Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:37 AM - Re: PIDG vs F crimp uninsulated terminals (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 07:16 AM - Re: PIDG vs F crimp uninsulated terminals (Matthew S. Whiting)
3. 09:24 AM - Re: PIDG vs F crimp uninsulated terminals (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 11:35 AM - Re: How reliable is a Europa fuel sender? (rparigoris)
5. 12:38 PM - Re: What's all this Lithium Specific Battery Charger stuff anyhow? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
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: PIDG vs F crimp uninsulated terminals |
>
>Bob,
>
>I read your preference for PIDG terminals in
>your AeroElectric Connection book.
>I am curious as to your preference for these as
>compared to F crimp uninsulated terminals.
Not sure where the 'F-crimp' terminology comes from
but I assume you're talking about the same kinds
of terminals that reside under the insulation grip
feature of a PIDG terminal.
My 'preferences' parrot on legacy practices
I first encountered in 1961 on the B52 and continue
to this day on countless production aircraft as well
as environmentally challenged vehicles.
But let's step back and consider the requirements for
connector performance and longevity. GAS tight, RESISTANCE
to vibration, PROTECTION from environmental effects.
The PIDG technology has been exploited for nearly
a century as a reasonably priced technology to those
ends.
However, take a stroll through the TE Connectivity
(formerly AMP inc) catalog and you'll find thousands
of products of which a SMALL percentage are PIDG
yet many are qualified to military or SAE specifications
to achieve those golden-goals.
>I=99ve always preferred the latter as I generally label my wirings
using
>printed shrink wrap and that makes a neater installation over the
>uninsulated terminals and provides decent insulation.
Keep in mind that the "insulator" is not intended
to be some safeguard against shorts. It is the
INSULATION GRIP that goes to vibration resistance.
There are articles on my website that speak to BOTH
PIDG and b-crimp (open barrel) terminations. There is probably
NO termination technique that cannot be made to
produce crimps to the golden-goals of wire termination.
If TE Connectivity (and scads of others) sells it,
it's probably golden.
HOWEVER . . . when you choose terminals and application
tools from their catalogs, they are MATED to specific
sizes of wire. So when you're shopping mix-n-match
for wire, terminals and tools the onus is on YOU
to make sure your choices mate up satisfactorily.
Un-insulated terminals generally don't offer insulation
support out of the box. This can be offset by
heat-shrink (the double-wall stuff is good) and
good wire bundle practice to prevent vibratory
forces from shaking things too much. Alternatively,
you can got with b-crimp styles that DO offer
insulation grips
https://tinyurl.com/yu2fsxvh
. . . and can be installed with low cost tools
https://tinyurl.com/yu2fsxvh
>I simply find the uninsulated connectors easier to inspect for a
>good crimp and smaller in OD which is nice on small gauge wires.
Sounds like you already have a handle on the golden-goals . . .
good on you!
>I see that both B & C and SteinAir only carry the insulated
>style terminals, but I've never seen a discussion as to pros
>and cons as compared to uninsulated F crimps.
B&C b-crimp tool cited above is used on terminals
from d-sub pins thru those you've cited. There's
nothing inherently wrong about these technologies
if applied with a good understanding of the physics
involved.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o=======
=
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
========================
========
In the interest of creative evolution
of the-best-we-know-how-to-do based
on physics and good practice.
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: PIDG vs F crimp uninsulated terminals |
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
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: PIDG vs F crimp uninsulated terminals |
At 09:15 AM 3/15/2023, you wrote:
>F crimp is, I believe, what Amp called their first terminals that use what
>is also called an 'open barrel'=9D style crimp. It is the type used on
>terminals such as Weatherpack, Metricpack, and Deutsch. Deutsch
>calls them 'stamped and formed'=9D rather than 'open barrel'.
>Definitely different than what is used in PIDG terminals.
The stamped, open-barrel termination was un my
experience called a B-crimp . . . so named because of the
shape formed by the folded over tabs of the terminal
Yes, we've studied/discussed that technology
several times over the years . . . they are
indeed different.
>They are used almost exclusively in automotive and electronics
applications.
>I like them as they are fast as with the proper tool you need only
>crimp once as the tool crimps the wire and the insulator simultaneously
>and they are easily inspected for crimp quality. And the good crimps tool
>positively locate the pin or socket such that both crimps are precisely
>located every time.
Okay, you're referring to the upscale application tools
for those terminals . . . these would be on the same level
as the t-head AMP tool found on virtually every TC
aircraft production line . . . along with qualified 'b-crimp'
tools.
>They are anecdotally considered superior to an oval or hex=9D crimp (such
>as used in PIDG) for smaller conductors, but I haven;t seen any data that
>actually proves that.
Okay, apply the golden-goals smell-test. What questions
arise as to the ability of a tool to produce a void-free
joining of the terminal and wire? Is there a credible
demonstration of insulation-grip support to protect the
wire-grip from flexure-failure?
I cannot imagine how anyone would assign superiority
of one termination technique over another except that
they might have suffered a bad experience arising
from mismatch of tool/wire/terminal requirements
for a good installation. Well considered mating of
tool and terminal to wire WILL in all cases produce
an entirely satisfactory installation.
We had some discussion here on the List 20 or more
years ago about failures of female fast-on terminals
to achieve a lasting grip on their mated tab. Turns
out that the disappointed user's choice of terminals
featured copper alloy that was not designed for this
service . . . it was too-soft brass. This is another
feature of the PIDG theology . . . produced and
qualified by companies like AMP, Thomas-Betts, et. als.
difficult questions like "what's this thing made of?"
become insignificant. Fast-ons need to be pretty
'stiff' like phosphor bronze.
>I was curious if there was a particular reason you were aware of that
>would suggest not using them for aviation applications or if it was
>more of unfamiliarity with that style.
Your mention of "uninsulated" and "f-crimp" did not
produce accurate, first-image thoughts. I was thinking
of PIDG type terminals minus the plastic and F connectors
for cable tv signals.
I am very familiar with the formed sheet metal, open
barrel technology and I've written about it on these
pages and my website. The reasons to choose one over
the other in a production environment are generally
founded on specificity of the task as long as golden-goals
for termination are achieved to install right terminal
on the wire with the right tool.
You mentioned suitability of PIDG styles for 'smaller'
wires. There are terminals offered for the 24-26AWG
range of conductors
https://tinyurl.com/5c5nhxjf
but they're expensive, rarely used and tools for
proper installation are not cheap. Further, the need
to put a ring terminal on so small a wire is problematic.
The TC airplane guys are loath to run wires smaller
than 22AWG trough the airframe.
When such wires ARE called out, you're much more likely
to them through connectors having quad-crimp or b-crimp pins.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o=======
=
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
========================
========
In the interest of creative evolution
of the-best-we-know-how-to-do based
on physics and good practice.
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: How reliable is a Europa fuel sender? |
Hi Group
Wayne and I did a presentation for the Europa Group, figured would share.
Pretty interesting stuff!
Here's links to March 2023 Zoom Episode 5 about Fuel Sender Operation and Repair:
https://1drv.ms/u/s!Ah1S270Nwg9Vgfx9spnrAw9ZaL5m7w?e=12nuwO
For whatever reason, Matronics always cuts off some of the hyper-link when I post
links. Just copy the entire link and paste into URL of browser.
** If buffering occurs when viewing mp4 video, open the settings icon and reduce
resolution. The settings icon is a gear with a hole in it located on bottom.
Ron and Wayne
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=510419#510419
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: What's all this Lithium Specific Battery Charger |
stuff anyhow?
At 05:10 PM 3/14/2023, you wrote:
>All agreed Bob. Many years ago while on the
>phone with an EarthX tech trying to understand
>their prohibition against most smart chargers
>out there in frustration I asked him if it was
>safe to charge their batteries with my aircraft.
>Of course the answer was yes but a little
>further discussion convinced me that it's not
>the battery they are trying to protect, it's the
>BMS. Apparently their BMS can be damaged by the
>voltage pulses sent by "desulfating" chargers.
>That seems to be not a concern from your plot
>and the pictures which show that the
>"desulfating" mode is selectable, not automatic.
Yeah, about that . . .
I put together a document that I trust will shed some
light on the topic of battery desulfators/healers.
https://tinyurl.com/yc4npesr
I've watched/studied the desulfation narrative for
decades and to date, I cannot offer definitive
proof that any such devices are of value. Nonetheless,
the features pop up from time to time . . . this
particular charger is one example.
I've not yet had time the characterize the form
and magnitude of desulfating stimulus generated
by this charger but I will get it measured and
documented.
>I was specifically asking about this charger you
>have let us know about because the description
>states (lithium batteries are not charged)=C2
>which makes me wonder if the "smart" part of the
>charger could end seeing some behaviour of the
>lithium battery that it mistakes=C2 for a lead
>acid battery problem, and shutting off.
Just dug out my EarthX lab-battery now 7+
years old. I'll stick this 'new kid' on the
EarthX and see what it does.
>Recently a client of mine replaced a $400+
>EarthX because "it goes dead". They dropped the
>offending one off and it was 0V. I left it
>hooked up to my power supply overnight at 14.5V
>and then tested it. It came out at 96% of new
>capacity (after 5 years, not bad). After
>checking the engine monitor data and asking a
>few questions the best theory we can come up
>with is that this perfectly good battery was
>replaced because they discharged it to BMS
>shutoff a few times and their "smart" charger
>assumed a problem and wouldn't charge it. So now
>they've spent $200 on a charger and have a spare battery.
Good find! Yeah, I've had several LiFePO4+BMS
products in here one of which included a little
terminal on the case used to inject a 'reset'
signal in case the BMS gets tripped.
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o=======
=
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
========================
========
In the interest of creative evolution
of the-best-we-know-how-to-do based
on physics and good practice.
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! --
|