nuckollsr(at)cox.net
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 5:42 am Post subject: Transorbs and Lightning |
 |
|
At 09:45 AM 11/8/2006 -0600, you wrote:
| Quote: |
<rvbuilder(at)sausen.net>
So that would be a maybe?
|
Sure . . . but 'maybe' comes in all sizes, flavors and
assurances. When Paul's airplane took the hit it appears
that the stroke came in one wingtip and out the other.
Since the current carrying paths for this event was wiring,
the qualification protocols would fall under "direct effects".
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Anatomy_of_a_Lightning_Strike.pdf
I gotta tell ya, when you take the direct hit, the design goals
have more to do with keeping the damage confined to the one
system . . . there's no Transorb made that will confidently
stand between mother nature's fireworks and your micro-processors,
itty-bitty resistors and light bulbs.
So yeah, I can agree that if Paul's airplane was generously
fitted with Transorbs, he MIGHT have suffered a bit less damage.
But as you can see from his post-event investigation, damage
levels were high enough to leave tracks on structure, burned
wires and caused internal damage sufficient to be manifest outside
the devices enclosure.
I cannot recommend the sprinkling of "Transorb dust" on your
airplane because the notion is not supported by the understanding
of simple-ideas. DO-160 testing and similar efforts are
repeatable experiments that have been demonstrated over
time to have value. There are numbers assigned to stress levels
and techniques designed to stand off those hazards.
If a builder is inclined to embrace "Transorb dust" as a
good thing to do, I'll suggest there is risk that the same
builder is subject to unsupported confidence in his/her
system to knock on the gates of hell and run away unscathed.
Many a good soul has been disappointed that boots and perhaps
a hot-prop didn't take them through "that little bit of ice".
To hypothesize about and recommend techniques that
can only be tested at the edges of the airplane's envelope
with pilot an passengers aboard is not good engineering.
It's far better that we do not venture up to those edges.
Bob . . .
| Quote: | >
><paul.mcallister(at)qia.net>
>
>Bob et al.
>
>Some time ago my aircraft took a lightning hit which damaged many
>electronic devices, with the exception of the Apollo GX60 and SL70.
>Now I don't know if this was because these are well designed products
>or they were just having a lucky day, but my question, would a heavy
>duty transorb help in a catastrophic even like this ?
>
>Paul
|
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
