I'm sorry, but I'm not understanding something. The devices below look
more secure to me than a wire through a hole in the firewall filled with
fire putty. I can see that the bolt could conduct heat from a fire, but
then so could a wire. The concept with these devices seems the same to
me as a bulkhead fitting for hydraulic lines which is apparently okay.
So could someone explain why these electrical fittings are incompatible
with firewall security.
Thanks.
John Grosse
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> At 08:37 AM 3/10/2010, you wrote:
>>
>> David,
>>
>> I can tell you there is more than one way to skin a cat, but if you look
>> at one of the gazillion Piper Cherokees out there, the cable runs from
>> under the back seat along the left panel through the generally dry
>> rotted grand-daddy grommet to the contactor mounted on the firewall.
>> Size does matter but for 2 or 4 GA that won't make a difference. Good
>> enough for Piper...
>
> I don't think I've yet seen a commercial-off-the-shelf firewall
> feedthru where the insulating material would have stood off
> Jack Thermin's "puff the magic dragon" test. Electrically
> and mechanically, these critters function as advertised.
> The price is low and they seem adequately robust.
>
> However, if one subscribes to the notion of protecting
> firewall integrity with processes like . . .
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Firewall_Penetration/firewall.html
>
> then devices like . . .
>
> Emacs!
>
>
> and . . .
>
> Emacs!
> Are incompatible with the design goal cited in the
> article. So if your design goals include attention
> to details of fire-wall integrity, then perhaps
> single fat-wires are best brought through grommets
> with fire-shields and application of fire-putty
> per Tony B's writings.
>
> Bob . . .
