X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com X-PolluStop-Diagnostic: (direct reply)\eX-PolluStop-Score: 0.00\eX-PolluStop: Scanned with Niversoft PolluStop 2.1 RC1, http://www.niversoft.com/pollustop Return-Path: Received: from tomcat.al.noaa.gov ([140.172.240.2] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c4) with ESMTP id 861694 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 12:13:14 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=140.172.240.2; envelope-from=bdube@al.noaa.gov Received: from mungo.al.noaa.gov (mungo.al.noaa.gov [140.172.241.126]) by tomcat.al.noaa.gov (8.12.11/8.12.0) with ESMTP id j38GCNxt011053 for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 10:12:28 -0600 (MDT) Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.0.20050408100318.02ef18b0@mailsrvr.al.noaa.gov> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.1.2 Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 10:11:57 -0600 To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" From: Bill Dube Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Timing In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

I doubt that the PM alternator would be a problem.

If the separation were a few inches, I would agree. However, the separation might be as little as a few millimeters. The stray field from the alternator decreases by something like the fourth power of the separation distance. As you get close, the field gets strong very quickly. The sensor will not be perfectly shielded and will undoubtedly have some presented area.

I would put a scope on the sensor with the alternator in place and functioning, just to make certain that there was no significant interference.