Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:49 AM - Re: Alternators (Ken)
2. 06:40 AM - Re: Headset/Microphone jack bushings (John Swartout)
3. 07:06 AM - Plane-Power Alternator at OSH (Tim Olson)
4. 07:14 AM - Alternative Engines - Geo/Suzuki (Bill Smith)
5. 11:46 AM - Alternator system design goals . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 12:53 PM - Re: Plane-Power Alternator at OSH (Dave & Brenda Emond)
7. 12:55 PM - Re: Audio Isolation Amp (Bill Denton)
8. 01:23 PM - Re: Alternator system design goals . . . (Ken)
9. 07:33 PM - Z-13/20 (Sheldon Olesen)
10. 11:25 PM - Apology (DEAN PSIROPOULOS)
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: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Hi Dean
Were the OV events that you mentioned with an internal regulator
alternator? If so that might answer your question.
As far as I'm concerned, I've seen nothing but anecdotal evidence of the
risk from using an IR alternator. It may be extremely low and entirely
acceptable but so far all I've seen is anecdotal "proof" of that. I've
long ago learned that even though no one is yelling about their ND
(nippondenso) overvoltage failures - it tells me little about how often
such an event occurrs. There are a lot of folks making their living out
of replacing ND alternators so we do know they fail in one manner or
another. I don't recall any data being presented for inside the warranty
period let alone outside the warranty period. Unfortunately I've seen a
lot of grief in aviation caused by embracing new technology because it
was available rather than because there was any need for it or
demonstrated safety improvements from it. I no longer assume that
something newer is better. I do agree that a modern IR alternator seems
to be more reliable than a lot of the old external regulators.
Personally I'd be comfortable with an IR alternator if I had a non
electrically dependant engine AND an OVM module of some kind protecting
the supply to that $15k radio rack that you mentioned. Someone pointed
out that Jim Weir talks about that approach with guess what - a crowbar
OVM. As it happens my engine is electrically dependant and my main
alternator is an IR unit with the crowbar OVP and disconnect contactor -
but I have redundancy powered by a second electrical system and very
little avionics.
Ken
DEAN PSIROPOULOS wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net>
>
>Ok GMCJET, Eric and Paul:
>
>You all seem to eluding to something just as good or better than what Bob
>has to offer with his externally regulated alternator and OVP. GREAT, why
>don't each of you explain your COMPLETE configurations (IN PLAIN ENGLISH)
>here on this list. That way, builders who are deep into the wiring stage can
>make up their minds and maybe save a little money? I'm currently in that
>stage and have been following this thread for a LONGGGGGG TIME hoping that
>SOMEONE would produce the new cheaper, better, simpler solution for the
>externally regulated and controlled alternator with OVP. I returned the IR
>alternator that Van's supplied with my firewall forward kit because of
>threads on this list. So far I haven't really heard anything that makes me
>want to buy it back.
>
>I HAVE TO DECIDE very soon now whether to go ahead with my decision to buy a
>B&C alternator and ER with OVP like I changed my mind to do. Do I WANT to
>spend $800 dollars for these two very common items that can be had in any
>autoparts store for hundreds less?! Hell no! I'd rather spend 1/3 that much
>and use the rest for avgas on my upcoming first flight. But this little bug
>keeps nagging at me and I don't want a runaway alternator taking out the
>$15,000.00 worth of electronic equipment in my panel (even if it is DO-160
>certified). I know it happens only rarely but it DOES happen. I personally
>know of people who've had this occur in both aircraft and automobiles. All
>cases resulted in massive amounts of smoke behind the panel and expensive
>repair bills.
>
>
snip
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: | Headset/Microphone jack bushings |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Swartout" <jgswartout@earthlink.net>
Ok--the envelope is in the mail. THANK YOU!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Wayne
Sweet
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Headset/Microphone jack bushings
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Wayne Sweet"
<w_sweet@comcast.net>
I found a source and had to order 100. Send a prepaid envelope and I
will
slip as many as you need and return to you.
Wayne Sweet
1520 Salinas Highway
Monterey, Ca 93940
Oh, put a note to remind me what you need. I am a bit forgetful.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Swartout" <jgswartout@earthlink.net>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Headset/Microphone jack bushings
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "John Swartout"
> <jgswartout@earthlink.net>
>
> Dear List:
>
>
> It seems that the jacks supplied with my intercom came without the
> flanged insulating bushings needed to ensure isolation from the metal
> airframe. Can someone suggest a source?
>
>
> John
>
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Plane-Power Alternator at OSH |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Did anyone else see the Plane-Power booth at OSH, right next to
Sky-Tec and not too far from B&C?
http://www.plane-power.com/
I spent some time looking at their alternators, and was
impressed enough that I signed up to hold show pricing
when they're available, and so I can take time to learn
more.
They had a 70A FAA/PMA approved external regulated
model, and a 60 and 70A internally regulated model,
with OV protection (using the crowbar method). The
price was right, and at least physicially I didn't see
any issue. It was also interesting to hear that they
went for full FAA/PMA approval on their alternator
before they released any experimental alternators.
I want to learn more about their OV module, as I'd
have to assume that in order for them to put out this
product, they must have done some testing to know what
kind of failure damage is caused when the OV module trips.
I didn't get enough time to gather my thoughts and ask
every question I wanted...hoped maybe someone here could
fill in some blanks.
Also, they say that by next year, they want to have
available an aux. alternator. I'm guessing that if I'm
willing to delay that purchase, I could add it later
and the total cost of my system would be WELL under
1/2 of my original plans.
Their web page is still being built up, but here's a link
to the 60A model. http://www.plane-power.com/AL12-EI60.htm
Comments?
--
Tim Olson -- RV-10
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: | Alternative Engines - Geo/Suzuki |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Bill Smith <ocleju@yahoo.com>
Alternative Engines - Geo/Suzuki
If you are interested in alternative engines for
experimental aircraft you are invited to
join the flyGeo_uncensored group and learn about the
fantastic Geo/Suzuki engines used in
aircraft.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FlyGeo_uncensored
Both bolt on gearbox and cog belt redrives and all
other aircraft
conversion parts are available for very reasonable
cost. Turbo
versions are available also. Gearbox type redrives for
around US$1750-
The Geo/Suzuki engine uses about half the fuel that
the two stroke
engines use.
The 1.3 litre four cylinder Suzuki engine beats the
Rotax 912 in
power and weight, again both gearbox and belt type
redrives are
available.
The Geo/Suzuki one litre engine weighs a little more
than a Rotax
582, it produces 62 HP normally aspirated but with a
better, flatter
torque curve.
All those advantages plus flying engines with the
hours up to prove
them and last but not lease, far, far cheaper than a
Rotax two or four stroke engine.
One person on the group has over 1000 hours on one
installation.
FlyGeo_uncensored is a very active and helpful group
that is also a fun group and is not
doubt one of the fastest growing aircraft alternative
engine groups.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FlyGeo_uncensored
The FlyGeo_uncensored Management
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: | Alternator system design goals . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
I thought it would be useful to recap the thought processes behind
the writings I've done concerning installation of alternators (and
generators) on airplanes. In particular, I'll share thinking on the
internally regulated alternator and try to show how we got to where
we are today:
Old History:
From day-one, all power sources in aircraft have been controllable
by the pilot from the cockpit. Without going into all the reasons
old, new, come and gone, I think it's sufficient for this discussion
to suggest that it's an operating mode we're all familiar with.
We expect to see it in a certified ship. We were taught how to
use these features both in normal and abnormal operating conditions.
Recent History:
For the first 8 or so revisions of the 'Connection,
the writings in chapters on alternators, ov protection, and
regulators cited what we knew and were currently using in
certified aviation, and by default, a majority of OBAM aviation as well.
A few folks at the leading edge of the OBAM aviation effort were
installing automotive take-offs which offered the siren call of
inexpensive, simple, light, readily available, etc, etc. However,
in order to utilize these products, it was the builder's responsibility
to assess suitability to task which includes questions like:
(1) Does this work exactly like the system I am replacing?
(2) What features of the current paradigm must I have to give up
and are these trade offs acceptable? If acceptable to me, how
about the guy who's going to buy my airplane someday?
(3) Are there features unique to this system that require
changes to system integration, operating procedures, and
maintenance? Are these acceptable both to me and any
future owners of this aircraft?
(4) Are there any new cost of ownership considerations?
(5) Does the new system have any new or shared risks with the old
system?
This list may not be all inclusive but it's the lion's share of
considerations in play when I crafted the first version of Figure
Z-24 in the 'Connection.
The goal was to offer the builder a drop-in, plug-n-play substitution
of an old design philosophy with a new one. The reasoning was that Figure
Z-24 would directly substitute an IR alternators for the alternator/
regulator/ovp suite of components in any of the preceding architectures.
For folks who wanted, could afford and appreciated the value of working with
suppliers of the old technology, then configure as shown in the base
drawing. If you wanted to substitute the more modern approach without
giving up ANY of the features shown in the un-modified Z-figure, then
Z-24 suggested a means for doing that.
The Cabbage Patch:
Now comes the mud puddles that were impossible
to avoid stepping in. While virtually all combinations of ov
protection, alternator regulators, and externally regulated alternators
could be mixed/matched pretty much at will we find that not all
internally regulated alternators were the same. New issues of pedigree for
regulators were suggested. Some builders demonstrated a
vulnerability these alternators had for being victim to their
own load-dump responses just because they were turned off under
load. Some alternators could be controlled ON/OFF by means of the
control wire, others were Once ON, Always ON.
Some folks jumped on the "evil ov protection scheme" band wagon
and elected to ignore the fact that risks were the same whether the
alternator was shut off (1) manually, (2) in response to a
real ov event, or (3) in response to a nuisance trip of the
ov protection system IRRESPECTIVE OF THE STYLE of that
protection. Others suggested a degree of incompetence for
anyone who even suggested that their favorite IR alternator
was capable of presenting an OV event while ignoring
my special obligation as author of The Book to publish the most
universal solutions that met MY design goals for no change
of paradigm.
In the barroom brawl that ensued, folks came forward with all
manner of rational for approaching the problem "differently"
re-enforced with plenty of tomatoes and cabbages lobbed into
the discussions that ran far afield - basically ignoring the
goals cited above which MINIMIZED the shift from historical
features which allowed us to:
(1) Have absolute control of all power sources in the airplane
(2) Be able to switch sources on/off at will at any time
without regard to component safety.
(3) When there were issues of switching sequence, pilots
were relieved of responsibility for proper sequence
by inclusion of the progressive transfer DC master
(2-10) or classic split-rocker master switches.
As I view the task before us now, may I suggest it can be
very simply expressed as follows:
(1) Are we truly interested in crafting an IR alternator
installation that fits the time honored paradigm for
absolute control with minimized risk for inadvertent
operation of switches or worst case failures of any
kind in the alternator?
If the answer is "yes" then proceed to item 2. If the
answer is "no", then by all means, embrace suggestions
offered by the most persuasive proponents of alternative
solutions.
(2) There is an issue for at least some if not all IR
alternators being at-risk of damage due to b-lead
disconnection under load. This has several several
partial solutions:
(a) Placard the switch for no operation with the
engine running. This means the only time the alternator
would be subject to the load-dump event was during a
real ov event where disconnect was necessary and
protecting an already failed alternator from further
damage is a moot point.
(b) Add some measure of load-dump energy sink in the
form of "xxxx" . . . this might be an array of Transorbs
but they require sizing in very universal sense. If I
put Z-24 back in the book with transorbs across the
b-lead connection, I need to be convinced that this
solution is good for 99+ percent of all IR alternators
from which a builder might choose, INCLUDING those
fitted with non-OEM regulators.
(c) If (b) can be accomplished, then the prohibition
cited in (a) could be lifted as well. Data concerning
the nature of load-dumps was what I thought Paul was
going to investigate for us some time ago. After the
"investigation" was complete, no data was forthcoming,
only more cabbages and tomatoes.
(3) There is risk to any form of b-lead disconnect technology
to deal with the OV event. An alternator running at 10,000+
rpm has a rate-of-rise for open circuit voltage that's
spectacular. As contacts spread on the rudimentary
control contactor, it's possible (Paul says he's
demonstrated it) that an arc will form and not go out.
There are a couple of trade offs here too:
(a) If an energy-sink for the load-dump event can
be crafted as in 2(b), then the rudimentary contactor
is not at-risk for normal ON/OFF switching events.
The energy-sink would protect both the internal
regulator and the external control contactor from
undue stresses.
(b) if the energy-sink were in place, then the alternator's
output voltage would be limited by the energy-sink long
enough for any jelly-bean contactor to open relatively free of
arcing. After a period of time, one would then be
DELIGHTED if the current sink FAILED SHORTED. This
(ugh!) crow-baring of the b-lead to ground would deprive
the alternator of self-excitation and stall it. The
event would be over in a few seconds with high probability
that the alternator need only have a new regulator installed.
(c) One could install a contactor suited to the
high-voltage stress of the runaway alternator (killovac)
and simply allow the alternator to smoke its own field winding.
At least the OV event was prevented from propagating
to the rest of the airplane.
(4) Finally comes the issue of whether or not to install OV
protection:
(a) If you have a lot of faith in your alternator of
choice, then leave it off. You could install a high-voltage
warning light and depend on a well maintained battery to
keep bus votlage reasonably low (below 18v) long enough
to react and shut the alternator OFF. It would help
if energy sink 3(a) were in place to allow you to open
the plain vanilla contactor. Hopefully, the energy-sink
system will fail shorted and bring the whole event to
a happy conclusion. By the way folks, this is yet another
form of (ugh!) crowbar ov-protection . . . a system
DESIGNED to put a dead short on a line that needs to
be pulled down.
(b) If you choose to add ov protection, it's easily
accomplished with any number of products including the
OVM-14 crowbar module offered by B&C, Eric's passive
series switch design, etc. It doesn't matter. Any
of these technologies are subject to system integration
issues manifested by nuisance trips which may require
some attention on the part of the OV module supplier.
Okay, these are the ground rules for any solution I plan
to publish. The solution must come very close to meeting all
the design goals for staying within the historical paradigm
(but using modern components) that I cited at the outset
of this posting. I am not going to publish any suggestion
that there's a "golden" alternator or "golden contactor", etc
that will make this task easier. Offering such a limited solution
will get me a flood of e-mails and phone calls asking, "Gee,
I have this xxx alternator or yyy contactor, can you tell
me how to make it work too?" The new figure Z-24 needs to
accommodate ANY alternator, and any contactor one might
wish to use.
The answers to some of these questions still depend on access
to equipment I don't own but plan to. I'll invite anyone who
would like to participate (and perhaps even become a member
of the Hall of Fame) to post their offerings right here on the
list. We can all work together to craft test plans, provide
necessary materials and test equipment (hell, I'll mail
my pride-n-joy 'scope to someone who's adding to the collective
knowledge), and assistance in analysis of results with possible
changes to future tests.
Folks have suggested that my reluctance to recommend their
particular vision of the ultimate solution was in fact an
under-the-table condemnation of their solution. I hope
the foregoing discussion adequately dispels that notion.
It's been further suggested that I lack rudimentary skills
necessary for component design, system integration, failure
mode effects analysis, program management and delivery of
honorable services to a customer. Well, my answer is this:
The AeroElectric-List studies of Internally Regulated
Alternator Integration in Light Aircraft is open for
enrollment.
You may "audit" the class and simply watch what transpires, you
may participate with suggestions and questions that move the
effort forward and contribute to collective understanding,
or you may be an active participant in the much reviled
Repeatable Experiments by which we will show that the
products of our imaginations have a rightful place in the
real world of OBAM aircraft. Cabbage and tomato tossers need
not apply. If you want to play too, leave the vegetables
at home.
Let's begin with a requirements document. I'll formalize the
elements cited above into the opening paragraphs of the
requirements document. We can start thrashing from there.
Any suggestions? Did I miss anything? Got some ideas for
enhancements? Class is in session.
Question 1: Does anyone within a one-fuel tank range in
a Sundowner have access to a 2 hp or better, variable speed drive
stand capable of running an alternator with 2" pulley over
the range of 3000-11,000 rpm?
Bob . . .
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: Plane-Power Alternator at OSH |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave & Brenda Emond" <d_emond@mweb.co.za>
I did see that LAMAR Technologies has a Master Control unit available to
experimentals. OVP, VR, three buses, external power. This unit is apparently
std equip in all new Cessna's.
Dave Emond
40159
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Olson" <Tim@MyRV10.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Plane-Power Alternator at OSH
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
>
> Did anyone else see the Plane-Power booth at OSH, right next to
> Sky-Tec and not too far from B&C?
>
> http://www.plane-power.com/
>
> I spent some time looking at their alternators, and was
> impressed enough that I signed up to hold show pricing
> when they're available, and so I can take time to learn
> more.
>
> They had a 70A FAA/PMA approved external regulated
> model, and a 60 and 70A internally regulated model,
> with OV protection (using the crowbar method). The
> price was right, and at least physicially I didn't see
> any issue. It was also interesting to hear that they
> went for full FAA/PMA approval on their alternator
> before they released any experimental alternators.
>
> I want to learn more about their OV module, as I'd
> have to assume that in order for them to put out this
> product, they must have done some testing to know what
> kind of failure damage is caused when the OV module trips.
> I didn't get enough time to gather my thoughts and ask
> every question I wanted...hoped maybe someone here could
> fill in some blanks.
>
> Also, they say that by next year, they want to have
> available an aux. alternator. I'm guessing that if I'm
> willing to delay that purchase, I could add it later
> and the total cost of my system would be WELL under
> 1/2 of my original plans.
>
> Their web page is still being built up, but here's a link
> to the 60A model. http://www.plane-power.com/AL12-EI60.htm
>
> Comments?
>
> --
> Tim Olson -- RV-10
>
>
>
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: Audio Isolation Amp |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Denton" <bdenton@bdenton.com>
I have some questions regarding Bob's Audio Isolation Amp project...
Before getting into specifics, let me first ask a go-no go question:
I am looking for a "box" that will accept five mono inputs, and give one
mono output. It would be used to mix the outputs of two COMs plus the alarms
from some avionics devices, with the output to be fed to the COM input on an
intercom.
Is this feasible?
Now to some specific questions, assuming that what I am proposing is
feasible:
On the Parts List (Page 1.2), I notice that it refers to a:
9009-100-2 ECB ASSY - MONO ISO AMP
DIY FAB
and a:
9009-100-1 ECB ASSY - STEREO ISO AMP DIY
FAB
On the web site, the following product is listed: AEC9009-301-1. Which of
the above part numbers does this correlate to?
In comparing the SCHEMATIC - STEREO (Page 1.7) and the SCHEMATIC -
MONOPHONIC (Page 1.8), it appears that you can just build "half" the amp,
jumper Pins 2 and 3 where U114 would be, and use this as a mono unit. Is
this correct?
Would it be necessary to cut any of the traces on the circuit board? If yes,
where?
From NOTE 6. RESISTORS R103 THROUGH R107 ARE SELECTED TO EQUALIZE VOLUME
LEVELS BETWEEN AUDIO SOURCES. Could these be replaced with some type of
screwdriver adjustable pot to make it easier to balance the levels? If so,
what type/value/etc pot would be correct for this application? Could these
pots be mounted on the case so they would be externally adjustable?
Please feel free to add any additional information that I might have missed,
and thank you!
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: Alternator system design goals . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Seems like a pretty good summary!
From my wishful thinking list, I'd also be happy if it could be shown
that a transorb array connected to the alternator output post would
short out sufficiently hard to cause battery current to trip a B-lead
fuse once a serious alternator runaway started. (ie. no B-lead contactor
needed).
Or I would be happy to cough up for a kilovac contactor if I was
convinced that is what it takes to reliably tame an OV. That might be
an acceptable fallback position for many folks.
Ken
>snip
>(4) Finally comes the issue of whether or not to install OV
> protection:
>
> (a) If you have a lot of faith in your alternator of
> choice, then leave it off. You could install a high-voltage
> warning light and depend on a well maintained battery to
> keep bus votlage reasonably low (below 18v) long enough
> to react and shut the alternator OFF. It would help
> if energy sink 3(a) were in place to allow you to open
> the plain vanilla contactor. Hopefully, the energy-sink
> system will fail shorted and bring the whole event to
> a happy conclusion. By the way folks, this is yet another
> form of (ugh!) crowbar ov-protection . . . a system
> DESIGNED to put a dead short on a line that needs to
> be pulled down.
>
>
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Sheldon Olesen <saolesen@sirentel.net>
Bob...,
I'm building an RV-10 and started planning on using the Z-12
architecture but I changed to Z-13/20 when it came out recently. Is it
okay to use a B&C SB-1 standby regulator and a LR-3 instead of the
two LR-3's shown in Z-13?
With the battery behind the baggage compartment, I am running a 10awg
wire for the battery buss alongside a 2awg for the alternator B lead.
Is this a violation of not running fat and skinny wires together? Is
there a guideline
using the difference of awg of the wires that would help keep the fat
wires away from the skinny wires? For example, if the difference in
the awg sizes of the two wires is greater than 10awg sizes don't
bundled them together.
Thanks,
Sheldon Olesen
Do not archive
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos@verizon.net>
Eric is correct, my rant yesterday was a cheap-shot and I apologize. When I
started the rant my desire was to hopefully, motivate some people into
consolidating everything that has been said into a clear concise description
that we could all use. My excursion into Eric's business dealings was
uncalled for. One MIGHT infer from my comments that Mr. Jones is a
dishonorable person when in fact I have no evidence of that. I have never
dealt with the man on a business level. I INFERRED, (from comments made on
this list AND a request from Eric for the Wig Wag circuit design) that he
was capitalizing on other people's work and selling it as his own. I do NOT
for a fact, know this to be the case. Even if that were the case, it's not
illegal as long as the design data resides in the public domain or has
expired patents. If you are considering a purchase from him please don't go
somewhere else because of a few off-the-cuff comments I made on this list.
Talk to other people who have had dealings with the man and find out what
sort of business person he is. Then.MAKE YOUR OWN DECISION! And finally.I'd
like to apologize to the listers, instead of providing constructive
discourse, I opened my mouth and inserted my size 10 Nikes. In the future
I'll stick to technical questions and answers and not get caught up in the
"Venom Spewing". And yes Eric, I will cease and decist from using YOUR NAME
in MY POSTS from now on.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A builder and occasional Nike chewer
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric M. Jones [mailto:emjones@charter.net]
Subject: Re: Alternators, OVP, GMCJET, Eric, Paul. OFFLIST
Dean,
I am trying to stay out of the innuendo and personal attacks on the
Aeroelectric List. You personally attacked me and I think you owe me an
apology. I don't think I did anything to merit your venom. Please leave my
name out of your posts on the Aeroelectric. If you have some personal
problem with me, please call.
Regards,
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|