Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:03 AM - Re: Pretty darned confused about grounding shields (rv-9a-online)
2. 07:32 AM - Re: Dimmer voltage (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 07:36 AM - Slippery Stuff (Steve Thomas)
4. 07:45 AM - Re: Microair 760N to Flightcom 403 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 08:07 AM - Re: Open letter to the list (Eric Ruttan)
6. 08:27 AM - Re: Slippery Stuff (N67BT@aol.com)
7. 08:32 AM - Re: Slippery Stuff (Harold Kovac)
8. 08:39 AM - Re: Slippery Stuff (John Schroeder)
9. 08:52 AM - Re: Slippery Stuff (Eric M. Jones)
10. 10:55 AM - Re: Re: Slippery Stuff (Steve Thomas)
11. 11:21 AM - Re: Slippery Stuff (Charlie England)
12. 11:32 AM - Re: Slippery Stuff (Rob Housman)
13. 12:03 PM - Re: Slippery Stuff (Kent Ashton)
14. 01:00 PM - Re: Open letter to the list THE END (Paul Messinger)
15. 01:43 PM - Re: Slippery Stuff (Brian Kraut)
16. 01:48 PM - Re: Open letter to the list THE END (John Grosse)
17. 02:10 PM - Re: Slippery Stuff (Vincent Welch)
18. 02:22 PM - Re: Slippery Stuff (Rick)
19. 02:29 PM - Re: Open letter to the list THE END (James E. Clark)
20. 03:23 PM - Re: Open letter to the list THE END (Steve Thomas)
21. 03:24 PM - Re: Open letter to the list (glaesers)
22. 03:25 PM - Re: Slippery Stuff (Steve Thomas)
23. 03:37 PM - Re: Re: Open letter to the list (Dj Merrill)
24. 04:04 PM - Re: Open letter to the list THE END (Mike Nellis)
25. 04:08 PM - Dual Electronic Starting Issues (Duane Zavadil)
26. 05:09 PM - Re: Dual Electronic Starting Issues (Denis Walsh)
27. 05:46 PM - Re: Dual Electronic Starting Issues (James E. Clark)
28. 07:58 PM - Re: Slippery Stuff (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
29. 08:23 PM - Re: Open letter to the list THE END (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
30. 08:38 PM - Re: Open letter to the list (David Carter)
31. 08:41 PM - Re: Slippery Stuff (Paul Pengilly)
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: Pretty darned confused about grounding shields |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rv-9a-online <rv-9a-online@telus.net>
One more thing to add... engine monitors are like intercoms or audio
panels. Whenever possible, all of the sensor shields should be
connected on the engine monitor and not at the sensor end. Applies
mostly to analog sensors (temperature, volts, amps, pressures, etc.).
Digital sensors follow the transmitter rule... but it's still not too
critical which end you ground.
Vern Little.
Wayne Sweet wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet@comcast.net>
>
>Ahh...... electronics apparently really is a black art, one that only
>'nature' has the final say; If it works, then it's correct. Don't fool with
>"mother nature". Problem is she ain't talking.
>Wayne
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Dan O'Brien" <danobrien@cox.net>
>To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Pretty darned confused about grounding shields
>
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dan O'Brien" <danobrien@cox.net>
>>
>>After Wayne Sweet suggested the Garmin manual was off regarding shielding,
>>I called the company. Ready for this?
>>
>>1. Connecting a UPS SL30 Nav Com to a MD200-306 CDI indicator: UPS manual
>>(before the Garmin merger) says ground shields at both ends. They are
>>SPECIFIC. For example, they have footnotes that explicitly say to ground
>>a
>>both ends, while they also have footnotes saying to let float the Nav/Com
>>end of the connection to the audio panel. Couldn't be more explicit.
>>However, the Garmin tech rep says to ground the shields only at the
>>Nav/Com
>>end. He says "I don't know why the manual says that?
>>2. Connecting a GNS430 GPS/Nav/Com to a MD200-306 CDI indicator: Garmin
>>manual says ground shields at both ends.
>>However, the Garmin tech rep says to ground the shields only at the
>>Nav/Com
>>end. He says "I don't know why the manual says that?
>>3. Connecting a GNS430 to an altitude serializer: Garmin manual says
>>ground
>>the shield at both ends.
>>However, the Garmin tech rep says to ground the shield only at the Garmin
>>end;
>>while the Microencoder rep says ground the shield at the Microencoder end
>>(the "sending" end).
>>
>>Almost as bad as economists (my field). OK scientists, there either IS a
>>right answer to each question, or there are tradeoffs that are worth
>>understanding. Inquiring (if somewhat mystified, and a little irritated)
>>minds want to know.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
>It has removed 701 spam emails to date.
>Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
>Try www.SPAMfighter.com for free now!
>
>
>
>
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: Dimmer voltage |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 06:37 PM 1/28/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bikcrzy@aol.com
>
>Hello Group,
>
> I procured a 5 amp dimmer control from B&C. When my bus voltage is 12
>Volts the power lead from the dimmer with the potentiometer turned to the
>brightness is a shade over 10 volts and when connected the voltage drops
>to a
>shade under 10 volts. I ran a lead directly from the bus to the terminal
>blocks
>where the lights are hooked up and everything reads 12 volts. Is the dimmer
>control designed to only deliver 10 volts when fed 12? Is this because when
>the alternated is running it will make up the difference since the buss
>voltage
>will climb to 13.8 or so? Thanks for your thoughts. JR RV-7A Still Wiring.
The DIM series controllers from B&C (and others featured in various
publication articles) are based on adjustable, 3-terminal regulators
like a series of devices introduced by national and duplicated
by many others. See:
http://www.national.com/ds.cgi/LM/LM117.pdf (1.5 a max)
http://www.national.com/ds.cgi/LM/LM150.pdf (3.0 a max)
http://www.national.com/ds.cgi/LM/LM138.pdf (5.0 a max)
For the dimmer you've cited, the LM138 data applies. Check out
page 3 of the data sheet at the bottom center graph called
"Dropout Voltage" . . .
This graph depicts the minimum operating differential between
input and output voltage under various operating conditions.
If you operated this device at max load and kept the junction
temperature in the device below 100C then one could expect
a dropout voltage on the order of 2.6 volts meaning that for
12 volts input, one can expect about 9.4 volts out. The fact
that you are seeing less than 2 volts of differential suggests
your currents are much below 5 amps and perhaps on the order
of 1.5 to 2 amps.
You'll find similar characteristics in the lower current
devices featured on other models of the DIM series lighting
controllers from B&C.
Yes, when your bus rises to 14+ volts, the maximum output
from the controller will rise too.
The phenomenon you've observed has been noted by numerous
builders over the years. Allow me to suggest that the
condition is irrelevant to the operation of your airplane.
Panel lights are generally first turned on right after
sunset and may well be at max bright for a few minutes.
As it begins to get really dark, the dimmer knob gets
turned down so that by the time sky light contributes
little to cockpit visibility, dimmer output voltage will
be something substantially less than 8 volts.
The thoughts behind the DIM series controllers is that
the active devices are VOLTAGE REGULATORS. This means that
for any change of bus voltage coming in, there is very
little change in voltage coming out. So, pulsations caused
by strobe supplies in particular are NOT perceived as
perturbations in light levels on the panel. See page 2
value for line voltage regulation . . . for a 1 volt
change of input voltage, output voltage will no depart
from set-point by more than 6/100ths of a percent.
The loss of max voltage due to characteristics of the
solid state regulator have no great significance in the
utility of the dimmer as it's used in your aircraft.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Thomas <lists@stevet.net>
Hello aeroelectric-list,
I need to run some additional wires through my wing conduit and it
is pretty full already. The conduit is plastic tube.
Is there any slippery stuff I can use in there to make running the
wires easier that won't harm things down the road?
--
Best regards,
Steve mailto:lists@stevet.net.nospam
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 |
|
| Subject: | Microair 760N to Flightcom 403 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 02:38 PM 1/28/2005 -0600, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mervin Friesen" <mefriese@hsd.ca>
>
>I'm certainly no expert, so my observation may not be accurate. But in the
>instructions copied below, it says MC403 "Avionics Ground" to Microair Pin
>2. On the Revision N diagram, pin 2 shows no internal connection. On
>revision C, pin 2 is labelled Mic Lo. This is what led me to my request
>for advice.
Very good. I missed that. On the earliest 760 drawings pin
2 is called out as "microphone ground" and I'll bet that if
you do an ohmmeter check between pins 2 and 11 or 12 on your
radio you will find that they are connected together. I
interpret their "not wired" notation to mean that you don't
wire to this pin for the purposes of arriving at their suggested
wiring . . . not that the pin is floating inside the radio.
There would have been no reason for an "old" radio to have
pin 2 connected and utilized in older diagrams and "new"
radios to suddenly have a disabled internal connection to
pin 2. If the ohmmeter test suggested above confirms my
hypothesis, then my suggestion of using pin 2 on the radio
as "avionics ground" for the intercom is a rational
approach for minimizing potential for noise injected by
ground loops.
Thanks for illuminating my oversight.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Open letter to the list |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric Ruttan" <ericruttan@chartermi.net>
Paul;
I have deep respect for your experiences, and the fact you are bringing data
and a challenge to the table.
But you are really starting to piss me off.
If you have something FACTUAL to say, say it. If you have a LOGICAL
deduction or reasoning to share, share it.
I see most all your emails as "I have all this data and facts and reasons,
but let me share political spin and rhetoric. I can make time to share
rhetoric, but haven't time to share hard data."
It has no place here.
Why not spend your limited time and bandwidth actually sharing facts? For 6
months we have been looking for your "study". What did you do, and how did
you do it? Before you drop a thesis on our heads and start lecturing us on
how wrong Bob is, how about you give us details on your actually
experimental foundation? Let us begin to look at your premise, before you
spring your ambush of conclusions based on it. (See Paul, I can use
inflaming rhetoric too! Now I feel dirty.) Let us start to question your
premises NOW! Then we will have a solid ground to see if something is
different than what we have shown it to be for years.
This is not a democracy. 250 experience years saying something is true is
no more relevant than me saying it. There are facts. The universe can be
known. Perhaps you can help.
Are you really sorry about dropping a bomb and running? They why would you
do it? Is it the first time? Why would you not share your experimental set
up before you did all your work? Why not share the RAW data you got AS YOU
GOT IT? Why keep it secret? What are you doing to it that is taking all
this time?
Paul, this is not personal. And you're quite likely a great fellow.
But from all I see, you are a simple troll. You owe me nothing, but I would
like to see you prove me wrong.
Eric
PS
Paul took the trouble to dig through and quote Bob's response, out of
context, and implied it was a response to his post, which it was not. Paul
apparently failed to read the very next message Bob sent. For fairness and
completeness I include it here, in context.
>As well do theologians, politicians, and scientists of any vein have of
their
>particular pursuits. This is how we naturally select. In my minds' eye I
>see a pair of sharp eyes in Kansas above a gray beard rubbing his palms
>together, ready to attack the keyboard. Have at it folks, we all win in
>this contest-
>stay tuned; should be entertaining, educational, and verrrrrrryyy
>eenterrestink..........
>
>Mark do not archive
I didn't see this posting and place it in the right context before
I crafted my earlier message. Yes, I will approach any discussion
with enthusiasm and yes, enthusiasm is an emotion. Folks should
be aware that I, Paul, George or anyone else may step into the
arena with what some will interpret to be heavy clubs and a blood
in the eye demeanor. However, I trust that resolution of ideas is
always is achievable. Further, when we're through swinging
"clubs", there will be no broken bones nor blood on the ground
. . . and we'll all go out for a beer afterwards.
Bob . . .
/aside This is bob's first response
> > Close but no cigar. I'll remind folks that the ultimate proof
> > of any science is the repeatable experiment. George says he can
> > blow transorbs in a heartbeat. We'll need details of his test
> > environment before any query or argument can be mounted. Paul
> > says he has come conclusions to make based on his testing. I
presume
> > he'll be willing to detail his experiments. If I have anything to
> > contribute to the conversations, I'll have to either (1) show where
> > the setup is wrong or (2) explain how the interpretation is in
> > error or (3) go to the shop and repeat the experiment for closer
> > examination.
I belive Bob was keying on the "naturally select" phrase in marks post.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Open letter to the list
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger"
<paulm@olypen.com>
>
> Sorry to drop a "bomb" and then run.
>
> Well KOMPUTUR failed and backups not so good. Then internet connection
> (Directway) failed. Still down, (for general info I live out where cable
dsl
> etc are not available so I have a satellite ground station where I uplink
to
> the satellite my outgoing and down link from the satellite the incomming.
> With that mode NFG its its SLOW telecon modem and tonight only 300+ emails
> to look at. New computer + new software etc etc.
>
> It will be at least a week before back to normal at best. (Kant even
smell
> chk until more SW is loaded.)
>
> Any way. I have test data, facts and lots of industry references on my
side
> (oops as we are not taking sides just offering more info to consider) as
> well as a team of 6 others who have over 200 years experience 9with my
time
> added in its nearly 250 years of related experience). Not that we are
right,
> as that is not the point, just to point out alternatives and their merits.
>
> This is not to say Bob is wrong, just there are more than one proper
> solution and what is fine for one might not be even reasonable for
another.
>
> For example a C150 in day VFR in uncontrolled airspace is very different
> than an auto engine conversion where it takes over 10+ amps to keep the
prop
> turning. The C150 flys with no battery or alternator while the auto
> conversion needs lots of amps from somewhere ALL the time
>
> Diferent solutions to different problems.
>
> BUT in general I feel its time to leap into the modern age and use some
real
> rugged automotive components that are far more reliable and pass much more
> rugged testing requirements than the infamous DO-160.
>
> Also my testing has led to a series of problems etc etc that needed more
> investigation. I have testing that is st least repeatable for me as well
as
> industry reports for backup. This has kept the report in a constant state
of
> flux. Add been sick and Wife is not at all well last yeasr and now there
is
> not a lot of time to work on things.
>
> However I have not found any show stoppers than need immediate attention.
> (Perhaps those in the middle of wiring would disagree.)
>
> How about NO fuses, practically no CB's NO relays, simple controls etc
> nearly all solid state with smarts built in. Eric would have no contactors
> or fuses or CB's anywhere. Its possible today with off the shelf parts and
> much lighter and potentially lower cost and far more reliable. End of
final
> soap box conclusion as that is were its all ending up.
>
> Below Bob you left out option 4 in your list. Perhaps Paul (et al) are
> right. :-), welllll he has a point in the design for a specific
application
> etc :-)
>
> Anyway I will return when the dust settles (mine) with talking points one
at
> a time, perhaps one per week so things are not so confusing with many
> discussions at once.
>
> Paul
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Open letter to the list
>
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> >
> > Close but no cigar. I'll remind folks that the ultimate proof
> > of any science is the repeatable experiment. George says he can
> > blow transorbs in a heartbeat. We'll need details of his test
> > environment before any query or argument can be mounted. Paul
> > says he has come conclusions to make based on his testing. I
presume
> > he'll be willing to detail his experiments. If I have anything to
> > contribute to the conversations, I'll have to either (1) show where
> > the setup is wrong or (2) explain how the interpretation is in
> > error or (3) go to the shop and repeat the experiment for closer
> > examination.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Slippery Stuff |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N67BT@aol.com
I used talcum powder rubbed on the wire, which worked well.
Bob Trumpfheller
<I need to run some additional wires through my wing conduit and it
is pretty full already. The conduit is plastic tube.
Is there any slippery stuff I can use in there to make running the
wires easier that won't harm things down the road?
Best regards,
Steve>
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: | Re: Slippery Stuff |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Harold Kovac" <kayce@sysmatrix.net>
I've seen wires pulled thru conduit with a goop in a quart container, can but bought
at an electrical supply shop...maybe medical lube could also be used.
Harold
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Thomas
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 10:33 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Slippery Stuff
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Thomas <lists@stevet.net>
Hello aeroelectric-list,
I need to run some additional wires through my wing conduit and it
is pretty full already. The conduit is plastic tube.
Is there any slippery stuff I can use in there to make running the
wires easier that won't harm things down the road?
--
Best regards,
Steve mailto:lists@stevet.net.nospam
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: Slippery Stuff |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Schroeder" <jschroeder@perigee.net>
Most electrical supply houses have a lube for pulling cables thru conduit.
Since the stuff I have seen and used on a house has a wax in it, I would
not use it on a "plastic" airplane. It has the consistency of a hand
lotion. Metal, I should think, would be OK.
Hope this helps,
John chroeder
> Is there any slippery stuff I can use in there to make running the
> wires easier that won't harm things down the road?
>
--
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: Slippery Stuff |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Thomas <lists@stevet.net>
>I need to run some additional wires through my wing conduit and it is
pretty full already. The conduit is plastic tube. Is there any slippery
stuff I can >use in there to make running the wires easier that won't harm
things down the road?
Steve,
One of the few great uses of Teflon is to do exactly this job. Pure Teflon
is sold in spray form in CP (Chemically Pure) and FB (Film Bonding) grades.
Use the CP grade if you can, but the FB grade is okay too. MSC sell this as
TFE dry lube spray. Many sources. Google "TFE spray".
I used to sell the CP grade spray to parachute riggers, who went through
cases of it. Amazing stuff when you wanted a parachute to open quickly.
Great lube for plastics too.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
"When dealing with the enemy, it helps if he thinks you're a little bit
crazy."
--Gen. Curtis LeMay
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Slippery Stuff |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Thomas <lists@stevet.net>
Hello Eric,
Saturday, January 29, 2005, 8:55:16 AM, you wrote:
EMJ> MSC sell this as
EMJ> TFE dry lube spray.
Thanks to all for your responses. I'll try some of this teflon stuff,
TFE Dry Lube by Sprayon, and let you-all know how it works.
--
Best regards,
Steve
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: Slippery Stuff |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Charlie England <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Steve Thomas wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Thomas <lists@stevet.net>
>
>Hello aeroelectric-list,
>
> I need to run some additional wires through my wing conduit and it
> is pretty full already. The conduit is plastic tube.
>
> Is there any slippery stuff I can use in there to make running the
> wires easier that won't harm things down the road?
>
>
>
Try the nearest electrical supply house or even a well stocked building
supply that handles electrical stuff. Wire lube is essential for any
electrician pulling wire through conduit in commercial buildings.
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob Housman" <robh@hyperion-ef.us>
I have used (but not in my aircraft) a product that electricians call
"elephant snot" (a rather viscous yellow goop - once you see it you'll
understand the name) available at electrical supply stores. I don't recall
the real name but I'm sure that if you use this term that the folks at the
counter will know what exactly you want.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Europa XS Tri-Gear A070
Airframe complete
Irvine, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Steve
Thomas
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Slippery Stuff
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Thomas <lists@stevet.net>
Hello aeroelectric-list,
I need to run some additional wires through my wing conduit and it
is pretty full already. The conduit is plastic tube.
Is there any slippery stuff I can use in there to make running the
wires easier that won't harm things down the road?
--
Best regards,
Steve mailto:lists@stevet.net.nospam
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: Slippery Stuff |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kent Ashton <kjashton@vnet.net>
Yes, the bodily fluids of elephants are widely used. We used to use
"elephant cum" to clean grease pencil scheduling boards in the air force.
--Kent
> From: "Rob Housman" <robh@hyperion-ef.us>
> Reply-To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:31:35 -0800
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Slippery Stuff
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob Housman" <robh@hyperion-ef.us>
>
> I have used (but not in my aircraft) a product that electricians call
> "elephant snot" (a rather viscous yellow goop - once you see it you'll
> understand the name) available at electrical supply stores. I don't recall
> the real name but I'm sure that if you use this term that the folks at the
> counter will know what exactly you want.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Rob Housman
>
> Europa XS Tri-Gear A070
> Airframe complete
> Irvine, CA
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Steve
> Thomas
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Slippery Stuff
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Thomas <lists@stevet.net>
>
> Hello aeroelectric-list,
>
> I need to run some additional wires through my wing conduit and it
> is pretty full already. The conduit is plastic tube.
>
> Is there any slippery stuff I can use in there to make running the
> wires easier that won't harm things down the road?
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Steve mailto:lists@stevet.net.nospam
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Open letter to the list THE END |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
"DO NOT ARCHIVE"
Sorry to piss you off. My life is not nice and has not been for more than a
year.
I have tried to multitask and its not working.
While I get great encouragement OFF the list it seems the ON list comments
are from closed minds.
Frankly you seemed to not have really read my note.
Well after being sick and not getting ANY emails due to problems with
internet connections I made a comment that some took as a slap at Bob and
replied with what could be considered by me to be nasty comments about me.
Its true the test results have dragged on and on. But so does life's
problems. And frankly did the need to find fixes to the problems with the
current design mainly in the case of an all electric aircraft.
Sorry, so many think Bob is never wrong and or his way is the only way but
it is basically his group and you all seem to be willing to have its his way
and only his way. So be it!
I do have lots of data but a 200 page report with dozens and dozens of
photos, graphs etc, takes time and then there is the issue of one problem
leads to another etc.
SORRY I HAVE FAILED TO PROVIDE A ATTA BOY TO BOB AND DONE (the report) IN
YOUR TIME SCHEDULE. but then you get what you pay for
I at least for now I am going into the listen only mode. (FORGET ANY REPORT
at least here).
I have so much to do supporting those (on this and several other lists I
manage) who are interested in better alternatives and better not equal
solutions to bother with so many of you.
Its been interesting but after many years of seeing so many try to suggest
alternatives and be put down (over and over again) its time to say enough.
I have retained below part of why I have made this decision below in
embedded comments and please read carefully.
BY BY
Paul
----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Ruttan <ericruttan@chartermi.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Open letter to the list
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric Ruttan"
<ericruttan@chartermi.net>
>
> Paul;
>
> I have deep respect for your experiences, and the fact you are bringing
data
> and a challenge to the table.
>
> But you are really starting to piss me off.
>
> If you have something FACTUAL to say, say it. If you have a LOGICAL
> deduction or reasoning to share, share it.
>
> I see most all your emails as "I have all this data and facts and reasons,
> but let me share political spin and rhetoric. I can make time to share
> rhetoric, but haven't time to share hard data."
-------------
The hard data required lots of effort to put in in an enginering format that
is suitable for peer review.
---------------------
>
> Why not spend your limited time and bandwidth actually sharing facts? For
6
> months we have been looking for your "study". What did you do, and how
did
> you do it? Before you drop a thesis on our heads and start lecturing us
on
> how wrong Bob is, how about you give us details on your actually
> experimental foundation?
---------
I have never said how wrong Bob is, but he does not always provide the best
colution to a specific problem.
-------------
> Let us begin to look at your premise, before you
> spring your ambush of conclusions based on it. (See Paul, I can use
> inflaming rhetoric too! Now I feel dirty.) Let us start to question your
> premises NOW! Then we will have a solid ground to see if something is
> different than what we have shown it to be for years.
------------
I have NOT sprung any conclusions to date!
> This is not a democracy. 250 experience years saying something is true is
> no more relevant than me saying it. There are facts. The universe can be
> known. Perhaps you can help.
---------------
My point is that what some have been told as facts are not correct as you
seem to believe but so waht your mind is made up. My point is its not just
me but a group that agrees that what was to have been presented has beel
peered reviewed and found to be factual and industry standart practice where
reliability is king IE aerospace etc.
IF 250 years of experience from highly experienced and recognized by their
peers ad exceptional is not relivant then nothing is
-------------------
>
> Are you really sorry about dropping a bomb and running? They why would
you
> do it?
-----------
I told you I had internet connection problems and computer problems and was
off line so there was no way to follow up and I said so.
Plus what is wrong with saying this list of subjects needs discussion, do
you not want to know what the rest of the world knows to be true and
factual?
----------------------------
>Why would you not share your experimental set
> up before you did all your work? Why not share the RAW data you got AS
YOU
> GOT IT? Why keep it secret? What are you doing to it that is taking all
> this time?
---------------------
Perhaps you do not know what a test report and study requires when presented
to a peer much less a semiclosed mind. It is a large task. As for time it
takes a couple of months to (1) test (2)find a problem (3)think of a
solution (4)design it, (5)get parts and finally(6) test the solution.
You do not seem to appreciate the massive amount of work Bob has done. And I
have seen very little of his actual testing to support what he says is true.
People assume its true because its comming from Bob. And 95% is great.
-----------------------
> But from all I see, you are a simple troll. You owe me nothing, but I
would
> like to see you prove me wrong.
-------------
Waste of time as my effort was to enlighten but its taken far too much time
and my personal life too busy to even try to continue
--------->
> Eric
>
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: "Brian Kraut" <brian.kraut@engalt.com>
I had always heard it called elephant something else that I will not repeat
on the list.
Brian Kraut
Engineering Alternatives, Inc.
www.engalt.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Rob
Housman
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Slippery Stuff
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob Housman" <robh@hyperion-ef.us>
I have used (but not in my aircraft) a product that electricians call
"elephant snot" (a rather viscous yellow goop - once you see it you'll
understand the name) available at electrical supply stores. I don't recall
the real name but I'm sure that if you use this term that the folks at the
counter will know what exactly you want.
Best regards,
Rob Housman
Europa XS Tri-Gear A070
Airframe complete
Irvine, CA
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Steve
Thomas
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Slippery Stuff
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Thomas <lists@stevet.net>
Hello aeroelectric-list,
I need to run some additional wires through my wing conduit and it
is pretty full already. The conduit is plastic tube.
Is there any slippery stuff I can use in there to make running the
wires easier that won't harm things down the road?
--
Best regards,
Steve mailto:lists@stevet.net.nospam
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: | Re: Open letter to the list THE END |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Grosse <grosseair@ameritech.net>
Geez where's the fire department when you need them!!!!
Paul, I appreciate your contributions to the list, and I'm sorry that
you won't be participating further. It's truly unfortunate that we
don't seem to be able to disagree or discuss ideas in an open manner
without someone getting confrontational and in Eric's case, abusive.
Eric, I really think you are totally out of line in your response to
Paul, and I think you have violated the Usage Agreement. I would suggest
you read past the first sentence, and if you won't abide by the rules
then you should not be on the list.
- Feel free to disagree with other viewpoints, BUT keep your tone
polite and respectful. Don't make snide comments, personally attack
other listers, or take the moral high ground on an obviously
controversial issue. This will only cause a pointless debate that
will hurt feelings, waste bandwidth and resolve nothing.
John Grosse
PS I guess it's my turn to be flamed now. So shoot away.
Paul Messinger wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
>
>"DO NOT ARCHIVE"
>
>Sorry to piss you off. My life is not nice and has not been for more than a
>year.
>
>I have tried to multitask and its not working.
>
>While I get great encouragement OFF the list it seems the ON list comments
>are from closed minds.
>
>Frankly you seemed to not have really read my note.
>
>Well after being sick and not getting ANY emails due to problems with
>internet connections I made a comment that some took as a slap at Bob and
>replied with what could be considered by me to be nasty comments about me.
>
>Its true the test results have dragged on and on. But so does life's
>problems. And frankly did the need to find fixes to the problems with the
>current design mainly in the case of an all electric aircraft.
>
>Sorry, so many think Bob is never wrong and or his way is the only way but
>it is basically his group and you all seem to be willing to have its his way
>and only his way. So be it!
>
>I do have lots of data but a 200 page report with dozens and dozens of
>photos, graphs etc, takes time and then there is the issue of one problem
>leads to another etc.
>
>SORRY I HAVE FAILED TO PROVIDE A ATTA BOY TO BOB AND DONE (the report) IN
>YOUR TIME SCHEDULE. but then you get what you pay for
>
>I at least for now I am going into the listen only mode. (FORGET ANY REPORT
>at least here).
>
>I have so much to do supporting those (on this and several other lists I
>manage) who are interested in better alternatives and better not equal
>solutions to bother with so many of you.
>
>Its been interesting but after many years of seeing so many try to suggest
>alternatives and be put down (over and over again) its time to say enough.
>
>I have retained below part of why I have made this decision below in
>embedded comments and please read carefully.
>
>BY BY
>
>Paul
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Eric Ruttan <ericruttan@chartermi.net>
>To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Open letter to the list
>
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric Ruttan"
>>
>>
><ericruttan@chartermi.net>
>
>
>>Paul;
>>
>>I have deep respect for your experiences, and the fact you are bringing
>>
>>
>data
>
>
>>and a challenge to the table.
>>
>>But you are really starting to piss me off.
>>
>>If you have something FACTUAL to say, say it. If you have a LOGICAL
>>deduction or reasoning to share, share it.
>>
>>I see most all your emails as "I have all this data and facts and reasons,
>>but let me share political spin and rhetoric. I can make time to share
>>rhetoric, but haven't time to share hard data."
>>
>>
>
>-------------
>
>The hard data required lots of effort to put in in an enginering format that
>is suitable for peer review.
>---------------------
>
>
>>Why not spend your limited time and bandwidth actually sharing facts? For
>>
>>
>6
>
>
>>months we have been looking for your "study". What did you do, and how
>>
>>
>did
>
>
>>you do it? Before you drop a thesis on our heads and start lecturing us
>>
>>
>on
>
>
>>how wrong Bob is, how about you give us details on your actually
>>experimental foundation?
>>
>>
>---------
>I have never said how wrong Bob is, but he does not always provide the best
>colution to a specific problem.
>-------------
>
>
>>Let us begin to look at your premise, before you
>>spring your ambush of conclusions based on it. (See Paul, I can use
>>inflaming rhetoric too! Now I feel dirty.) Let us start to question your
>>premises NOW! Then we will have a solid ground to see if something is
>>different than what we have shown it to be for years.
>>
>>
>------------
>I have NOT sprung any conclusions to date!
>
>
>>This is not a democracy. 250 experience years saying something is true is
>>no more relevant than me saying it. There are facts. The universe can be
>>known. Perhaps you can help.
>>
>>
>---------------
>My point is that what some have been told as facts are not correct as you
>seem to believe but so waht your mind is made up. My point is its not just
>me but a group that agrees that what was to have been presented has beel
>peered reviewed and found to be factual and industry standart practice where
>reliability is king IE aerospace etc.
>
>IF 250 years of experience from highly experienced and recognized by their
>peers ad exceptional is not relivant then nothing is
>
>-------------------
>
>
>>Are you really sorry about dropping a bomb and running? They why would
>>
>>
>you
>
>
>>do it?
>>
>>
>
>-----------
>I told you I had internet connection problems and computer problems and was
>off line so there was no way to follow up and I said so.
>
>Plus what is wrong with saying this list of subjects needs discussion, do
>you not want to know what the rest of the world knows to be true and
>factual?
>----------------------------
>
>
>
>>Why would you not share your experimental set
>>up before you did all your work? Why not share the RAW data you got AS
>>
>>
>YOU
>
>
>>GOT IT? Why keep it secret? What are you doing to it that is taking all
>>this time?
>>
>>
>---------------------
>Perhaps you do not know what a test report and study requires when presented
>to a peer much less a semiclosed mind. It is a large task. As for time it
>takes a couple of months to (1) test (2)find a problem (3)think of a
>solution (4)design it, (5)get parts and finally(6) test the solution.
>
>You do not seem to appreciate the massive amount of work Bob has done. And I
>have seen very little of his actual testing to support what he says is true.
>People assume its true because its comming from Bob. And 95% is great.
>
>-----------------------
>
>
>>But from all I see, you are a simple troll. You owe me nothing, but I
>>
>>
>would
>
>
>>like to see you prove me wrong.
>>
>>
>
>-------------
>Waste of time as my effort was to enlighten but its taken far too much time
>and my personal life too busy to even try to continue
>--------->
>
>
>>Eric
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Message 17
| 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: "Vincent Welch" <welchvincent@hotmail.com>
Two of the politically correct names are "Wire Lube" or "Wire Ease" :)
Vince
>From: "Rob Housman" <robh@hyperion-ef.us>
>Reply-To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Slippery Stuff
>Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:31:35 -0800
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob Housman"
><robh@hyperion-ef.us>
>
>I have used (but not in my aircraft) a product that electricians call
>"elephant snot" (a rather viscous yellow goop - once you see it you'll
>understand the name) available at electrical supply stores. I don't recall
>the real name but I'm sure that if you use this term that the folks at the
>counter will know what exactly you want.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Rob Housman
>
>Europa XS Tri-Gear A070
>Airframe complete
>Irvine, CA
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Steve
>Thomas
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Slippery Stuff
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Thomas <lists@stevet.net>
>
>Hello aeroelectric-list,
>
> I need to run some additional wires through my wing conduit and it
> is pretty full already. The conduit is plastic tube.
>
> Is there any slippery stuff I can use in there to make running the
> wires easier that won't harm things down the road?
>
>--
>Best regards,
> Steve mailto:lists@stevet.net.nospam
>
>
Message 18
| 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: Rick <n701rr@yahoo.com>
that's it..sometimes though I do confuse "monkey snot and elephant snot". Not
the same though..elephant snot is wire lube whereas we call plummer's puddy "monkey
snot"...I dunno.
Vincent Welch <welchvincent@hotmail.com> wrote:--> AeroElectric-List message posted
by: "Vincent Welch"
Two of the politically correct names are "Wire Lube" or "Wire Ease" :)
Vince
>From: "Rob Housman"
>Reply-To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Slippery Stuff
>Date: Sat, 29 Jan 2005 11:31:35 -0800
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rob Housman"
>
>
>I have used (but not in my aircraft) a product that electricians call
>"elephant snot" (a rather viscous yellow goop - once you see it you'll
>understand the name) available at electrical supply stores. I don't recall
>the real name but I'm sure that if you use this term that the folks at the
>counter will know what exactly you want.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Rob Housman
>
>Europa XS Tri-Gear A070
>Airframe complete
>Irvine, CA
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Steve
>Thomas
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Slippery Stuff
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Thomas
>
>Hello aeroelectric-list,
>
> I need to run some additional wires through my wing conduit and it
> is pretty full already. The conduit is plastic tube.
>
> Is there any slippery stuff I can use in there to make running the
> wires easier that won't harm things down the road?
>
>--
>Best regards,
> Steve mailto:lists@stevet.net.nospam
>
>
Rick
Orlando, FL
http://www.geocities.com/n701rr/index.html
---------------------------------
Message 19
| 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: | Open letter to the list THE END |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
Paul,
I, for one, request that you do not leave as a contributor ("... listen only
mode ...")
I suspect I am like many that sit on the sidelines and reap the benefits
without jumping in on matters like this. I think there are a lot of us.
Opinion: 90+% (not a fact ... just an opinion I have) of the people on this
list would very much appreciate your report ... WHENEVER you were able to
get around to it. I suspect Bob would be in that list. I for one appreciate
how much work people like you and Bob are VOLUNTEERING to do and provide to
us FREE(!!) whether we agree with your views, conclusions, opinions etc or
not.
I can also see why you would NOT want to share data at every step and spend
half of your time debating the approach. And I am sure there would be
debate.
This list is one of the few where there is real debate from time to time.
Many facts get presented and many opinions. Of course there is a certain
deference to Bob (not his fault in my opinion). I take the ones I want and
leave the others. I am grateful for them all.
As an example, some time ago there was an opinion expressed by Bob about
solid state switches/fuses (polyfuses???) and the EXP-Bus from ControlVision
vs a fuseblock approach. I took it all in and now have one plane one way and
am building another the other way. The discourse was good but I then
selected my approach for my mission profile. The two planes were different
and I made my decision based on a lot of factors ... not just the "technical
differences". And so far, all had worked just fine ... My point is I bet
there are some people who are interested in your alternate approaches so
that they can decide if they are better for their mission profiles.
Long-winded response just to request ... take a short break OK, but hang in
there ... we all need people like yourself who are willing to put in the
time and energy give us a different view and who are willing to challenge
the "view of record".
Finally, this medium (email) is sometimes quite limited in the handling of
responses that can be taken very much the wrong way. My suspicion is that
Eric did not mean harm in his message but its hard to correct a word or two
after you hit the send the button.
James
Message 20
| 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: Open letter to the list THE END |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Thomas <lists@stevet.net>
Hello All,
Saturday, January 29, 2005, 12:57:10 PM, you wrote:
PM> Its been interesting but after many years of seeing so many try to suggest
PM> alternatives and be put down (over and over again) its time to say enough.
I guess that this statement is what I find to be odd. I don't see
anyone on this list being "put down" at all. I posted on this list
once in an inappropriate way and was GENTLY reminded to take it easy.
I really don't see any "put downs" from a technical perspective - just
disagreements. The technically competent posters on this list (I am
NOT one of them) have disagreed a lot over the years and I don't
recall any put-downs.
Bob, in particular, has repeatedly said that if you choose to go
another way, or listen to other advice, it's your airplane; do as you
please. You are responsible for that machine and when it flies, it
should meet with your requirements.
We all need to grow a little thicker skin here. If you are an expert
and you disagree, then disagree! Evidence and repeatability are the
key ingredients. Add a dose of economical thinking and you have the
basis for this list, as I understand it. Beyond that, there seems to
be plenty of room for alternatives.
If you are an expert, I'd like to know why you don't agree. But, at
the same time, don't presume that we novices are required to accept
it, either.
I spend most of my time lurking because I'm mostly an idiot on these
matters. But I want to learn; listening and watching are the best
ways to do that. Let's keep it professional.
--
Best regards,
Steve
Message 21
| 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: Open letter to the list |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "glaesers" <glaesers@wideopenwest.com>
Paul,
I hope you reconsider - and that one closed mind doesn't spoil it for the
rest of us. I don't know what Eric Ruttan's problem is. Frankly, his
drivel pisses me off (and I hope a whole lot of others as well).
I'd like to think that 99.9% of the folks who read this list eagerly await
your report, and the education that the ensuing discussion will provide.
Yeah, I'm sure the discussions will have plenty of enthusiasm - which Bob
noted is an emotion - and at times will, no doubt, generate other emotions.
Your health, and your wife's, is far more important than anything else.
Take your time, get better, and of course - fix your computer :-). Even
those who are in the midst of wiring will survive.
Dennis Glaeser
Message 22
| 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: Slippery Stuff |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Thomas <lists@stevet.net>
Hello Rick,
Saturday, January 29, 2005, 2:21:55 PM, you wrote:
R> "monkey snot and elephant snot"
Wow! Way more information than I need! Thanks to all!
--
Best regards,
Steve
Message 23
| 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: Open letter to the list |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dj Merrill <deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu>
glaesers wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "glaesers" <glaesers@wideopenwest.com>
> I'd like to think that 99.9% of the folks who read this list eagerly await
> your report, and the education that the ensuing discussion will provide.
> Yeah, I'm sure the discussions will have plenty of enthusiasm - which Bob
> noted is an emotion - and at times will, no doubt, generate other emotions.
>
> Your health, and your wife's, is far more important than anything else.
> Take your time, get better, and of course - fix your computer :-). Even
> those who are in the midst of wiring will survive.
>
> Dennis Glaeser
Thanks, Dennis. Not sure I could have said it any better.
Paul, please get better, and rejoin the discussion when you feel
like you want to. In my opinion, there are tons of us out here that
appreciate ALL viewpoints.
-Dj
--
Dj Merrill
deej@thayer.dartmouth.edu
"TSA: Totally Screwing Aviation"
Message 24
| 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: Open letter to the list THE END |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mike Nellis <mike@bmnellis.com>
John Grosse wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Grosse <grosseair@ameritech.net>
>
>Geez where's the fire department when you need them!!!!
>
>Paul, I appreciate your contributions to the list, and I'm sorry that
>you won't be participating further. It's truly unfortunate that we
>don't seem to be able to disagree or discuss ideas in an open manner
>without someone getting confrontational and in Eric's case, abusive.
>
>Eric, I really think you are totally out of line in your response to
>Paul, and I think you have violated the Usage Agreement. I would suggest
>you read past the first sentence, and if you won't abide by the rules
>then you should not be on the list.
>
> - Feel free to disagree with other viewpoints, BUT keep your tone
> polite and respectful. Don't make snide comments, personally attack
> other listers, or take the moral high ground on an obviously
> controversial issue. This will only cause a pointless debate that
> will hurt feelings, waste bandwidth and resolve nothing.
>
>
>John Grosse
>
>PS I guess it's my turn to be flamed now. So shoot away.
>
>
>
While Eric's tone might have been a bit strong, I don't think Eric was
out of line at all and Paul's decision to take his data somewhere else
to play
(I at least for now I am going into the listen only mode. (FORGET ANY REPORT at
least here)
sort of confirms it. I've got an 8 year old nephew that says the same
thing when he doesn't get his way. In fact, I spent about 40 minutes
last night drafting a similar reply (although not as eloquent as Eric's)
but, in the end, discarded it. However, let me just add a couple of
thoughts to Erics message.
Bob has been helping, coaching and educating Internet homebuilders for
at least as long as I've been monitoring the Matronic List (1995), most
probably longer. Sure, Bob sells a book and CD and even promotes his
seminars, but if anyone thinks the cost of his manual and CD does
anything more than cover the expenses for those items and maybe some gas
and food money, they are probably mistaken. All I've ever known Bob to
ask of anyone is that they participate, help teach others and supply
their thought process for differing opinions. Like Paul, Bob is a busy
man in his job and has told everyone when he will not be available to
help on-line because of family or personal or business issues. We all
have busy lives and we all have personal issues that take up our time,
but don't waste everyones time by coming on-line to "drop a bombshell"
or promote your masterpiece and take off. By the time Paul gets around
to publishing his thesis on Load dump (and I'm sure he will at some time
in the future) my plane will probably be done as will many others.
Pauls statement that,
"How about NO fuses, practically no CB's NO relays, simple controls
etc nearly all solid state with smarts built in...."
leads me to believe he's probably a magician as well as an Electrical
Engineer. I'm sure we will one day see his own website, with his own
manual and maybe his own self contained module that we'll have to pay
for. Certainly there appears to be another agenda than just the
selfless one Bob has offered all these years.
I agree, it's sad that Paul has decided to leave. "None one of us is
as good as all of us" and his contributions have certainly been
helpful. But, if his skin is so thin that he can't take a little
criticism then I can only imagine his disgust and outrage when his peers
challenge his Load Dump Opus or anything else he might publish.
I think Paul fails to understand something; somewhere along the line
someone has helped and inspired Bob and set an example for him. Because
of that, Bob has taken on the role of teacher, probably in an attempt to
help pay back, in some way, those that have helped him and maybe set an
example for others to follow in the same way that an example was set for
him. In that vain, Bob's challenge is to try and teach complicated
concepts (at least to me) to a broad range of faceless people ranging
from those that have no electrical experience or knowledge to those that
might be EEs. In order to accomplish that seemingly thankless task and
keep it manageable, Bob has opted for the approach to keep his teachings
as simple and as inexpensive as possible while still meeting the needs
of the masses. Not an easy task I'm sure, especially with every Tom,
Dick and Harry wanting some custom feature or function that they think
they need. Many, many people have benefited from the help and guidance
that Bob has provide and, hopefully, many more will benefit in the
future. I don't ever recall Bob saying that his methodology was the
only way to do something. To those with differing opinions, all Bob has
asked is for them to show, factually, how their opinions are simpler or
less expensive. If someone has a different way of doing something and
if it's more complex and expensive but still works, then all I've ever
heard Bob say is, "well, it's your airplane and if works for you then
build it that way".
In summary, I don't personally know Bob or Eric and they certainly don't
need my dumb, restaurant owning, electrically challenged mouth to speak
for them. But if someone is going to post dissenting opinions and
theories on this forum then they should be prepared to support those
opinions in a timely and fact based manner and not, as Eric said, in a
Troll like manner.
Mike Nellis
>Paul Messinger wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Paul Messinger" <paulm@olypen.com>
>>
>>"DO NOT ARCHIVE"
>>
>>Sorry to piss you off. My life is not nice and has not been for more than a
>>year.
>>
>>I have tried to multitask and its not working.
>>
>>While I get great encouragement OFF the list it seems the ON list comments
>>are from closed minds.
>>
>>Frankly you seemed to not have really read my note.
>>
>>Well after being sick and not getting ANY emails due to problems with
>>internet connections I made a comment that some took as a slap at Bob and
>>replied with what could be considered by me to be nasty comments about me.
>>
>>Its true the test results have dragged on and on. But so does life's
>>problems. And frankly did the need to find fixes to the problems with the
>>current design mainly in the case of an all electric aircraft.
>>
>>Sorry, so many think Bob is never wrong and or his way is the only way but
>>it is basically his group and you all seem to be willing to have its his way
>>and only his way. So be it!
>>
>>I do have lots of data but a 200 page report with dozens and dozens of
>>photos, graphs etc, takes time and then there is the issue of one problem
>>leads to another etc.
>>
>>SORRY I HAVE FAILED TO PROVIDE A ATTA BOY TO BOB AND DONE (the report) IN
>>YOUR TIME SCHEDULE. but then you get what you pay for
>>
>>I at least for now I am going into the listen only mode. (FORGET ANY REPORT
>>at least here).
>>
>>I have so much to do supporting those (on this and several other lists I
>>manage) who are interested in better alternatives and better not equal
>>solutions to bother with so many of you.
>>
>>Its been interesting but after many years of seeing so many try to suggest
>>alternatives and be put down (over and over again) its time to say enough.
>>
>>I have retained below part of why I have made this decision below in
>>embedded comments and please read carefully.
>>
>>BY BY
>>
>>Paul
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: Eric Ruttan <ericruttan@chartermi.net>
>>To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Open letter to the list
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric Ruttan"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>><ericruttan@chartermi.net>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Paul;
>>>
>>>I have deep respect for your experiences, and the fact you are bringing
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>data
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>and a challenge to the table.
>>>
>>>But you are really starting to piss me off.
>>>
>>>If you have something FACTUAL to say, say it. If you have a LOGICAL
>>>deduction or reasoning to share, share it.
>>>
>>>I see most all your emails as "I have all this data and facts and reasons,
>>>but let me share political spin and rhetoric. I can make time to share
>>>rhetoric, but haven't time to share hard data."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>-------------
>>
>>The hard data required lots of effort to put in in an enginering format that
>>is suitable for peer review.
>>---------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Why not spend your limited time and bandwidth actually sharing facts? For
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>6
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>months we have been looking for your "study". What did you do, and how
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>did
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>you do it? Before you drop a thesis on our heads and start lecturing us
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>on
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>how wrong Bob is, how about you give us details on your actually
>>>experimental foundation?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>---------
>>I have never said how wrong Bob is, but he does not always provide the best
>>colution to a specific problem.
>>-------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Let us begin to look at your premise, before you
>>>spring your ambush of conclusions based on it. (See Paul, I can use
>>>inflaming rhetoric too! Now I feel dirty.) Let us start to question your
>>>premises NOW! Then we will have a solid ground to see if something is
>>>different than what we have shown it to be for years.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>------------
>>I have NOT sprung any conclusions to date!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>This is not a democracy. 250 experience years saying something is true is
>>>no more relevant than me saying it. There are facts. The universe can be
>>>known. Perhaps you can help.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>---------------
>>My point is that what some have been told as facts are not correct as you
>>seem to believe but so waht your mind is made up. My point is its not just
>>me but a group that agrees that what was to have been presented has beel
>>peered reviewed and found to be factual and industry standart practice where
>>reliability is king IE aerospace etc.
>>
>>IF 250 years of experience from highly experienced and recognized by their
>>peers ad exceptional is not relivant then nothing is
>>
>>-------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Are you really sorry about dropping a bomb and running? They why would
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>you
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>do it?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>-----------
>>I told you I had internet connection problems and computer problems and was
>>off line so there was no way to follow up and I said so.
>>
>>Plus what is wrong with saying this list of subjects needs discussion, do
>>you not want to know what the rest of the world knows to be true and
>>factual?
>>----------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Why would you not share your experimental set
>>>up before you did all your work? Why not share the RAW data you got AS
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>YOU
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>GOT IT? Why keep it secret? What are you doing to it that is taking all
>>>this time?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>---------------------
>>Perhaps you do not know what a test report and study requires when presented
>>to a peer much less a semiclosed mind. It is a large task. As for time it
>>takes a couple of months to (1) test (2)find a problem (3)think of a
>>solution (4)design it, (5)get parts and finally(6) test the solution.
>>
>>You do not seem to appreciate the massive amount of work Bob has done. And I
>>have seen very little of his actual testing to support what he says is true.
>>People assume its true because its comming from Bob. And 95% is great.
>>
>>-----------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>But from all I see, you are a simple troll. You owe me nothing, but I
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>would
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>like to see you prove me wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>-------------
>>Waste of time as my effort was to enlighten but its taken far too much time
>>and my personal life too busy to even try to continue
>>--------->
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Eric
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Message 25
| 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: | Dual Electronic Starting Issues |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Duane Zavadil" <dzavadil@hometownaccess.net>
I'd like to relate an experience and ask some questions.
I've got a 6A with an 0-320 with dual Electoair ignition. I had lot of problems
with kickback on starting that I attributed to low cranking speed. Upon rebuilding
the old Remy starter, the nature of the problem changed. Higher cranking
speed and less kickback but often when starting, particularly when cold, I
can crank away for up to 10 seconds with no luck but immediately upon releasing
the starter button, it often kicks off (and sometimes kicks back!). The bus
voltage drops into the 7-8 volt range when cranking. My guess is that the Electroair
ignition system is recieving inadequate voltage when cranking but when
the bus volatege jumps back up upon disengaging the starter, it resume operation(sometimes
with some odd transient that causes the kickback). By the way,I
found maintenance records of replacement of ring gear so this has probably been
going on for some time.
I'm inclined to add a second small battery such as one of small, 2-3 amp hour Yuasa
absorbed gel batterys that would be used for starting and backup. I would
like to take complexity out of the starting process and eliminate the potenial
for flying off with only the backup battery engaged by placing a normally closed
relay that is energized and opened by the starter relay primary circuit.
I would add a switch in series in this circuit to isolate the backup battery
from the rest of the systerm in the event that I needed to use it as a true backup
battery for the ignition system.
The plane is set up for night VFR, (vacuum system) and is sometimes flown that
way. It has an internally regulated alternator with Bob's crowbar OVP. I use an
Oddessy PC 725 and replace it annually (the old batterys work great in all kinds
of equipment around the place!).
Questions: Is there an easier way to fix the kickback such as a modern starter(
though I thought they drew higher current)?
Is it possible that the old Remy starter is somehow defective and drawing excess
current - causing the problem?
Is there a fatal flaw in the proposed backup scheme?
Thanks
Sent via the WebMail system at hometownaccess.net
Message 26
| 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: Dual Electronic Starting Issues |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Denis Walsh <denis.walsh@comcast.net>
Agree with your analysis. There is always a cost for adding complexity
to the system. I would first check all connections, cables and the
solenoids. Take a good look at the starter and battery cables paying
attention to the crimps on the termini. The volts should not drop to
7 when cranking, and when it does, the electroair is indeed going to be
unreliable. You should be able to get it up with better connections,
and cabling, with a new battery and rebuilt starter.
One other thing that has happened to me is if the battery is run down,
these things can happen. So check your charging volts and check for a
discharge when all switches are off. I had a drain I never would have
expected. It was the electronic tach I got from Jeff was drawing a few
ma when master switch was off! It took a couple months of inactivity
but it would drain the odyssey enough to cause low cranking voltage. I
rewired it to the main bus so it is powered from the master switch.
Now the battery will stay up even after long periods of inactivity.
I am a great fan of the odyssey but it is only a 17ah battery and will
be depleted easily if any thing like a clock or tach, etc is using it
up over a long period of time.
Good luck and let us know how it turns out. My first guess is the old
favorite of loose or poor connections somewhere, unless you let the
plane sit a long time between tries.
Denis
As a post script I would add that this is one advantage of having one
magneto and only one electronic ignition. You are a little more likely
to get a start with a low battery. The trade off is the dual system
gets better performance.
On Jan 29, 2005, at 5:17 PM, Duane Zavadil wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Duane Zavadil"
> <dzavadil@hometownaccess.net>
>
> I'd like to relate an experience and ask some questions.
>
> I've got a 6A with an 0-320 with dual Electoair ignition. I had lot
> of problems with kickback on starting that I attributed to low
> cranking speed. Upon rebuilding the old Remy starter, the nature of
> the problem changed. Higher cranking speed and less kickback but
> often when starting, particularly when cold, I can crank away for up
> to 10 seconds with no luck but immediately upon releasing the starter
> button, it often kicks off (and sometimes kicks back!). The bus
> voltage drops into the 7-8 volt range when cranking. My guess is that
> the Electroair ignition system is recieving inadequate voltage when
> cranking but when the bus volatege jumps back up upon disengaging the
> starter, it resume operation(sometimes with some odd transient that
> causes the kickback). By the way,I found maintenance records of
> replacement of ring gear so this has probably been going on for some
> time.
>
> I'm inclined to add a second small battery such as one of small, 2-3
> amp hour Yuasa absorbed gel batterys that would be used for starting
> and backup. I would like to take complexity out of the starting
> process and eliminate the potenial for flying off with only the backup
> battery engaged by placing a normally closed relay that is energized
> and opened by the starter relay primary circuit. I would add a switch
> in series in this circuit to isolate the backup battery from the rest
> of the systerm in the event that I needed to use it as a true backup
> battery for the ignition system.
>
> The plane is set up for night VFR, (vacuum system) and is sometimes
> flown that way. It has an internally regulated alternator with Bob's
> crowbar OVP. I use an Oddessy PC 725 and replace it annually (the old
> batterys work great in all kinds
> of equipment around the place!).
>
> Questions: Is there an easier way to fix the kickback such as a modern
> starter( though I thought they drew higher current)?
>
> Is it possible that the old Remy starter is somehow defective and
> drawing excess current - causing the problem?
>
> Is there a fatal flaw in the proposed backup scheme?
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Sent via the WebMail system at hometownaccess.net
>
>
Message 27
| 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: | Dual Electronic Starting Issues |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "James E. Clark" <james@nextupventures.com>
TWO different responses.
Warning: includes some anecdote and opinion ... not a clear answer.
#1.
I don't remember if it is in the archives or not but my friend had a similar
problem with another popular Electronic Ignition. Specifically, there were
times when his plane would start only AFTER he released the starter
switch/button.
We surmised that the voltage was at a certain level and this was not
adequate for the electronic ignition. Our theory was not agreed with by the
manufacturer but we held fast, did some tests and proved to ourselves that
it was true. (While he was cranking the engine, I monitored the voltage ....
with long probes ... that was provided to the electronic ignition.) The
voltage was dropping to say 8 volts and lower (but above the theoretically
required 4 volts or so) and this was not enough for the electronic ignition
to fire. His plane REQUIRES the electronic ignition to fire. (My partner and
I have the Rose system plus a mag that will fire on our 6.)
The first solution that was tried was a large capacitor across the the
ignition (I think with a diode to keep it from being drained on cranking or
something like that). This seemed to work but in fact did not.
As I recall the end solution was in fact a small battery that is kept
charged by the charging system and is "protected" from drainage during
cranking. Problem fixed.
#2.
My partner and I have a single Electroair system O-320 with an old, heavy
start and wood prop up front and I seem to have witnessed what you mention
as well (a few times at least).
You mention that you have the 725 ... I am not familiar with that model
number but we and a lot of people use the PC 680. I assume they are similar
capacity. We will be changing out our battery for a new one in a few months
at annual but in the meantime, I have put one of the little trickle
charger/maintainers on the battery during the cold weather *and* have added
an oil sump heater. This seems to help immensely and further adds to the
theory of low voltage when the battery is weak, the starter is less
efficient and its cold to boot to make it all worse.
James
| -----Original Message-----
| From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-
| aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Duane Zavadil
| Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 7:18 PM
| To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
| Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual Electronic Starting Issues
|
| --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Duane Zavadil"
| <dzavadil@hometownaccess.net>
|
| I'd like to relate an experience and ask some questions.
|
| I've got a 6A with an 0-320 with dual Electoair ignition. I had lot of
| problems with kickback on starting that I attributed to low cranking
| speed. Upon rebuilding the old Remy starter, the nature of the problem
| changed. Higher cranking speed and less kickback but often when
| starting, particularly when cold, I can crank away for up to 10 seconds
| with no luck but immediately upon releasing the starter button, it often
| kicks off (and sometimes kicks back!). The bus voltage drops into the 7-
| 8 volt range when cranking. My guess is that the Electroair ignition
| system is recieving inadequate voltage when cranking but when the bus
| volatege jumps back up upon disengaging the starter, it resume
| operation(sometimes with some odd transient that causes the kickback). By
| the way,I found maintenance records of replacement of ring gear so this
| has probably been going on for some time.
|
| I'm inclined to add a second small battery such as one of small, 2-3 amp
| hour Yuasa absorbed gel batterys that would be used for starting and
| backup. I would like to take complexity out of the starting process and
| eliminate the potenial for flying off with only the backup battery
| engaged by placing a normally closed relay that is energized and opened
| by the starter relay primary circuit. I would add a switch in series in
| this circuit to isolate the backup battery from the rest of the systerm
| in the event that I needed to use it as a true backup battery for the
| ignition system.
|
| The plane is set up for night VFR, (vacuum system) and is sometimes flown
| that way. It has an internally regulated alternator with Bob's crowbar
| OVP. I use an Oddessy PC 725 and replace it annually (the old batterys
| work great in all kinds
| of equipment around the place!).
|
| Questions: Is there an easier way to fix the kickback such as a modern
| starter( though I thought they drew higher current)?
|
| Is it possible that the old Remy starter is somehow defective and drawing
| excess current - causing the problem?
|
| Is there a fatal flaw in the proposed backup scheme?
|
| Thanks
|
|
| Sent via the WebMail system at hometownaccess.net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message 28
| 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: Slippery Stuff |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 01/29/2005 4:23:36 PM Central Standard Time,
n701rr@yahoo.com writes:
>I have used (but not in my aircraft) a product that electricians call
>"elephant snot" (a rather viscous yellow goop -
>>>
I've used this stuff (Ideal yellow 77) and it is VERY slick and works great
for pulling monster cables through long runs of metal conduit, but I'm not sure
I'd want it in my plane. Here's a typical vendors listing:
http://www.twacomm.com/Catalog/Model_31-350.htm
It would sure collect a lot of grit over time and I'd be concerned about
having to pull additional wires or remove some after flying for some time, plus
I've no idea what effects it may have on aluminum, probably not much but I'd dig
out a product data sheet and MSDS from the manufacturer before I'd commit.
Another possibility might be using soapy water or some other water soluble
slime that could be flushed out when done...
Mark Phillips
Message 29
| 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: Open letter to the list THE END |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
OK folks, let's take a deep breath here and relax a bit.
1. You can do your plane exactly as Nuckolls says and have a helluva plane.
2. There will ALWAYS better ways and Nuckolls invites all criticism ("show me
where I'm wrong"). He DOES insist on proof, I've never seen him take
anything on face value, and in my experience will carefully validate his own
recommendations, as well as being open to new input. The Aeroelectric Connection
IS a
living document, revised as appropriate.
3. We're all seeking the better mousetrap based on our own knowledge,
education and experimentation, and should have learned by now to not test Darwin
by
closing our minds (the Wrights wing-warped their way right out of the airplane
business- don't nit-pick this example- it's a generalization!)
4. This is supposed to be FUN & EDUCATIONAL- GET OVER IT and let's keep
moving forward- NO one has cornered the market on smarts or knowledge, and we could
all use more of each...
If enough people like Paul, Eric and Bob could get together, we could
probably tell the middle east to kiss our a$$ 'cause we wouldn't need gasoline
anymore!
Mark Phillips - do not archive
Message 30
| 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: Open letter to the list |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David Carter" <dcarter@datarecall.net>
Eric Ruttan, Paul M. explained he'd be giving bite sized servings or pieces
of the report, about weekly hereafter, as he is able. Ever hear of of an
"executive summary" or "introduction" or "preface". Cool your rockets and
be patient. Let the man do what he just said he's going to do. Why flog
him 'cause he said he was going to do it in a way you don't like?
Flame me, if you like, not him. I wear Nomex and don't give a hoot about
your impatient intemperate reaction.
David Carter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Ruttan" <ericruttan@chartermi.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Open letter to the list
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric Ruttan"
<ericruttan@chartermi.net>
>
> Paul;
>
> I have deep respect for your experiences, and the fact you are bringing
data
> and a challenge to the table.
>
> But you are really starting to piss me off.
>
> If you have something FACTUAL to say, say it. If you have a LOGICAL
> deduction or reasoning to share, share it.
>
> I see most all your emails as "I have all this data and facts and reasons,
> but let me share political spin and rhetoric. I can make time to share
> rhetoric, but haven't time to share hard data."
>
> It has no place here.
>
> Why not spend your limited time and bandwidth actually sharing facts? For
6
> months we have been looking for your "study". What did you do, and how
did
> you do it? Before you drop a thesis on our heads and start lecturing us
on
> how wrong Bob is, how about you give us details on your actually
> experimental foundation? Let us begin to look at your premise, before you
> spring your ambush of conclusions based on it. (See Paul, I can use
> inflaming rhetoric too! Now I feel dirty.) Let us start to question your
> premises NOW! Then we will have a solid ground to see if something is
> different than what we have shown it to be for years.
Message 31
| 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: Slippery Stuff |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Pengilly <pengilly@southwest.com.au>
It is called Yellow 77 and made by Ideal.
And being a Sparkie and Instrument Tech I have never had any problems
caused by it or seen any caused by it.
The best advise I can give regarding the use of it, is just apply a
small amount to the first foot of cable to be pulled through,
also one of the biggest problems caused by inexperienced people pulling
cables through any type of conduit is they don't
lay the cables out neatly and have a helper to feed them through.
The helper is there to help keep the cables layered neatly together and
to push when the other person is pulling, now if its
that tight that this method is not working your conduit is to small. Its
also a lot easier if you pull out any existing cables and them pull them
back in with the new cables.
As for using it on a Glass plane I am building a Glasair and I would not
have any problem with using it on mine and you would
not have any problems using it on a finished glass plane, you just have
to be careful not to splash or spray it anywhere that you would be doing
any future lay-ups.
I hope all of these instructions are of help, after pulling in thousands
of miles of cable you get a certain knack for it.
Regards
Paul
ps not the Paul that is getting all the praise on this site lately
do not archive
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! --
|