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

On 11/19/2022 6:42 AM, Mark Mocho wrote:
> 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 can't see it on Facebook (no FB account, and not a member of the Pegase group). Could
you post it on RAS_Prime, which does allow pictures?
--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications

On 11/19/2022 9:42 AM, Mark Mocho wrote:
> 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

Great news Mark. Can you post some details here, for those of us who
are not on Facebook generally or that group specifically?

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

On 11/19/2022 8:22 AM, Mark Mocho wrote:
> 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

It looks good, but I wish there was way gliders slightly below you could see it.
--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications

I like it Mark! What length extension cord is required?

On 11/19/2022 12:57 PM, Jim Lee wrote:
> 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)?

On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 2:34:46 PM UTC-5, Moshe Braner wrote:
> On 11/19/2022 12:57 PM, Jim Lee wrote:
> > 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)?
Moshe, I will say yes for all 5 questions, though hopefully it would work without FLARM connected

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 is acceptable 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.

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 11/19/2022 12:05 PM, Mark Mocho wrote:
> 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
>
These are not 50W bulbs, despite the spec on the listing. Take a look at 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
--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications

On 11/19/2022 2:57 PM, Mark Mocho wrote:
> 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 is acceptable 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.
>

But is it bright enough to be seen from half a mile away in full
sunlight? In a head-on situation with a relative speed of 2 miles a
minute, half a mile is 15 seconds away.

On 11/19/2022 4:41 PM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 11/19/2022 12:05 PM, Mark Mocho wrote:
>> 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
>>
>>
> These are not 50W bulbs, despite the spec on the listing. Take a look at
> 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
>

Maybe they meant 60W-incandescent-equivalent. Like they label the
household LED bulbs.

You can probably drive these harder for short pulses, but you'll need
more than 12 volts, since these are set up with internal resistors to
limit the power to what they can handle continuously.

All those incandescent-replacement LED bulbs for automobile tail lights
are built to send light in all directions: multiple LEDs are mounted on
it, all around. For that to work on, e.g., the belly of a glider, you'd
need a transparent faired bubble deep enough to expose the whole
LED-mounted portion of such a bulb.

And then again, will it be visible from a relevant distance? I doubt it.

> 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.

On 11/19/2022 7:47 PM, Mark Mocho wrote:
>> 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.
>

Right :-)

One way to make it "brighter" is to concentrate the beam to a narrow
angle. A friend who has the Sotecc unit says it is noticeably dimmer
more than 10 degrees off-axis, and not visible at all 30 degrees off.
(This fits the diagram in the product page on W&W.) They claim more
than 2 miles (!) visibility.

But, that means no visual warning to aircraft that are not approaching
head-on. Seems to me that most collisions are not head-on?

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 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.

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 to the 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. 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 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.
>
> 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 to the 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.

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.

> 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.

On Sun, 20 Nov 2022 10:42:25 -0800 (PST), Mark Mocho wrote:

> 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.
>

.... their motto is: "Birds Fly-Men Drink."

This gives a strong clue about the purpose of that society. Oddly enough,
it seems to count quite a few model fliers and aircraft spotters among
their membership.

--

Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

On 11/20/2022 9:49 AM, Moshe Braner wrote:
> 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.
>
RF transmissions, like Flarm, seem to have smaller dead spots than lights, and much lower
battery consumption. Maybe getting the "unFlarmed" gliders to install an OGN Soft-Rf
tracker would be the easiest, cheapest, and most effective way to alert other pilots of
their presence. No collision warning, but the proximity alert and cockpit display would
do, say, 80-90% percent of what we need.

Some people will equip with Soft-RF anyway, just to join OGN, so it might not be so hard
to equip all the "unFlarmed", even if the SSA gave them away (or sold cheaply).

--
Eric Greenwell - USA
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation"
https://sites.google.com/site/motorgliders/publications

On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 11:22:38 AM UTC-5, Mark Mocho wrote:
> 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
It looks like a pretty good start to me.
Good job
UH

> 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

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 let you know the results.

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.

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.
> > Comparing to store bought would be an even better measure
> 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 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