Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:21 AM - Re: Re: RF exposure levels (Ken)
2. 07:11 AM - Re: RF exposure levels. (Eric M. Jones)
3. 07:25 AM - Re: Re: RF exposure levels on juliet (Jerzy Krasinski)
4. 07:36 AM - Rules... ()
5. 08:00 AM - Re: Rules... (BobsV35B@aol.com)
6. 10:09 AM - Re: 11615 Frank (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 10:32 AM - Another type of crimp connector? (Dr. Andrew Elliott)
8. 10:37 AM - Re: RF exposure levels (erie)
9. 11:20 AM - Re: Re: Slobovia Outernational Flyin Invitation ()
10. 11:41 AM - heated seats (Christopher Stone)
11. 12:19 PM - Re: Slobovia Outernational Flyin Invitation (BobsV35B@aol.com)
12. 12:37 PM - Re: RF exposure levels (Brian Lloyd)
13. 01:32 PM - Re: RF exposure levels (erie)
14. 03:50 PM - Re: RF exposure levels (Brian Lloyd)
15. 06:21 PM - Re: Re: 11615 Frank (Ernest Christley)
16. 11:46 PM - What about the new Oddysey dry-cell batteries everyone is using/ (Rex & Jan Shaw)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RF exposure levels |
on juliet
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Of course your eye lens will be cooked and opague as it has no coolant
flow (blood). Don't know if the exposure to cause this in humans was
ever well quantified but too many of us get cataracts too young...
OTOH you'll be able to break out the cheap booze cause nobody will be
able to see it ;)
Ken
Eric M. Jones wrote:
>snip
>I'm with Brian on this. Frankly my airplane might have magnetron defrosting
>for windows and a magnetron for heating the passengers. It really is a
>better idea than it seems. You can rip the door off the microwave oven to
>warm up the kitchen on chilly mornings--very efficient--heats up the people
>not the furniture.
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RF exposure levels. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
But seriously--for those interested in the subject.
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet56/oet56e4.pdf
Interesting stuff. But the whole thing is summed up by--"We know very little
but some reasonable care may be wise just in case."
Suggestion for High School Science Project: "Microwave Exposure Limits in
Hamsters"
Of course your chances of being injured by RF is infinitesimal compared to
your chances of being injured or killed in experimental aircraft.
For those interested in risk--here is the list of violent deaths in NYC in
1925
5,581 New York City Violent Deaths in 1925
1272 Automobile Accidents
994 Suicides
925 Falls from high places
631 Gas
439 Burns
416 Drowning (Ferrys?)
356 Homicides
343 Trucks
167 Taxicabs
140 Accidental Poisoning
117 Collisions (Streetcars?)
95 Falling objects
95 Swimming
87 Elevators
56 Subways and Elevated Trains
52 Railroad Trains
14 Accidental Shooting
11 Capsizing Boats
6 Baseball
5 Kicked by horses
1 Football
1 Aeroplane
(do not archive)
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RF exposure levels on juliet |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Jerzy Krasinski <krasinski@provalue.net>
Colleague of mine died as a result of magnetron heating. That was many
years ago in the communist Poland. We had no offices and our desks were
in a huge lab shared by several people. The only telephone was in the
secretarys office. One guy had a problem with his magnetron system and
he removed the waveguide load, having the power run into the empty at
that time room. The door to the lab opened and the secretary called the
guy to the telephone. He left the room leaving the magnetron on. In the
mean time another fellow got into the lab and he went straight to his
desk . Unfortunately for him the open waveguide was shooting the
microwaves straight at his back. He said he felt as if the whole room
was very hot, he did not feel any surface heating, and he remained in
his chair. By the time the first guy returned, the kidneys of the second
guy were fried, and he died.
On another topic, while water has a very high absorption to microwaves,
ice is fairly transparent to them. A thin layer of ice on the windows
will let most of the magnetron power to go out. Not the most efficient
deicing system!
Jerzy
Ken wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>
>Of course your eye lens will be cooked and opague as it has no coolant
>flow (blood). Don't know if the exposure to cause this in humans was
>ever well quantified but too many of us get cataracts too young...
>
>OTOH you'll be able to break out the cheap booze cause nobody will be
>able to see it ;)
>
>Ken
>
>Eric M. Jones wrote:
>
>
>
>>snip
>>I'm with Brian on this. Frankly my airplane might have magnetron defrosting
>>for windows and a magnetron for heating the passengers. It really is a
>>better idea than it seems. You can rip the door off the microwave oven to
>>warm up the kitchen on chilly mornings--very efficient--heats up the people
>>not the furniture.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
0.05 HAIR_LOSS BODY: Cures Baldness
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <marknlisa@hometel.com>
Hi Bob,
Thanks for your in-depth reply to my post. You've made many great points
that I'd like to reply to (embedded below).
--snip
Good Morning Mark,
Having flown under the philosophy you espouse for some thirty-eight of my
fifty-eight years of flying, I feel the necessity to comment.
The safety enjoyed by the air carrier community is not the result a
slavish adherence to the specifications you mention.
It is due to a collective interpretation of what is good and what is bad
about the current set of operating restrictions.
Those restrictions and procedures are in a constant state of evaluation
and consideration. The changes are developed primarily by the pilots who
are adhering to the rules and see areas wherein the rules do not operate
optimally for the current condition.
--snip
Exactly my point, although not made in as much detail as you. I believe
it's very important to understand *why* a rule is imposed to better
understand the danger the rule writers envision. I hope I didn't give the
impression that we should "set and forget" rules; we should always
evaluate our performance and do everything we can (including changing the
rules) to improve.
--snip
On the very first page of the operating specifications of the airline for
which I flew was a statement to the effect that nothing in that manual
was to be taken as restricting the captain in command of the flight
taking any action which he felt was appropriate even though that action
was not in literal compliance with the published procedures.
The only proviso was that it was expected that the captain would report
the deviation and be able to explain the action if so requested.
Accountability was the word.
--snip
I believe the spirit of that proviso haunted the first page of the
Technical Order (TO), referred to as the "dash one" or -1 for short, that
contained the operating procedures for the KC-135.
The -1 is liberally sprinkled with "cautions" and "warnings" that are all
the result of an individual/crew act (or failure to act) that directly
resulted in bent metal, smoked wires, injury or death. Yet we all knew
that the pilot/crew would do whatever was necessary to complete the
mission safely, including busting a caution/warning.
--snip
It was constantly impressed upon us that the written guidance was there
for our use and guidance. If we didn't like what it said, we were
encouraged to get the rules changed. That is what was done and the
procedures changed often as conditions taught us where change was needed.
You state: "Rules that take the pilot out of the decision-making
process." Do you really think that is what is desired? I don't think it
was every intended that the pilot be taken out of the decision process.
It was always my understanding that I was being given guidance to follow
so that I would have a better chance of making the correct decision when a
decision was to be made.
--snip
Excellent points all. A funny story about written guidance: A few years
before I retired, the USAF decided to quit calling regulations (we
called em regs) regulations. Many pilots believed the regs impinged
on their authority and autonomy (omnipresence?) as pilot-in-command.
Soooo, the regs became Instructions. Unfortunately, others in the USAF
community misunderstood leaderships intent and decided
that instructions can be interpreted, if you know what I mean, nudge
nudge, wink wink. Following a spate of disciplinary proceedings involving
the friendly legal folks (yes, they even have them in the Military), all
AFIs (Air Force Instructions) now carry the following disclaimer in bold
print, on the front page, at the very top: COMPLIANCE WITH THIS
PUBLICATION IS MANDATORY! True story
I dont believe we should blindly follow rules; although I do believe
that some rules can benefit us greatly. I do recommend understanding
*why* a rule exists to better understand the danger. I believe rules can
serve us well if used properly and judiciously. I think (I hope) we all
agree that rules should never be ignored (or interpreted) without a full
understanding of the *why*--this is really at the heart of my caution to
Bob Nuckolls.
I may have used the term taking pilots out of the decision-making
process a little too broadly. I was speaking more in the vein of go/no-
go decisions. Heres an example: I think it would be good if each of us
were to impose (and strictly follow) our own set of rules to help us make
individual go/no-go decisions in those situations where other
considerations can become a part of the accident chain. If the weather
is below my personal minima then the decision is made; the cost of a
rental car or hotel room, the loss of a day of vacation, disappointing
family or friends, wussing out, or any other consideration cannot
override the rule.
--snip
The idea was that we be given all of the knowledge as to why things were
they way they were and what the results would be if the guidance was not
followed.
--snip
Exactly, this is my primary and most important point! If we wish to
become as old (not meant derogatorily) and sage an aviator as you Bob, we
must exercise sound judgment in everything aviation thing we do.
An old adage comes to mind: Judgment comes from experience; experience
comes from bad judgment. I dont know everything about flying (or
building) airplanes (please don't take that wrong; I dont mean to imply
you believe you do). Knowing that, I strive to learn. In those cases
where my knowledge is lacking I do the research and find the answers I
need. In those cases where research isnt an option, in-flight for
instance, I fall back on written guidance which will at least
(hopefully) lead me in the safest direction. If I can learn judgment by
understanding *why* a rule was imposed (as opposed to learning the hard
way) I can reduce my hair loss (an area where I need all the help I can
get) and ensure my wife's continued enjoyment of flying.
Let me restate my original thought in another way: We need to understand
the *why* behind rules because although some rules are written to cover
ones ass (as in the case of bureaucrats), others are written in our
fellow aviators blood; we need to know the difference and act
appropriately.
--snip
If the course of action seemed to have a potential of being counter to the
written word, I always considered how I would explain myself at the
hearing. If I was comfortable with my intended explanation, I pressed
on. Do you ever remember being told as a young man that you should never
do anything you wouldn't want your mother to know about? That was how I
felt about doing my job.
--snip
I know what you mean; I still always wear clean underwear in case Im in
an accident. Of course, it probably wont be clean then
--snip
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
--snip
And to you Bob,
Mark
---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Home Telephone
Company's Web-Based Email interface.
http://webmail.hometel.com
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 9/21/04 9:40:00 AM Central Daylight Time,
marknlisa@hometel.com writes:
--snip
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
--snip
And to you Bob,
Mark
Good Morning Mark,
Looks like we are both pulling in the same harness.
Thanks for the comments
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>Dear Bob,
>
>I own a 1946 Ercoupe 415C (or does it own me?). It turns a 20-amp Delco
>generator.
>
>My ammeter is doing strange things lately, flickering full-scale between
>+/- 30, calming down for a second or two, then goes back to
>flickering. Do you have any idea what the cause of this could be?
>
>Regards,
>
>Christopher Frank
This can be a variety of problems. Do you have a spare
regulator? If you can substitute the regulator and get
any significant change in behavior, then the regulator
is the biggest suspect. You could have worn and poor
function in brushes. This can be checked by observation.
You can pull the generator and have it inspected and
tested as a separate component.
If it were my airplane, I'd trash the generator and
regulator in favor of a PM alternator from B&C pictured
here:
http://bandc.biz/200gdesc.html
This alternator has been installed on a ton of C-120/140
and aircraft with the -12 case on a C-85 or O-200
engine. B&C can probably help you with a 337.
I will invite you to join us on the AeroElectric List
to continue this and similar discussions. It's useful to
share the information with as many folks as possible.
A further benefit can be realized with membership on
the list. There are lots of technically capable folks
on the list who can offer suggestions too. You can
join at . . .
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe/
Thanks!
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Another type of crimp connector? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dr. Andrew Elliott" <a.s.elliott@cox.net>
Gang:
I found another type of crimp connector at Radio Shack about which I'd
like to get some comments. RS calls them "Insulated Telephone Butt
Connectors, for 22-26 gauge wire", PN 64-3073. Them come in packs of 24
for about $1.50.
These connectors are *much* smaller and lighter than PIDG for the same
wire size, appear well matched to 22-gauge tefzel aircraft wire, but do
not crimp the insulation. Instead, because of the good size match, the
insulation receives some support from the insulator of the connector.
RS sells a manual (non-ratcheting) crimp tool for this connector for
<$10.
I have placed a picture of this connector, a crimp and the tool at
http://members.cox.net/n481hy/connector/connector.jpg
I like these because of their small size and weight, which makes for
neat wiring, especially for wiring repairs. The crimps easily pass my
"pull" test. But I would really like comments on aircraft applications
please. If anyone knows of a ratcheting crimper for this connector (or
die for my HX4), that would be great, too.
Thanks,
Andy Elliott
N481HY/AA-1(TD,160)/KFFZ
http://members.cox.net/n481hy/
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RF exposure levels |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: erie <erie@shelbyvilledesign.com>
Brian, did you forget a few smileys????
erie
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Slobovia Outernational Flyin Invitation |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Hi Paul,
We usually see a pretty good mix from ultralite types antique/classic to an SX-300.
Several of the residents are former airshow circuit pilots, so you never
know who will show up.
We have an 1929 TravelAir, RV-4 & RV-8, & several regular GA factory planes based
on the field, with an RV-7 & RV-8 under construction. I'm interested in using
a Mazda rotary in my -7, so we usually have a good showing by rotary engine
builders & flyers.
We are pretty laid back, without much in the way of formal activities except eating;
we are pretty serious about that. :-)
I hope you can make it over; be sure to track me down & say hello when you arrive.
Charlie
>
> From: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister@qia.net>
> Date: 2004/09/20 Mon PM 11:21:16 EDT
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Slobovia Outernational Flyin Invitation
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister@qia.net>
>
> Hi Charlie,
>
> Can you tell me a little about the typical kind of folk / aircraft who
> attend this fly in ?. I am at Waukesha so its an easy day trip for me.
>
> Regards, Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Charlie England" <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
> To:
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Slobovia Outernational Flyin Invitation
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England
> <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
> >
> > If you can make it to central Mississippi on Oct. 16, I'd like to invite
> > you to Slobovia Outernational's fall flyin just north of Jackson MS.
> >
> > The fun starts at 10:00 AM & lunch will be served at noon. You are
> > welcome to overnight either Friday or Saturday. Just email or call so we
> > can plan for supper/breakfast, throw a bedroll in the plane/car & 'come
> > on down'.
> >
> > No formal programs are scheduled, just lots of airplane rides, food &
> > 'homebuilt conversation'.
> >
> > Info on our airport can be found at
> >
> > http://www.airnav.com/airport/MS71
> >
> > FAA Identifier: MS71
> > Lat/Long: 32-29-42.508N / 090-17-34.325W
> > 32-29.70847N / 090-17.57208W
> > 32.4951411 / -90.2928681
> > UNICOM: 122.75
> >
> > Disclaimer: Slobovia is a private airport. Pilots operate at their own
> > risk. Please be alert for both very slow & very high speed aircraft
> > around the airport; we are an 'equal opportunity airport'.
> >
> > If you need driving directions or more info, feel free to email me at
> > ceengland@bellsouth.net
> > or call at 601-879-9596.
> >
> > Ya'll come!
> >
> > Charlie
> >
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Christopher Stone <rv8iator@earthlink.net>
I ran across these seat heaters.
http://www.rameinc.com/SeatHeaters.html
I am considering them for my -8. There has been some past discussion of
heated seats especially for the rear seat in the -8. Don't know yet
what the power requirement is for these.
Chris Stone
Design Engineer
A-DEC
Newberg, Oregon
www.a-dec.com
-8 wings.... forever
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Slobovia Outernational Flyin Invitation |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
In a message dated 9/21/04 1:21:45 PM Central Daylight Time,
ceengland@bellsouth.net writes:
We usually see a pretty good mix from ultralite types antique/classic to an
SX-300. Several of the residents are former airshow circuit pilots, so you
never know who will show up.
Good Afternoon Charlie,
I would love to drop in one of these years, but I absolutely can't make it
this year.
I did look at the Air Nav page and note the following under airport
facilities:
"Lights: RDO REQ"
Does that mean that you have to have radio to get the lights lit, or do you
require that all aircraft have a radio to use the field?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RF exposure levels |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Sep 21, 2004, at 1:36 PM, erie wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: erie
> <erie@shelbyvilledesign.com>
>
> Brian, did you forget a few smileys????
Uh, is that addressed to me? If so, I don't think so. I think the
whole issue of RF exposure is bent completely out of shape. I look at
the problem from a physical chemistry point of view and say that, if
there is no mechanism by which the RF energy can break or make chemical
bonds, there will be no changes to the tissue and therefor no damage.
At the frequencies where we are operating, i.e. HF and VHF, the mode of
energy transfer is thermal through dielectric heating. You would have
to heat things up substantially to make any changes in the tissue.
Even if you could get all of the 7 watts of power output into a small
area of your body, it just isn't going to raise the temperature enough
to do anything.
Think about your antenna as a light bulb and then think about how much
of the "light" coming from your antenna your body is going to intercept
even if the antenna is only 1' away. That ratio is the ratio of the RF
power you are going to intercept. It isn't very much.
Now at microwave frequencies such as the 2.4 GHz water line, you have a
molecular mechanism to take up the energy very efficiently. That is
how microwave ovens work. OTOH, we don't have anything in the airplane
that generates power at 2.4 GHz.
So, the FCC and its limits not withstanding, I think this is a bogus
issue.
But I do like the idea of the modified microwave body warmer and
windscreen defogger. ;
)
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RF exposure levels |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: erie <erie@shelbyvilledesign.com>
Sorry, was quickly responding between jobs...comments inline with
original post bits......
But they
are "official" and that makes people more comfortable since we all know
that our governmental agencies would never promulgate anything that
were not well reasoned with solid scientific fact behind them and
weren't in our best interests. <=========== smiley needed here as I think every
one of us knows how much "scientific fact" goes into most policies, procedures
and rules..
This entire subject is totally blown out of proportion, and legitimized by the
government, who feel it's in their (political) best interests to placate an under
(or un-) educated public.
erie
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RF exposure levels |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brianl@lloyd.com>
On Sep 21, 2004, at 4:32 PM, erie wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: erie
> <erie@shelbyvilledesign.com>
>
> Sorry, was quickly responding between jobs...comments inline with
> original post bits......
>
>
> But they
> are "official" and that makes people more comfortable since we all know
> that our governmental agencies would never promulgate anything that
> were not well reasoned with solid scientific fact behind them and
> weren't in our best interests. <=========== smiley needed here as I
> think every one of us knows how much "scientific fact" goes into most
> policies, procedures and rules..
Oh, yeah, that. I probably should have put a smiley in there on that
one. :-)
> This entire subject is totally blown out of proportion, and
> legitimized by the government, who feel it's in their (political) best
> interests to placate an under (or un-) educated public.
Right on Bro!
Brian Lloyd 6501 Red Hook Plaza
brianl@lloyd.com Suite 201
+1.340.998.9447 St. Thomas, VI 00802
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> If it were my airplane, I'd trash the generator and
> regulator in favor of a PM alternator from B&C pictured
> here:
>
> http://bandc.biz/200gdesc.html
>
Bob, what is it that makes these alternators so expensive?
Several of the rotary guys are using Geo/Metro alternators that only
weigh around 5lbs and cost a little over $100. B&C's site doesn't go
into the advantages of their offering, but at 4 times the expense I
would expect there to be some benefit. B&C just seems like a
straight-up sort of company not to have some good reasoning.
--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | What about the new Oddysey dry-cell batteries everyone |
is using/
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rex & Jan Shaw" <rexjan@bigpond.com>
I have changed from a 8 month old normal flooded wet cell lead acid battery
to an Odyssey Absorbed Glass Matt battery.
YES !!!! all the claims are correct at this point anyway. The difference is
amazing. Do it and you'll never regret it. It's worth the extra. The old
girl has never started so easy even when the flooded cell batt was new.
Rex.
rexjan@bigpond.com
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|