If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Frank:
P.S. Your're right...I don't know **** about the specifics of Blue Tooth. I'm glad to admit it. "Frank van der Hulst" wrote in message ... Sorry, but you shouldn't get all sarcastic about someone suggesting a technology that you clearly don't have a clue about. Frank |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Pete Schaefer wrote:
OK, if all you want is to record data, then yeah, whatever you want to use is just fine as long as you can keep it from interfering with any critical functions on your plane. However, debugging all the potential EMI stuff could be hell just to get things to work. I hate cables. They are a gawdawful pain to manufacture, install, even worse to troubleshoot, and hell to fix. Installing new ones to odd points on a plane is sometimes impossible. I flew the E-2C (whistling s%$# can) and most of our class alphas were due to cables abrading and causing shorts, wandering signals, fires, etc. Obviously the bad things came from the power-carrying cables failing, but everything in the bundle went south when they did. EMI is obviously an issue, in ways I don't understand since I'm not a tron-bender, but the idea that you could plunk down a sensor and have *no* additional wiring whatsoever appeals to me. I wonder how much wire weighs and costs in the typical airplane? What are the EMI issues for your Mark I Mod 0 homebuilt? Nav system, obviously. What else? Sounds like an experimental airplane kind of thing to me. A company a friend of mine owns is developing the self-powered sensors, so I'm familiar with the work. The ones they sell now are bigger and (I think) battery-powered, but they are installing them on Navy ships, which have emmisions and EMI concerns too. http://www.rlwinc.com/ |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Pete Schaefer wrote:
Frank: I do have quite a clue about EMI, and clearly have a better clue than you about systems engineering in general. Here's a question for you: Why bother? For the same reason that we build planes instead of buying them. If you're trying to cert bluetooth for aviation, maybe with the thought of selling some other bluetooth product that you think you can make a big chunk of cash with, then, yeah, maybe going off to play with bluetooth on your airplane makes sense. Personally, I can't see it. Maybe it makes sense for using it to reprogram boxes on your airplane, but to go to the extent of making it useful/safe in flight....nah. Way too much effort for too little return, given that the inclusion of an RS-232 port is so freakin' easy. I agree totally. except maybe about RS-232. I suggest that some sort of current-based rather than voltage-based signalling would be more noise-immune. Bring back 20mA current loop! :-) If you have some other goal in mind, maybe some other sensing or data fusion tech (e.g. may you have a huge array of air data sensors for some advance stall detection method), then you have to look at whether or not the tech risk buys you something that you can't get otherwise. Why bluetooth rather than the 1/2 dozen other wired data communication protocols (e.g. 1392, . 422, 232, 485, CAN, etc.) that are out there? The TWO key ideas in the proposition (wasn't mine, BTW) were wireless comms and self-powered. If you can do BOTH of those, then wired comms and power is best. Wireless comms has been pretty much solved. For example, I saw a projection in an engineering mag that within 25 years wireless will replace wired as the cheapest comms technology to the home. But without "self-powered" it is pointless. Are there any devices out there that can turn (e.g.) vibration into *useful* amounts of electricity? I get rather frustrated with people who get really !@#$ing enamored with technologies for implementation and loose sight of what their goals are. Hmmm... so what are *my* goals? Maybe I want the geekiest plane on the block? I suggest that one or other of your 4 beers has introduced some patronisation (as well as abrasiveness) into your system. All too often, risk variables get introduced where none is warranted, resulting in zero or negative value added. I'll choose what risks are warranted on *my* project, thanks. I beat on my guys daily about issues like this. (Kelly Johnson (...yeah, I work at that place.....) had a lot to say about where it was acceptable to take project risks..too bad so much of it never got captured in "the rules"). This is fine where *you* get to set the goals. So, back to Blue Tooth.... Why bother? *With* self-powered devices, it gives options not available via wired systems. For data collection, I've already got a half-dozen options in my hip pocket that I know will work just fine with very well understood EMI issues that I know how to mitigate. What's my goal? Blue tooth airplane or getting the data for some other purpose? I have very little room for Geek Factor on any airplane that I'll ever build. If it can't buy it's way on (I'd lump Blue Tooth in here), then !@#$ it. Pete P.S. I just got done with a 5 hour drive and am tired as all !@#$. I've got 4 beers in me to diffuse stress. Please forgive my abbrasiveness. I'm not really that bad of a guy. I just don't want people to pursue ideas that will get them killed. Hey, I prefer to talk straight too. And also don't want people to kill themselves. But if people don't experiment with Experimental category aircraft, then nothing is going to change. Frank |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Frank van der Hulst wrote:
*With* self-powered devices, it gives options not available via wired systems. Couple of sources. This is a hot research area. http://www.sandia.gov/media/NewsRel/...eredsensor.htm http://www.perpetuum.co.uk/ |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Frank van der Hulst wrote:
Why bother? *With* self-powered devices, it gives options not available via wired systems. Even if you have to run 12V to it, in a metal airplane that will only be one wire and one connection. Assuming they can build a wireless device that can stand up to typical airplane abuse for a while*, this would make for a much simpler and safer installation. At these power levels, the EMI issue is a red herring that would be easily defeated with a $0.98 roll of aluminum foil, and once defeated on the ground the problem isn't likely to pop back up in flight (like loose cabling will). IMHO *It seems that your standard store bought router is designed to die after a few years. I wouldn't trust this quality control with my comfort. I barely trust it with my ability to read this newsgroup. -- This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)." |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
So, what things on the airplane are you guys going to replace with
self-powered blue tooth devices? "Ernest Christley" wrote in message om... Even if you have to run 12V to it, in a metal airplane that will only be one wire and one connection. Assuming they can build a wireless device that can stand up to typical airplane abuse for a while*, this would make for a much simpler and safer installation. At these power levels, the EMI issue is a red herring that would be easily defeated with a $0.98 roll of aluminum foil, and once defeated on the ground the problem isn't likely to pop back up in flight (like loose cabling will). IMHO *It seems that your standard store bought router is designed to die after a few years. I wouldn't trust this quality control with my comfort. I barely trust it with my ability to read this newsgroup. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Pete Schaefer wrote:
So, what things on the airplane are you guys going to replace with self-powered blue tooth devices? First thing would be Bluetooth headsets... no more cords tangling round the cockpit. Next would be various engine instruments... EGT, CHT, etc. Maybe move the entire radio receiver out to a wingtip or somewhere well away from the engine's RF noise. But I can't see that being self-powered. Perhaps we could use Tesla's beam-power technology to run those. Frank |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Frank van der Hulst wrote:
Pete Schaefer wrote: So, what things on the airplane are you guys going to replace with self-powered blue tooth devices? First thing would be Bluetooth headsets... no more cords tangling round the cockpit. That's a good one. Keep an old pair if wired sets stuck in an accessible hole someplace...just in case. Next would be various engine instruments... EGT, CHT, etc. Perfect. If the signal dies, the plane won't know it. The Cherokee I trained in didn't even have a working EGT. Maybe move the entire radio receiver out to a wingtip or somewhere well away from the engine's RF noise. But I can't see that being self-powered. Perhaps we could use Tesla's beam-power technology to run those. Frank Oooh. You just lost me on that one. To much complication with the radio to human interface there. You've got a device in front of the pilot to select a station, which must transmit it to a device out on the wing, which has to recieve and interpret it correctly, then transmit the correct station's signal back over bluetooth. You'd still have to run signal wires for the physical backup. I just don't see the advantage when remoting the antennae is all that's necessary to avoid the engine EMI. How about stress monitors built into the prop (I have no idea if anyone makes such a thing). Would help you to carve a perfect prop. Miniature temp probes and air pressure sensors that you can stick all over the place. Would make it real easy to map out the pressure regions on the airplane and design a better cooling system or decide if wing modification would be necessary/beneficial. Vibration sensors stuck inside control surfaces and different parts of the skin. Early warning system for flutter. Might only give you time for a short prayer, but it may save your butt if you can react quick enough. Nothing is stopping anyone from doing any of this with wired sensors. It would just be cleaner and easier if the wire can be left on the spool. -- This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)." |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Ernest Christley wrote:
Maybe move the entire radio receiver out to a wingtip or somewhere well away from the engine's RF noise. But I can't see that being self-powered. Perhaps we could use Tesla's beam-power technology to run those. Oooh. You just lost me on that one. To much complication with the radio to human interface there. You've got a device in front of the pilot to select a station, which must transmit it to a device out on the wing, which has to recieve and interpret it correctly, then transmit the correct station's signal back over bluetooth. This kind of stuff is bread-and-butter for Bluetooth. Remember that one of its original design goals was moving (high-quality stereo) audio in real time from a player to headphones. Sending channel-select signals in the opposite direction isn't a biggy either... Bluetooth devices are continually communicating digitally amongst themselves. You'd still have to run signal wires for the physical backup. Why? The airplane will keep flying if the radio fails. Granted that, depending where you live and fly, losing access to your radio could be a bit, um, difficult. But, for many, a radio isn't a necessity. I just don't see the advantage when remoting the antennae is all that's necessary to avoid the engine EMI. You said it yourself in your last sentence: It would just be cleaner and easier if the wire can be left on the spool. How about stress monitors built into the prop (I have no idea if anyone makes such a thing). Would help you to carve a perfect prop. Prop blade pitch control... a motor in the spinner to adjust pitch, controlled via Bluetooth. No hollow crankshafts and oil pressure systems, no slip-rings. Frank |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Frank van der Hulst wrote:
/snip/ Prop blade pitch control... a motor in the spinner to adjust pitch, controlled via Bluetooth. No hollow crankshafts and oil pressure systems, no slip-rings. Frank Eh? How would the motor be powered, batteries? I'm not sure how long reasonably sized batteries would work. And what about centrifugal force issues?... Happy Flying! Scott Skylane |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Wierd vibration -- Prop or engine, balance or not??? | Chuck | Owning | 17 | December 1st 04 02:12 PM |
Pinging Ron Wanttaja - "Unporting?" | Bob Chilcoat | Home Built | 13 | November 24th 04 07:28 PM |
Vibration Testing | Jim Weir | Home Built | 20 | October 10th 04 07:22 AM |
Vibration Testing | Jim Weir | Owning | 21 | October 10th 04 07:22 AM |
Survey - 3 blade prop conversion- Cockpit vibration, happy or not | Fly | Owning | 20 | June 30th 04 05:32 PM |