Adrenalin rush

Then we smelled it. A sharp electrical smell that told us something was
burning and not quite right. Steve quickly turned off the misbehaving #2
radio. The smell got stronger, but there was no visible smoke. A moment
later, when the realization hit home that we might have a serious problem, I
keyed the mike to tell Atlanta Center that we smelled smoke, may have a
developing issue with our #2 radio, [snip]

Another case of the electronic device in the circuit path to protect the
circuit breaker from overload.

On 2005-09-18, john smith wrote:

Another case of the electronic device in the circuit path to protect the
circuit breaker from overload.

Circuit breakers are sized to protect the wiring, not the device.

Doug Carter wrote:

Another case of the electronic device in the circuit path to protect
the circuit breaker from overload.

Circuit breakers are sized to protect the wiring, not the device.

Read it again with the humor circuit engaged.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://spf.pobox.com
____________________

On 2005-09-19, John T wrote:
Doug Carter wrote:

Another case of the electronic device in the circuit path to protect
the circuit breaker from overload.

Circuit breakers are sized to protect the wiring, not the device.

Read it again with the humor circuit engaged.

Sorry, humor circuit shorted after reading other posts in this newsgroup
(not yours

john smith writes:
Then we smelled it. A sharp electrical smell that told us something was
burning and not quite right. Steve quickly turned off the misbehaving #2
radio. The smell got stronger, but there was no visible smoke. A moment
later, when the realization hit home that we might have a serious problem, I
keyed the mike to tell Atlanta Center that we smelled smoke, may have a
developing issue with our #2 radio, [snip]

Another case of the electronic device in the circuit path to protect the
circuit breaker from overload.

How true! :-)

Now, if there are any EEs present, perhaps they can explain
why aircraft radios tend to fail in this manner whereas
nothing much of anything else in the electronic world fails
in a manner to produce heat and smoke. Are avionics units
designed so close to the components' limits to cause this
failure mode? I can understand a transmitter going up in
smoke (while transmitting), but a receiver?

Everett M. Greene wrote:
: Now, if there are any EEs present, perhaps they can explain
: why aircraft radios tend to fail in this manner whereas
: nothing much of anything else in the electronic world fails
: in a manner to produce heat and smoke. Are avionics units
: designed so close to the components' limits to cause this
: failure mode? I can understand a transmitter going up in
: smoke (while transmitting), but a receiver?

I'll take a stab at it... Probably a big reason why avionics fail like
that because they're older than most electronics. They're used for a longer period of
time so they can suffer individual component failures. "Normal" electronics tend to
get toss earlier, so their failures are more likely due to construction flaws.

They're also packaged very tightly, and cannot afford much overdesign that
would cause additional weight. Also, the environment they operate in is extremely
harsh... *huge* temperature/humidity swings, ridiculous vibration exposure, etc.

That's why I was singularly unimpressed with the internal build quality of the
Michel slide-in replacement radios. They're built with standard DIPs, through-hole
components, ribbon cables, and general run-of-the-mill consumer components. Minimal
strain relief and anti-chafing assembly. Makes for a less expensive unit, but I'm
sure they're more likely to wear/chafe than a well-built unit.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

Hmmm, maybe they're on to something. When was the last time you had a
"general run-of-the-mill" consumer product start smoking on you?? ;-)

Seriously, another question for you EE folks: are more modern components of
a better quality in that they don't need a robust surrounding support
structure to prevent catastrophic failures?

Marco Leon


wrote in message
...
Everett M. Greene wrote:
: Now, if there are any EEs present, perhaps they can explain
: why aircraft radios tend to fail in this manner whereas
: nothing much of anything else in the electronic world fails
: in a manner to produce heat and smoke. Are avionics units
: designed so close to the components' limits to cause this
: failure mode? I can understand a transmitter going up in
: smoke (while transmitting), but a receiver?

I'll take a stab at it... Probably a big reason why avionics fail like
that because they're older than most electronics. They're used for a
longer period of
time so they can suffer individual component failures. "Normal"
electronics tend to
get toss earlier, so their failures are more likely due to construction
flaws.

They're also packaged very tightly, and cannot afford much overdesign that
would cause additional weight. Also, the environment they operate in is
extremely
harsh... *huge* temperature/humidity swings, ridiculous vibration
exposure, etc.

That's why I was singularly unimpressed with the internal build quality of
the
Michel slide-in replacement radios. They're built with standard DIPs,
through-hole
components, ribbon cables, and general run-of-the-mill consumer
components. Minimal
strain relief and anti-chafing assembly. Makes for a less expensive unit,
but I'm
sure they're more likely to wear/chafe than a well-built unit.

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************




Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

"Marco Leon" mmleon(at)yahoo.com wrote in message
...
Hmmm, maybe they're on to something. When was the last time you had a
"general run-of-the-mill" consumer product start smoking on you?? ;-)

Oh, I've had a couple recently. My dad bought an electric light that
contained a transformer, which did the blue smoke thing, and the CD-ROM
drive in my sister's PC did the same the other week (I've had them fail, but
never in a combusting kind of way!). And I've lost count of the number of
power supplies in computer equipment that have exuded smoke over the years.

D.

"David Cartwright" writes:
"Marco Leon" mmleon(at)yahoo.com wrote
Hmmm, maybe they're on to something. When was the last time you had a
"general run-of-the-mill" consumer product start smoking on you?? ;-)

Oh, I've had a couple recently. My dad bought an electric light that
contained a transformer, which did the blue smoke thing, and the CD-ROM
drive in my sister's PC did the same the other week (I've had them fail, but
never in a combusting kind of way!). And I've lost count of the number of
power supplies in computer equipment that have exuded smoke over the years.

I've had numerous power supply failures in (ground-based)
devices over the years and have never had any smoke from
any of them. They just quit working...

There is a difference between linear and switching power
supplies. The latter are most likely going to fail
quietly whereas the former can very well smoke something
when they fail.

A thought occurs to me regarding avionics failures: The
confined environment of small airplane cabins and the
close proximity to the avionics devices may cause the
even a miniscule amount of odor to be noticed whereas
on the ground nobody may be close at the time of failure
and any odor goes unnoticed.

"Everett M. Greene" wrote:

Now, if there are any EEs present, perhaps they can explain
why aircraft radios tend to fail in this manner whereas
nothing much of anything else in the electronic world fails
in a manner to produce heat and smoke. Are avionics units
designed so close to the components' limits to cause this
failure mode? I can understand a transmitter going up in
smoke (while transmitting), but a receiver?

Receivers still contain amplifiers, power regulating transistors, resistors,
diodes, etc. in their circuitry. Failures at the discrete component level
can produce thermal events without increases in main power loads above
circuit breaker limits.

--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM