X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-SpamCatcher-Score: 2 [X] Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:30:56 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from vms042pub.verizon.net ([206.46.252.42] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1.8) with ESMTP id 1970189 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 06 Apr 2007 02:50:40 -0400 Received: from jacky0da39824a ([71.111.169.130]) by vms042.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JG200EO5DOD0U62@vms042.mailsrvcs.net> for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 06 Apr 2007 01:50:40 -0500 (CDT) X-Original-Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 23:50:24 -0700 From: "Tom Gourley" Subject: Re: [LML] Ground connection X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" Reply-to: "Tom Gourley" X-Original-Message-id: <002001c77817$db189230$650610ac@jacky0da39824a> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_001D_01C777DD.2E1786C0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C777DD.2E1786C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A while after I sent my post on grounding it occurred to me that I'd = said something potentially stupid. Well, at least one thing. There may = be others that I just haven't thought of yet. Give me time. I said to run a #10 or #8 wire from the panel ground bus to the central = grounding point; the point where the #4 or #2 wire from the negative = battery terminal goes through the firewall. That part's ok. I then = said that you could instead run the #10/#8 wire from the panel ground = bus all the way to the battery. That's the stupid part. Sure, you = could do it. But why would you when you already have a much heavier = wire from the central ground point to the battery? The only time you = would want to run a ground wire from the panel bus bar directly to the = battery is if that distance is shorter than from the panel bus bar to = the central grounding point. And on further reflection a #10 wire from the panel bus bar to central = ground should be adequate unless you are bringing the ground wires from = high current devices (landing lights, pitot heat, strobes) back up to = the panel bus bar. In that case I would consider using #8. Tom Gourley ------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C777DD.2E1786C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
A while after I sent my post on = grounding it=20 occurred to me that I'd said something = potentially stupid.  Well,=20 at least one thing.  There may be others that I just haven't = thought=20 of yet.  Give me time.
 
I said to run a #10 or #8 wire from the = panel ground bus to the central grounding point; the point = where the=20 #4 or #2 wire from the negative battery terminal goes through the=20 firewall.  That part's ok.  I then said that you could instead = run the=20 #10/#8 wire from the panel ground bus all the way to the = battery. =20 That's the stupid part.  Sure, you could do it.  But why would = you=20 when you already have a much heavier wire from the central ground point = to the=20 battery?  The only time you would want to run a ground wire from = the panel=20 bus bar directly to the battery is if that distance is shorter than from = the=20 panel bus bar to the central grounding point.
 
And on further reflection a #10 wire = from the panel=20 bus bar to central ground should be adequate unless you are bringing the = ground=20 wires from high current devices (landing lights, pitot heat, strobes) = back up to=20 the panel bus bar.  In that case I would consider using = #8.
 
Tom Gourley
 
------=_NextPart_000_001D_01C777DD.2E1786C0--