I cobbled together a $40 canopy flasher and I'm starting to test it for visibility and power consumption.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/331051487600511
I cobbled together a $40 canopy flasher and I'm starting to test it for visibility and power consumption.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/331051487600511
Here are Dropbox links to a couple of photos and a 10 second video.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ehm7ycspge281cx/Flasher3.mp4?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/4yypemsjfz27vne/Flasher2.jpg?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/ytd31o6pbz5h60q/Flasher1.jpg?dl=0
I like it Mark! What length extension cord is required?
On 11/19/2022 12:57 PM, Jim Lee wrote:Moshe, I will say yes for all 5 questions, though hopefully it would work without FLARM connected
I like it Mark! What length extension cord is required?Depends how high you fly! :-)
I'm also thinking of a DIY strobe, possibly controlled by a tiny
computer board so it could be programmed in various ways. What are
people's thoughts here:
* Is a red strobe better than white?
* Are two flash units, pointing somewhat to the left and right, better
than a single unit points straight forward?
* Is one flash every 2 seconds frequent enough? (Got to save the battery.)
* Is a double-flash more visible than a single flash?
* Is flashing more often when FLARM gives a collision warning worth the
extra bother (e.g., more cabling)?
It looks good, but I wish there was way gliders slightly below you could see it.
Sotecc also has streamlined fuselage flashers for top, bottom or both, but they are also expensive. I am looking for something that might work as a fuselage flasher. These look interesting, but at 50 Watts, the power draw may be prohibitive.
https://www.amazon.com/Yorkim-Bright-Lights-Reverse-Chipsets/dp/B01A4Z3FOS
I've been running a power consumption test with a 12-volt, 5 Amp hour Sealed Lead Acid battery. The LED flasher has been running for 21 hours continuously and the battery voltage dropped from 12.37 volts to 11.97 volts. I think the consumption isacceptable for a glider system, but I will probably run it on a separate battery anyway. My glider has two 15 Ah LiFePo batteries, but I also have a provision for a separate 12-volt 10 Ah cell.
And then again, will it be visible from a relevant distance? I doubt it.
On 11/19/2022 12:05 PM, Mark Mocho wrote:
It looks good, but I wish there was way gliders slightly below youThese are not 50W bulbs, despite the spec on the listing. Take a look at
could see it.
Sotecc also has streamlined fuselage flashers for top, bottom or both,
but they are also expensive. I am looking for something that might
work as a fuselage flasher. These look interesting, but at 50 Watts,
the power draw may be prohibitive.
https://www.amazon.com/Yorkim-Bright-Lights-Reverse-Chipsets/dp/B01A4Z3FOS >>
the listing for their newer version of the bulb, where it's listed as
4W. Even the tungsten filament 3157 bulbs are only 6 watts or so.
https://www.amazon.com/Yorkim-lumens-Reverse-Running-Replacement-dp-B09HZ6F3HD/dp/B09HZ6F3HD/ref=dp_ob_title_auto
And then again, will it be visible from a relevant distance? I doubt it.
I haven't done any daylight range tests yet, but I can say with some confidence that it will be brighter and more noticeable than the one you DON'T have.
True enough. Off-axis bearings are much less visible with the current configuration, but once again, anything is better than nothing. It is like relying solely on Flarm, knowing that intermittent contacts are common due to poor antenna placement,blockage of the signal by carbon fiber fuselages, inability to interpret warnings quickly, and other factors. None of these reasons are valid excuses to NOT have Flarm; they are merely caveats to remind us that nothing is perfect.
I am also going to experiment with side mounted flashers inside the canopy. Of course, power requirements will be higher, but nothing like what is needed for standard xenon anti-collision lights. Bright LED technology is quite amazing, considering thelow cost, low energy demand and light weight. True 360-degree coverage in both horizontal and vertical planes is not feasible, but as I said before, anything is better than the current "stealth" mode.
I have also learned that LED lights can be made substantially brighter by increasing the power, at the penalty of reduced life. I don't really have any method of testing this, as the flashers are already so bright that they are potentially damaging tothe eye if viewed for more than a few seconds at close range. And I am not sure whether boosting the input voltage would do anything with commercially available, inexpensive flashers which may have over-voltage protection circuitry.
Having observed the Sotecc flashers a few times this last season, I can attest that, under certain conditions (like under a cloud shadow), two miles is entirely possible. I have seen the red flash before a glider is discernable a couple of times.
A couple of possibilities:
A spherical reflector whose aberration would send some light off axis.
Or how about two units - one on top of and one on the bottom of the fuselage? Yes, they'd stick up into the air flow a tiny bit but, for
most of us, the drag increase would not be noticeable. AND you'd get
360 degree visibility except from directly above and behind.
Dan
5J
On 11/19/22 20:55, Mark Mocho wrote:
True enough. Off-axis bearings are much less visible with the current
configuration, but once again, anything is better than nothing. ...
I am also going to experiment with side mounted flashers inside the
canopy. Of course, power requirements will be higher, but nothing like
what is needed for standard xenon anti-collision lights. Bright LED
technology is quite amazing, considering the low cost, low energy
demand and light weight. True 360-degree coverage in both horizontal
and vertical planes is not feasible, but as I said before, anything is
better than the current "stealth" mode.
...
But neither "some light off axis", nor omnidirectional top and bottom strobes, would be bright enough to see from much distance. At least not
with a power consumption that seems acceptable, e.g., under 0.2 amps.
I think that in order to make the best decisions on which directions to
send the light to, we should determine which directions are the most
likely collision directions. And ignore directions that are not visible anyway. E.g., at least from a glider cockpit, you can't look down, nor above-and-behind. Thus if one glider is following above and behind
another one, no strobe location will help either see the other.
On 11/20/2022 11:11 AM, Dan Marotta wrote:
A couple of possibilities:
A spherical reflector whose aberration would send some light off axis.
Or how about two units - one on top of and one on the bottom of the fuselage? Yes,
they'd stick up into the air flow a tiny bit but, for most of us, the drag increase
would not be noticeable. AND you'd get 360 degree visibility except from directly above
and behind.
Dan
5J
On 11/19/22 20:55, Mark Mocho wrote:
True enough. Off-axis bearings are much less visible with the current configuration,
but once again, anything is better than nothing. ...
I am also going to experiment with side mounted flashers inside the canopy. Of course,
power requirements will be higher, but nothing like what is needed for standard xenon
anti-collision lights. Bright LED technology is quite amazing, considering the low
cost, low energy demand and light weight. True 360-degree coverage in both horizontal
and vertical planes is not feasible, but as I said before, anything is better than the
current "stealth" mode.
...
But neither "some light off axis", nor omnidirectional top and bottom strobes, would be
bright enough to see from much distance. At least not with a power consumption that seems
acceptable, e.g., under 0.2 amps.
I think that in order to make the best decisions on which directions to send the light to,
we should determine which directions are the most likely collision directions. And ignore
directions that are not visible anyway. E.g., at least from a glider cockpit, you can't
look down, nor above-and-behind. Thus if one glider is following above and behind another
one, no strobe location will help either see the other.
And I have also discovered that there is a group with equal
infallibility called the "Man Will Never Fly Society." Therefore, I urge
you all to immediately sell your aircraft to some unsuspecting neophyte
who believes otherwise.
Here are Dropbox links to a couple of photos and a 10 second video.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ehm7ycspge281cx/Flasher3.mp4?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/4yypemsjfz27vne/Flasher2.jpg?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/ytd31o6pbz5h60q/Flasher1.jpg?dl=0
Next easy test is take it to the runway and see how far away you see it effectively.
Comparing to store bought would be an even better measure
But neither "some light off axis", nor omnidirectional top and bottom
strobes, would be bright enough to see from much distance. At least not
with a power consumption that seems acceptable, e.g., under 0.2 amps.
I think that in order to make the best decisions on which directions to
send the light to, we should determine which directions are the most
likely collision directions. And ignore directions that are not visible
anyway. E.g., at least from a glider cockpit, you can't look down, nor
above-and-behind. Thus if one glider is following above and behind
another one, no strobe location will help either see the other.
OK, since the infallible Moshe Braner has decreed that there is no effective solution, I shall immediately suspend all efforts to improve glider-to-glider visibility. Thanks, Moshe!
And I have also discovered that there is a group with equal infallibility called the "Man Will Never Fly Society." Therefore, I urge you all to immediately sell your aircraft to some unsuspecting neophyte who believes otherwise.
let you know the results.Next easy test is take it to the runway and see how far away you see it effectively.That is pretty much the plan, but I don't know of any installed Sotecc units at the field yet. One is scheduled for installation sometime this winter, but I don't know when. I am going to get my installation completed and try it outside this week. Will
Comparing to store bought would be an even better measure
It looks good, but I wish there was way gliders slightly below you could see it.
Sotecc also has streamlined fuselage flashers for top, bottom or both, but they are also expensive. I am looking for something that might work as a fuselage flasher. These look interesting, but at 50 Watts, the power draw may be prohibitive.
https://www.amazon.com/Yorkim-Bright-Lights-Reverse-Chipsets/dp/B01A4Z3FOS
On Sunday, November 20, 2022 at 4:54:38 PM UTC-5, Mark Mocho wrote:Will let you know the results.
Next easy test is take it to the runway and see how far away you see it effectively.That is pretty much the plan, but I don't know of any installed Sotecc units at the field yet. One is scheduled for installation sometime this winter, but I don't know when. I am going to get my installation completed and try it outside this week.
Comparing to store bought would be an even better measure
My 29 has a fin mounted strobe and it6 is reported to be very visible in crummy conditions FWIW. Probably a somewhat wider viewing angle side to side and vertical. Not practical to try to replicate after market.
The effort is a good one.
UH
On Sunday, November 20, 2022 at 4:54:38 PM UTC-5, Mark Mocho wrote:Will let you know the results.
Next easy test is take it to the runway and see how far away you see it effectively.That is pretty much the plan, but I don't know of any installed Sotecc units at the field yet. One is scheduled for installation sometime this winter, but I don't know when. I am going to get my installation completed and try it outside this week.
Comparing to store bought would be an even better measure
My 29 has a fin mounted strobe and it6 is reported to be very visible in crummy conditions FWIW. Probably a somewhat wider viewing angle side to side and vertical. Not practical to try to replicate after market.
The effort is a good one.
UH
On 11/20/2022 5:55 PM, Hank Nixon wrote:
On Sunday, November 20, 2022 at 4:54:38 PM UTC-5, Mark Mocho wrote:
Next easy test is take it to the runway and see how far away you see it effectively.That is pretty much the plan, but I don't know of any installed Sotecc units at the
Comparing to store bought would be an even better measure
field yet. One is scheduled for installation sometime this winter, but I don't know
when. I am going to get my installation completed and try it outside this week. Will
let you know the results.
My 29 has a fin mounted strobe and it6 is reported to be very visible in crummy
conditions FWIW. Probably a somewhat wider viewing angle side to side and vertical. Not
practical to try to replicate after market.
The effort is a good one.
UH
Bicyclists have even less battery capacity on hand, and some of them now use tail flashers
that seem visible from about a quarter mile away even in sunshine. The trick seems to be
the directionality of the beam: only straight rearwards? For example: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07W62CCL2 or a slimmer but somewhat less bright model:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07YFDFXY4 - I wonder if any bike light would be worth putting
into a glider as-is? Would need to add a fairing between it and the canopy.
"Not practical to try to replicate after market."
On the leading edge of the tail seems a really neat place.
Would it become practical if one repurposed the rear battery wire
On 11/20/2022 1:42 PM, Mark Mocho wrote:
But neither "some light off axis", nor omnidirectional top and bottom
strobes, would be bright enough to see from much distance. At least not >> with a power consumption that seems acceptable, e.g., under 0.2 amps.
I think that in order to make the best decisions on which directions to >> send the light to, we should determine which directions are the most
likely collision directions. And ignore directions that are not visible >> anyway. E.g., at least from a glider cockpit, you can't look down, nor
above-and-behind. Thus if one glider is following above and behind
another one, no strobe location will help either see the other.
OK, since the infallible Moshe Braner has decreed that there is no effective solution, I shall immediately suspend all efforts to improve glider-to-glider visibility. Thanks, Moshe!
And I have also discovered that there is a group with equal infallibility called the "Man Will Never Fly Society." Therefore, I urge you all to immediately sell your aircraft to some unsuspecting neophyte who believes otherwise.
I didn't say there is no solution, and I support your efforts Mark! And
I'm dabbling in the same approach (plus software) myself. Just trying
to discuss what would be the most effective approach, given the limited power supply. Sotecc clearly think that a forward-only strobe is the
best compromise. That may or may not be true. E.g., I was proposing we consider the pros and cons of having two strobes, aimed somewhat right
and left of forward.
True enough. Off-axis bearings are much less visible with the current configuration, but once again, anything is better than nothing. It is like relying solely on Flarm, knowing that intermittent contacts are common due to poor antenna placement,blockage of the signal by carbon fiber fuselages, inability to interpret warnings quickly, and other factors. None of these reasons are valid excuses to NOT have Flarm; they are merely caveats to remind us that nothing is perfect.
I am also going to experiment with side mounted flashers inside the canopy. Of course, power requirements will be higher, but nothing like what is needed for standard xenon anti-collision lights. Bright LED technology is quite amazing, considering thelow cost, low energy demand and light weight. True 360-degree coverage in both horizontal and vertical planes is not feasible, but as I said before, anything is better than the current "stealth" mode.
I have also learned that LED lights can be made substantially brighter by increasing the power, at the penalty of reduced life. I don't really have any method of testing this, as the flashers are already so bright that they are potentially damaging tothe eye if viewed for more than a few seconds at close range. And I am not sure whether boosting the input voltage would do anything with commercially available, inexpensive flashers which may have over-voltage protection circuitry.
Having observed the Sotecc flashers a few times this last season, I can attest that, under certain conditions (like under a cloud shadow), two miles is entirely possible. I have seen the red flash before a glider is discernable a couple of times.
I seem to recall a glider (not sure what brand/model) at one SSA convention that had a fin mounted LED flasher that appeared to be "scarfed" on the leading edge. Looked like a molded housing with a long LED strip down the middle. You'd still have thehassle of running the wires, but at least you wouldn't have the challenge (and legal issues) of modifying the structure. Anybody else remember this?
I seem to recall a glider (not sure what brand/model) at one SSA convention that had a fin mounted LED flasher that appeared to be "scarfed" on the leading edge. Looked like a molded housing with a long LED strip down the middle. You'd still have thehassle of running the wires, but at least you wouldn't have the challenge (and legal issues) of modifying the structure. Anybody else remember this?
Just found these: https://luxlightingsystems.com/products/max-rgb-color-changing-led-rock-lights
A bit more expensive, but they appear to be nearly ideal for what I am trying to do.
On Sunday, December 11, 2022 at 10:00:44 AM UTC-5, Moshe Braner wrote:heat dissipation for longer LED life.
On 12/10/2022 2:32 PM, Mark Mocho wrote:Yes, under an off-road vehicle for night trail running or rock crawling.
Just found these:Interesting! What in the world is a "rock light" - people mount then
https://luxlightingsystems.com/products/max-rgb-color-changing-led-rock-lights
A bit more expensive, but they appear to be nearly ideal for what I am trying to do.
UNDER jeeps? Does the polymer body diffuse the light into all
directions? Are you planning to use these mounted on the outside of a
glider? They're supposed to "mount" on steel objects via the built-in
magnets - will you glue them instead? Will you use only the red LEDs
within?
The directions state "mount on metal with the magnets", we understand it has to be a ferrous metal like steel in a car/truck. The magnets are also part of the heatsink, thus that has to be considered as the steel mounting panel is more surface area for
On 12/10/2022 2:32 PM, Mark Mocho wrote:Yes, under an off-road vehicle for night trail running or rock crawling.
Just found these: https://luxlightingsystems.com/products/max-rgb-color-changing-led-rock-lights
A bit more expensive, but they appear to be nearly ideal for what I am trying to do.
Interesting! What in the world is a "rock light" - people mount then
UNDER jeeps? Does the polymer body diffuse the light into all
directions? Are you planning to use these mounted on the outside of a glider? They're supposed to "mount" on steel objects via the built-in magnets - will you glue them instead? Will you use only the red LEDs
within?
On 12/11/2022 10:24 AM, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
On Sunday, December 11, 2022 at 10:00:44 AM UTC-5, Moshe Braner wrote:
On 12/10/2022 2:32 PM, Mark Mocho wrote:Yes, under an off-road vehicle for night trail running or rock crawling.
Just found these:Interesting! What in the world is a "rock light" - people mount then
https://luxlightingsystems.com/products/max-rgb-color-changing-led-rock-lights
A bit more expensive, but they appear to be nearly ideal for what I
am trying to do.
UNDER jeeps? Does the polymer body diffuse the light into all
directions? Are you planning to use these mounted on the outside of a
glider? They're supposed to "mount" on steel objects via the built-in
magnets - will you glue them instead? Will you use only the red LEDs
within?
The directions state "mount on metal with the magnets", we understand
it has to be a ferrous metal like steel in a car/truck. The magnets
are also part of the heatsink, thus that has to be considered as the
steel mounting panel is more surface area for heat dissipation for
longer LED life.
The heat dissipation is needed if they are continuously lit. In use as
a glider strobe, they would be driven (even over-driven) in short
pulses. Thus much less heat is generated. E.g., the LED module I'm
first trying out is rated 1 watt per LED, I drive them at 2 watts for
short pulses. The default in my "SkyStrobe" software is one burst every
2.4 seconds, each burst 3 flashes of 40 milliseconds each. Thus the
LEDs are lit only 4% of the time - 25 times less heat. That increases
to 20% of the time when flashing more frequently due to FLARM reporting
a collision warning. (These are preliminary timings, will tweak as experience is gained in actual use. And there's a way to change the defaults.) The software (which can also drive buzzer warnings) runs on
a $10 microcontroller.
On 12/10/2022 2:32 PM, Mark Mocho wrote:
Just found these:
https://luxlightingsystems.com/products/max-rgb-color-changing-led-rock-lights
A bit more expensive, but they appear to be nearly ideal for what I am
trying to do.
Interesting! What in the world is a "rock light" - people mount then
UNDER jeeps? Does the polymer body diffuse the light into all
directions? Are you planning to use these mounted on the outside of a glider? They're supposed to "mount" on steel objects via the built-in
magnets - will you glue them instead? Will you use only the red LEDs within?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 69:53:27 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Files: | 12,244 |
| Messages: | 5,356,715 |
