What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Strobes vs. Nav/Com question

tomcostanza

Well Known Member
Hi all,
Has anyone had any interference between strobes and a nav/com or GPS? If so, did you do anything to reduce it?

Thanks,
-Tom
 
The standard answer seems to be "never cross a wire with any other wire or cable". Of course in the confines of the RV-8 belly, it becomes nearly impossible to keep all the leads separated. I did however manage to run all the strobe wires down one side of the aircraft and pretty much got all the electrical wiring separated from the radio antennas on the other side.
So far I have very quiet Garmins.
Best,
Tango Sierra
 
1. Use shielded cable for the power and ground wires.

2. Run the ground wire all the way back the the fuselage ground so that it stays close to the power wires and doesn't create any loop currents.

3. Ground the shield braid from the cable at both ends to structure.

4. Make sure that the chassis of each light assembly and any power boxes are well grounded to structure.

Dean Wilkinson
CTO, AeroLEDs LLC
 
Per Dr. Howard Johnson, a well known expert in high speed signal integrity and RFI:



Cable Shield Grounding

HIGH-SPEED DIGITAL DESIGN - online newsletter -
Vol. 2 Issue 2

In high-speed digital applications, a low impedance connection between the shield and the equipment chassis *at both ends* is required in order for the shield to do its job. The shield connection impedance must be low in the frequency range over which you propose for the shield to operate. The measure of shield connection efficacy for a high-speed connector is called the ground transfer impedance, or shield transfer impedance, of the connector, and it is a crucial parameter. In the example you cite, the ground transfer impedance at one end of the cable would be 100 ohms, rendering the shield useless.

In low-speed applications involving high-impedance circuitry, where most of the near-field energy surrounding the conductors is in the electric field mode (as opposed to the magnetic field mode), shields need only be grounded at one end. In this case the shield acts as a Faraday cage surrounding the conductors, prevent the egress (or ingress) of electric fields.

In high-speed applications involving low-impedance circuitry, most of the near-field energy surrounding the conductors is in the magnetic field mode, and for that problem, only a magnetic shield will work. That?s what the double-grounded shield provides. Grounding both ends of the shield permits high-frequency currents to circulate in the shield, which will counteract the currents flowing in the signal conductors. These counteracting currents create magnetic fields that cancel the magnetic fields emanating from the signal conductors, providing a magnetic shielding effect.

For the magnetic shield to operate properly, we must provide means for current to enter (or exit) at both ends of the cable. As a result, a low-impedance connection to the chassis, operative over the frequency range of our digital signals, is required that *both* ends of our shielded cable. (See Henry Ott, ?Noise Reduction Techniques in Electronic Systems?, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, 1988.)

There are shielding approaches that provide a low ground transfer impedance at high frequencies, while at the same time providing a much higher impedance at 60 Hz. These approaches involve the use of shields that are capacitively- coupled to the chassis. They are used where high-frequency shielding is needed, but where there is a desire to limit the circulation of 60-Hz currents.

For a capacitively-coupled shield to work, the impedance of the capacitor, at the frequency of operation, must be very low. For example, if the signal wires couple to the shield through an impedance of 75 ohms (that?s another way of saying that the common-mode impedance of the cable is 75 ohms), and the shield is tied to ground through an impedance of 0.1 ohm, then we would expect to measure on the shield a voltage equal to (0.1/75) = 0.0013 times the common-mode signal voltage. The shield in this case would be giving us a 57dB shielding effectiveness. These are the specifications that our IEEE 802.3z 1000BASE-CX copper cabling groups feels are necessary to meet FCC/VDE regulations.

For any shield to work in the Gigabit Ethernet application, we will therefore need a ground transfer impedance (that is the impedance between chassis and the shielded of the cable) less than about 0.1 ohms at 625 MHz. If you check the specifications for the BERG MetaGig shielded connector, it beats this specification. It provides a direct metallic connection between chassis and shield that goes all the way around the connector pins, completely enclosing the signal conductors.

To achieve equivalent performance with a capacitively-coupled shield, the effective series inductance of the capacitor would have to be limited to less than about 16 PICO-henries. That small an inductance cannot be implemented in a leaded component, it would have to be a very low-inductance distributed capacitance, possibly implemented as a thin gasket distributed all the way around the connector shell, insulating the connector shell from the chassis. We have seen proposals for this type of connector, but have not seen one work in actual practice.

I do not advocate the use of capacitively-coupled shields for our application because: (1) It would add complexity, (2) It hasn?t been demonstrated to work, and (3) It would not expand the range of our applications. Keep in mind that the short copper link we are discussing (P802.3z clause 39) is intended for use inside a wiring closet. It only goes 25 meters. It will be used between pieces of equipment intentionally tied to the same ground (we call out in the specification that this must be the case). Between such pieces of equipment there will be no large circulating ground currents. For longer connections, we provide other links types which do not require grounding at either end (multimode fiber, singlemode fiber, and category-5 unshielded twisted pairs). Direct grounding of the shield at both ends is the correct choice for our application.

Best Regards,
Dr. Howard Johnson
 
FYI

With thanks to Howard Johnson, I'm not a physicist, but I did stay at one of his hotels. Even so, that was a bit over my head.

I did a seat-of-pants experiment with one strobe on the bench. I got a lot of interference with a broadcast band AM radio, but almost none with a comm radio. The little I did get, I believe was coming through the power wires and not through the antenna (turning the volume down made no difference in the sound). My concern is more for the nav antennas. I'll be using the Archer wingtip nav antennas (one in each wingtip). I have taken pains to keep the strobe wire separate from all other wires within the wing, but to do the same in the fuse will require drilling additional holes in the seat ribs, which I would like to avoid. The wires would only be co-located for about 20" from the wing root to the center of the fuse. If I thought it would be a problem, it would be infinitely easier to take care of it now rather than fix it after it's flying.

Anyway, thanks for the advice. I've ordered some 2 conductor shielded wire and will use it for the power. I may experiment with a low-pass filter to see if that makes a difference.

Clear Skies,
 
Tom,

The test engineers at Cessna also recommend grounding shields at both ends. Grounding at just one end gives you an electro-static shield, but grounding at both ends gives you an electro-magnetic shield. The difference is that in the first case only the electric field component of a signal is shielded, while in the second, both the electric and magnetic field components are shielded.

The ground current will still prefer to flow in the shield rather than go around it because high frequency currents take the path of least inductance, which is the path that makes the smallest loop with the positive conductor that it is paired with. The smaller the loop current cross section, the lower the RFI that is emitted (a less efficient loop antenna).

I posted the Dr. Howard Johnson example because it goes into the underlying reasons for this. I took a class from him and got a copy of his textbook at a large high tech company that I worked for about 10 years ago.

Hope that helps.

Dean Wilkinson
CTO, AeroLEDs LLC
 
Back
Top