rather than later.. Earl Schroeder. > On Aug 13, 2019, at 9:43 AM, Werner Schneider wrote: > > > Hi Eric, > > interesting did read that same story yesterday, but main issue was as > well, that the status was unclear between different stations on the ship > which caused the issue that one station wa scontrolling the left engine > and the 2nd station the right one (wonder in what situation this would > be needed) I think it is down to a team without any real operation > experience designing a system :) > > But true and behold not everithing we love on our tablets will work in > another environment ;) > > Cheers Werner > >> On 13.08.2019 15:47, Eric M. Jones wrote: >> >> Worth reviewing and thinking about... >> https://tinyurl.com/Navy-touch-screens >> >> Basically, real buttons, knobs, handles and toggle switches are preferable. >> >> Don't let "modern" be the enemy of the practicable. >> >> -------- >> 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=490830#490830 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 02:35:28 PM PST US From: Ken Ryan Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: FYI: Touch Screens...Navy thinks they are terrible. I just wish that people who design these systems would recognize the fact that 8% of the male population has red/green color blindness. On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 10:40 AM Earl Schroeder wrote: > > > Some predict that most of the =98systems=99 will eventually c hange back to > previous =98control=99 methods away from =98touch =99 screens. > > Years ago the control by deviation allowed hundreds of process controller s > to be monitored by just a few people. Basically a red pointer showing fr om > behind the green area on the controller display was reason for an > employee=99s attention. > > A study by the military (led by my Son [FAA employee]) determined the > control by exception was preferred rather than reading number digits > requiring the mind to decide if that was normal or not. > > This retired GE process control tech (over 30+ yrs experience) has not > welcomed touch screens and their digital displays from the beginning. I > hope that the change back comes sooner rather than later.. Earl Schroede r. > > > On Aug 13, 2019, at 9:43 AM, Werner Schneider wrote: > > > glastar@gmx.net> > > > > Hi Eric, > > > > interesting did read that same story yesterday, but main issue was as > > well, that the status was unclear between different stations on the shi p > > which caused the issue that one station wa scontrolling the left engine > > and the 2nd station the right one (wonder in what situation this would > > be needed) I think it is down to a team without any real operation > > experience designing a system :) > > > > But true and behold not everithing we love on our tablets will work in > > another environment ;) > > > > Cheers Werner > > > >> On 13.08.2019 15:47, Eric M. Jones wrote: > emjones@charter.net> > >> > >> Worth reviewing and thinking about... > >> https://tinyurl.com/Navy-touch-screens > >> > >> Basically, real buttons, knobs, handles and toggle switches are > preferable. > >> > >> Don't let "modern" be the enemy of the practicable. > >> > >> -------- > >> 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=490830#490830 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > =========== =========== =========== =========== =========== > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 05:50:51 PM PST US From: Art Zemon Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual Alternator "Failure" Folks, I had a weird "failure" this afternoon: neither alternator was doing anything and neither alternator field circuit breaker had tripped. I put "failure" in quotes because I don't believe that the alternators actually failed; that is just too unlikely. Here are the details: First, the wiring diagram: engine.pdf I had taxied to the fuel pump, and back, and flown three legs. Five cycles of engine start, operation, and shut down. All with alternators operating correctly. As I started the takeoff roll for the fourth flight, the EFIS alerted that bus voltage was low. I continued the takeoff; it was only a 15 minute flight to home base. I have two B&C alternators with B&C voltage regulators, one primary belt driven and one backup gear driven. Once airborne, I cycled the alternator field switches. No joy from either alternator. I pulled and reset both field circuit breakers. No joy. I even power cycled the master, on the hope that the EFIS voltage regulator was at fault. No joy. During the third flight, the primary alternator field breaker had popped. I reset it and the alternator returned to normal operation. It was stupidly hot in the cockpit and the sun was shining on my black glare shield and I know that I need ventilation behind the instrument panel. I chalked this up to heat and vibration. In 87 hours of operation, this is only the second time that that breaker has popped. After resetting the breaker, I checked both alternators independently (turning off each field switch in turn) and confirmed that each was operating normally. I had 12.9 volts during the takeoff roll. It was down to 12.6 volts on landing. so definitely no output from the alternators. The voltage regulators are set for 14.5 volts and 13.0 volts. I typically see 14.8 or 14.9 volts from the primary and 13.1 from the backup alternator. Do you have any ideas what could cause this? I did a tiny amount of debugging but I was hot and tired so I did not get into the weeds, yet. I confirmed that both current limiters between the alternators and the battery contactor are OK. I tugged on the cable between the current limiters and the battery contactor and it seems solid, no loose nuts. I removed the glare shield and checked the voltage regulators. Both were warm but not hot. All of the wires connected to them are tight. -- Art Z. P.S. Yes, the engine was turning :-) so I assume that both alternators were turning. -- https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ *Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. *Deut. 10:19 ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 06:44:36 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Please critique my Z-11-based electrical design From: "fidot" Joe, Thanks for commentary! I was not ignoring the thread - just waiting to see if there will be any more comments, to address all of them :). -- > main connector as 3 failure points per circuit: It will probably not gonna get disconnected ever, unless serious repairs are necessary. This connector is weighed against the fact that absence of it will make troubleshooting extremely aggravating and time consuming, should it ever become necessary; given the physical layout of things and that I am retrofitting here (if I was building the whole new panel, I'd architect it with using sub-panels or similar with easy access). It will also make assembling the system much easier (though I understand this is not a strong argument given that my labor on the plane is $0/hour ;) ). Suppose I'm using Molex 0.093 crimped pins. I can greatly improve reliability by paying utmost attention to each pin's crimp, or using a touch of solder if I doubt them (or, just using solder to ensure the connection is electrically sound). I do have a good crimper, having tested a few crappy ones :). Just to give you an example: let's say, my Master Switch circuit isn't doing the right thing. If I have the Main Connector, I effectively have access to the "switch" side of things, as well as the "load" side of things to trace and measure. If I don't have it, I only effectively have access on the load side; and accessing the switch side requires a lot of contortions. Side note: when tracing old wiring (which lead to this project), I did have access to things on a similarly set up "terminal block" - and I still, climbing the XXXth time around the flying wires, managed to twist out my knee such that I was immobile for a couple days What would be great is if someone could suggest the connector type to use here..... - Milspec terminal block: too bulky - "Transformer"-style terminal block with #6 screws - possible, though security of those screws needs to be considered; and it's heavier (relatively) - Molex - I was looking at 0.093 series and the MLX series. I want "backside access" for multimeter probes... --- > consider eliminating the 35 amp ANL fuse. Possible fire hazard vs slightly higher probability of total electrical failure is basically the tradeoff here. I erred on the size of virtually eliminating former at the expense of small increase of probability of the latter (someone accidentally dinging that wire without noticing is also in realm of possibilities, however remote). I do have somewhat an elevated fear of letting the magic smoke out in this ship because of it being a tube and rag, with gas tank between the passenger's legs kind of ship... On the other hand, my reasoning was that I actually am completely non-dependent on electrical system on this plane - while annoying, even at night, it is not required for the safe completion of the flight. Yes, I will lose my tach, engine 3-in-1, radios, and lights - but that's a minor affair in a $100 burger airplane IMHO. Now, an interesting question is what are the chances of the buss feeder ANL opening without a good reason? If they're known to do that, then this might be a consideration... Note that I'm sizing a 35AMP ANL for a setup where all downstream fuses are 5A or less except for one other, buss -> radio stack, feeder wire (which I will try to make as small as I can). My understanding of ANLs is that they will be able to withstand shorted circuits blowing small fuses downstream... Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=490856#490856 ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 07:31:01 PM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Please critique my Z-11-based electrical design From: "user9253" A trick that I have used for troubleshooting and testing a wire, when there is no test point, is to poke through the wire insulation with a needle or Exacto knife. Probe that sharp object with the voltmeter. The small hole in the insulation requires little, if any, repairing. Having a connector will make troubleshooting easier. On the other hand, if that connector wasn't there, then there wouldn't be any trouble to troubleshoot. :-) - An ANL fuse is unlikely to blow. However, the crimped terminals and fasteners are unnecessary failure points. And bare terminals present a short circuit hazard. So the fuse is creating a hazard that it is intended to protect against. - The nice thing about building your own airplane is that you get to add lots of little features that are important to you. So go ahead and wire it the way that you want to. I see no major design flaws. -------- Joe Gores Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=490861#490861 ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 08:15:30 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dual Alternator "Failure" From: Charlie England On 8/13/2019 7:48 PM, Art Zemon wrote: > Folks, > > I had a weird "failure" this afternoon: neither alternator was doing > anything and neither alternator field circuit breaker had tripped. I > put "failure" in quotes because I don't believe that the alternators > actually failed; that is just too unlikely. Here are the details: > > First, the wiring diagram: > engine.pdf > > > I had taxied to the fuel pump, and back, and flown three legs. Five > cycles of engine start, operation, and shut down. All with alternators > operating correctly. As I started the takeoff roll for the fourth > flight, the EFIS alerted that bus voltage was low. I continued the > takeoff; it was only a 15 minute flight to home base. > > I have two B&C alternators with B&C voltage regulators, one primary > belt driven and one backup gear driven. > > Once airborne, I cycled the alternator field switches. No joy from > either alternator. I pulled and reset both field circuit breakers. No > joy. I even power cycled the master, on the hope that the EFIS voltage > regulator was at fault. No joy. > > During the third flight, the primary alternator field breaker had > popped. I reset it and the alternator returned to normal operation. It > was stupidly hot in the cockpit and the sun was shining on my black > glare shield and I know that I need ventilation behind the instrument > panel. I chalked this up to heat and vibration. In 87 hours of > operation, this is only the second time that that breaker has popped. > After resetting the breaker, I checked both alternators independently > (turning off each field switch in turn) and confirmed that each was > operating normally. > > I had 12.9 volts during the takeoff roll. It was down to 12.6 volts on > landing. so definitely no output from the alternators. The voltage > regulators are set for 14.5 volts and 13.0 volts. I typically see 14.8 > or 14.9 volts from the primary and 13.1 from the backup alternator. > > Do you have any ideas what could cause this? I did a tiny amount of > debugging but I was hot and tired so I did not get into the weeds, > yet. I confirmed that both current limiters between the alternators > and the battery contactor are OK. I tugged on the cable between the > current limiters and the battery contactor and it seems solid, no > loose nuts. I removed the glare shield and checked the voltage > regulators. Both were warm but not hot. All of the wires connected to > them are tight. > > -- Art Z. > > P.S. Yes, the engine was turning :-) so I assume that both alternators > were turning. > > -- > https://CheerfulCurmudgeon.com/ > > /Love the stranger for you yourselves were strangers in Egypt. /Deut. > 10:19 Hi Art, Looking at your pdf, the only thing in common is the 'fat' wire from starter to master contactor, then to your main bus. Any circuit protections anywhere along that path? Regardless of where your current failure is located, that's something to think about; any issue along that path can take out both alternators. Charlie --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.