Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 08:23 AM - Re: Z-28 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
2. 08:49 AM - Re: OV damage to avionics: Dynon, Icom, Collins (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 08:56 AM - Split Beads ()
4. 09:13 AM - Re: Split Beads (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 11:59 AM - Re: OV damage to avionics: Dynon, Icom, Collins (Eric M. Jones)
6. 12:12 PM - Re: Re: OV damage to avionics: Dynon, Icom, Collins (BobsV35B@aol.com)
7. 01:56 PM - Re: OV damage to avionics: Dynon, Icom, Collins (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 06:55 PM - Re: Re: OV damage to avionics: Dynon, Icom, Collins (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 07:29 PM 5/9/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Giffen A Marr" <gamarr@charter.net>
>
>Bob
>Am I confused or is there a typo in the Z-28 figure on the right hand side.
>The Aux Bat and Main Bat are both shown connected to the right ignition. Is
>this right or am I missing something?
No. You spotted a typo that's been there for a long time.
It's been fixed. Thanks!
Bob. . .
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: OV damage to avionics: Dynon, Icom, Collins |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 02:54 PM 5/10/2005 +1000, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: rwtalbot@purephotos.com.au
>(SquirrelMail authenticated user rwtalbot) by themail.purephotos.com.au
>
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones"
> > <emjones@charter.net>
> >
> >> Subject: AeroElectric-List message posted by: <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com>
> >
> >
> > Protecting the radio would cost maybe a buck. You wonder what they were
> > thinking........!
>
>
>Eric,
>
>You mean other than - $ervices revenue, $ervices revenue, $ervices
>revenue, $ervices revenue, $$$ $$$ ?
I'm mystified by some folks assertions that companies
will make a considered and directed effort to cheapen
a product for the purpose of increasing revenue. Even
the most casual student of economics understands how
counter-productive this business model is. While it
might be true of a very few companies, they never last
long in the marketplace. For the vast majority, lapses
in quality or robustness of a product has more to do
engineering and management ignorance than upon any
planned effort to sell less than the best they know
how to do in order to maximize profits.
When somebody has expended the time, talent and resources
to bring a major piece of avionics to the market, odds
are that shortcomings in design are a direct result
of poor market research and lack of fundamental
knowledge of the simple-ideas that make the product
work. You have to lay this at the feet of their management.
Many small companies are run by the same entrepreneurs
that conceived the product. History is replete with
examples of the better mousetrap gone wanting for
customers due to a fundamental lack of understanding
of business and economics.
It's sorta like salt, fuel and taxation.
No salt is as bad as too much salt. To little fuel
with the air makes the engine run as badly as too
much fuel. Zero tax generates zero revenue to
government while 100% tax would have the same effect.
For every system there is an optimum mix of constituents
that maximizes the desired quality. Ask any member of
Congress what the ideal level of taxation is to maximize
revenues to government and not one can tell you what that
number is . . . yet any thinking person knows that it
exists. It's been repeatedly demonstrated in recent
history that reducing taxes has produced an increase
in revenue . . . which suggests that current levels
of taxation are on the "rich" side. Yet there are folks
who think that when government needs more money, the
proper way to get it is to raise taxes.
These effects are in place no matter what system you
want to consider or which business model you're trying
to craft. It's not easy but not impossible either. It
takes some study and experimentation. Unfortunately, it's
the rare techno-wienie entrepreneur who has a sufficiently
broad understanding of ALL the systems that control his/her
fortunes. To suggest that anyone is deliberately shooting
themselves in the foot to make more money assumes facts
not in evidence. Yeah, their foot hurts but for the most
part they don't know how it got shot or whether the shoes
are too tight or they just sprained an ankle. Ignorance
not greed is the #1 killer of everything good.
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: <bakerocb@cox.net>
AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "John Schroeder"
<jschroeder@perigee.net>
<<OC - Where did you get these? I'm wondering if the ones they put on
computer
cables would also work? If I remember correctly, they are also split.
Thanks, John
On Sun, 8 May 2005 12:06:22 -0400, <bakerocb@cox.net> wrote:
> I eventually solved my problem by buying some split ferrite beads and
> installing them in several different arbitrarily selected
> places in my comm system -- not very scientific. The noise went
> away.
5/10/2005
Hello John, I got mine from Surplus Sales of Nebraska
<www.surplussales.com>. Phone: 402-346-4750.
Item number ICH-264-3164251. $2.00 each. I installed them just by wrapping
them with black plastic tape.
One of these days when I get real curious I will start removing them one by
one to see if the noise comes back and to get a better handle on source. I
suspect that the noise came from antenna radiations getting into my audio
system at certain frequencies.
OC
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>5/10/2005
>
>Hello John, I got mine from Surplus Sales of Nebraska
><www.surplussales.com>. Phone: 402-346-4750.
>
>Item number ICH-264-3164251. $2.00 each. I installed them just by wrapping
>them with black plastic tape.
>
>One of these days when I get real curious I will start removing them one by
>one to see if the noise comes back and to get a better handle on source. I
>suspect that the noise came from antenna radiations getting into my audio
>system at certain frequencies.
Great experiment! Please let us know of your
results.
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: OV damage to avionics: Dynon, Icom, Collins |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>Ignorance not greed is the #1 killer of everything good.
>Bob . . .
Absolutely right! This principle applies to almost everything.
Is there planned obsolescence? Absolutely not. The story about Henry Ford's
engineers studying scrapped Model T's to find the parts that were not worn
out is widely misunderstood. Ford didn't want to throw money away when he
could economize and give the consumer a lower-cost product. Building a Ford
Model T with kingpins that survived the rest of the car out was the
manufacturing equivalent of stuffing the seats with dollar bills. And Ford
knew it.
The Air Force had a program to design a jet fighter that was all worn out at
once in several thousand hours. This was really planned obsolescence! The
idea was that maintenance would be about zero and the fighter would be the
lightest and most economical to fly since no part would be over-designed or
designed for servicing. The Air Force discovered that it takes impossibly
advanced and expensive engineering to do this.
More damage is caused by ignorance than by malice.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge MA 01550-2705
Phone (508) 764-2072
Email: emjones@charter.net
When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I've never
tried before.
--Mae West
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: OV damage to avionics: Dynon, Icom, Collins |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
Didn't you ever hear of the one horse shay?
" Have you heard of the wonderful one-horse shay, That was built in such a
logical way It ran a hundred years to a day, And then, of a sudden, ..."
_Oliver W. Holmes'_ (http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/1157/)
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Airpark LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8502
In a message dated 5/10/2005 2:01:20 P.M. Central Standard Time,
emjones@charter.net writes:
The Air Force had a program to design a jet fighter that was all worn out at
once in several thousand hours. This was really planned obsolescence! The
idea was that maintenance would be about zero and the fighter would be the
lightest and most economical to fly since no part would be over-designed or
designed for servicing. The Air Force discovered that it takes impossibly
advanced and expensive engineering to do this.
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: OV damage to avionics: Dynon, Icom, Collins |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <b.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 02:58 PM 5/10/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
>
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
><b.nuckolls@cox.net>
>
> >Ignorance not greed is the #1 killer of everything good.
> >Bob . . .
>
>Absolutely right! This principle applies to almost everything.
>
>Is there planned obsolescence? Absolutely not. The story about Henry Ford's
>engineers studying scrapped Model T's to find the parts that were not worn
>out is widely misunderstood. Ford didn't want to throw money away when he
>could economize and give the consumer a lower-cost product. Building a Ford
>Model T with kingpins that survived the rest of the car out was the
>manufacturing equivalent of stuffing the seats with dollar bills. And Ford
>knew it.
At Cessna in the 60's we call that service testing. If you had a pilot's
license, you could log some company financed hours by helping wear out
airplanes. We could put about a 1,000 hours a year on a brand new airplane
which was carefully watched for various wear and performance issues.
I think there SHOULD be a degree of planned obsolescence. I've often
enjoyed the expressions on the faces of a clients when they've paid off
their consulting bill and I ask, Okay, what are your plans for
obsoleting this product? One of two things will happen with this
product: (1) It will be successful and encourage others to compete with you
or (2) it will be un-successful for reasons you may be privileged to
understand and correct. In either case, you'll want to respond with
a replacement product that costs less to build and performs better.
If you don't do it to your own product, your competition will either
do it for you -OR- you will have learned nothing about why the
product failed. Either way, you're out of business with that
product.
We see it all the time in consumer electronics, cameras, cars,
appliances, etc. We almost never see it in airplanes or devices
intended for airplanes.
Bob . . .
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: OV damage to avionics: Dynon, Icom, Collins |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Fiveonepw@aol.com
In a message dated 05/10/2005 2:58:16 PM Central Standard Time,
b.nuckolls@cox.net writes:
Okay, what are your plans for
obsoleting this product? One of two things will happen with this
product: (1) It will be successful and encourage others to compete with
you
or (2) it will be un-successful for reasons you may be privileged to
understand and correct. In either case, you'll want to respond with
a replacement product that costs less to build and performs better.
>>>
Wow- does "Navaid" come to mind? Then there's "Lycoming"...
do not archive
Mark Phillips
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! --
|