---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 04/01/06: 23 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 03:36 AM - Comm Antenna Radiation Pattern (DAVID REEL) 2. 04:09 AM - Re: Cell phone () 3. 04:25 AM - Re: Questions for Bob N. April 1, 2006 (Peter Laurence) 4. 06:18 AM - Re: Re: Computer radiation (Dave Morris \) 5. 06:35 AM - power for headsets (Mickey Coggins) 6. 07:27 AM - Re: power for headsets (Alan K. Adamson) 7. 08:24 AM - Re: Comm Antenna Radiation Pattern (Brian Lloyd) 8. 08:34 AM - Re: power for headsets (Mickey Coggins) 9. 09:15 AM - power for headsets (BobsV35B@aol.com) 10. 09:19 AM - Re: Re: Cell phone (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 11. 09:52 AM - Re: power for headsets (Alan K. Adamson) 12. 09:52 AM - Re: power for headsets (Alan K. Adamson) 13. 12:37 PM - Dual shunts and amp gauge (Steve & Denise) 14. 01:22 PM - Headset jack cables - shielded or not? (Mickey Coggins) 15. 01:45 PM - Matronics Email List Wiki! (Matt Dralle) 16. 02:08 PM - Re: Headset jack cables - shielded or not? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 17. 02:15 PM - Re: Re: Computer radiation (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 18. 03:45 PM - Re: Dual shunts and amp gauge (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 19. 04:00 PM - Re: Headset jack cables - shielded or not? (Brian Lloyd) 20. 04:11 PM - Re: Comm Antenna Radiation Pattern (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 21. 08:51 PM - Re: Questions for Bob N. April 1, 2006 (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 22. 11:33 PM - Official AeroElectric-List FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) (Matt Dralle) 23. 11:33 PM - Official AeroElectric-List Usage Guidelines (Matt Dralle) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 03:36:01 AM PST US From: "DAVID REEL" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Comm Antenna Radiation Pattern --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" On my second test flight yesterday, The control tower's transmission during my initial climb was so weak I could just barely tell someone had transmitted. I was climbing with the tower at my back and at a pretty steep angle due to other problems. Except during this climb phase, I heard the tower loud and clear. Refering to the radiation pattern in figure 13-7 of the AeroElectric Connection book, I'm theorizing that my comm antenna, which is mounted beneath the left wing/fuselage joint so that about a half foot of the bent antenna protrudes behind the left flap on my RV8A, was blocked by the wing/fuselage from radiating towards the tower. So, I have two questions. First, is the null on the ground plane side of this type of installation deep enough to attenuate the tower transmission so thoroughly? Second, would moving the antenna further aft reduce this problem? Dave Reel - RV8A ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 04:09:17 AM PST US From: Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Cell phone --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Cell phone Dj: THANK YOU! WINK ;-) Dave and Bob: Come-on guys Myth Busters is entertainment. Lighten up. Sorry I mentioned it. However they did get a result albeit contrived, it was interesting and I would not blow it off as laughable. The test they did was valid for the hypothesis they postulated. I think they defined their test objective and tested for that. It may not pass FAA/FCC mustard but it was interesting. I think its fair to evaluate the transmission freq of the celphone as the potential main offender. Spurious RF coming out the back cover in a different spectrum is always possible and almost expected. However most of the electronics are shielded in the phone (I have a friend at Ericsson-Sony). Notice FCC stickers on electronic devices. "Other" RF is at much lower power. Dave wrote: >"..... and would break the squelch full quieting on >about 100 different commonly used aircraft comm >frequencies), and then switching to a 240MHz version >of the same computer and still wiping out the entire >aircraft band with RF interference, I honestly don't >know how airliners stayed in the air back in the >days" Dave if your laptop is wiping out your Com, I would look into your avionics installation or get a new laptop or both. Back in the day was only 20 years ago, airplanes had few computers and laptop an cel phones rare. All major consumer electronic devices has to meet FCC specification for EMF & RFreq interference. Before everyone panics when the iPod, PDA or laptop comes out on a plane, the power of the RF is so nil its of little concern. Again as Kevin and yes Myth Busters have shown, commercial aircraft are very well shielded from RF, by design. Lightning strikes is even more of a worry than a passenger laptop. Notice that FM radios and many devices are forbidden at all times on airliners. To be honest if you wanted to be perfect no portable device should be used, including computers, but the fly consumer, business traveler would not stand for that. We agree the risk is small. Yes? The truth is if there is enough power on the right freq you can hurt any avionics, at least certainly the NAV signal and even COM. Typical portable devices don't radiate enough energy. Dave wrote: >"I agree (Bob) mythbusters have strayed and >nowadays most of their shows are mostly >entertainment, with little real scientific evidence >to back up their "busted / not busted" binary logic" Back to myth busters. If you think these guys are buffoons, they have lots of consultants who are way smarter than all of us put together. In fact on the cellphone subject matter, I am sure their researchers and consultants (aerospace avionics experts) helped them define and limited the scope of the test and was indeed valid for what it was. Bob wrote: >"demonstrated a complete lack of understanding" >"Take it from someone who has written dozens of test >plans and spent a goodly part of a career in a >screen-room, the "results" from their tests had no >scientific validity" >"squirting a bit of RF around the cockpit while watching >to see if anything twitches is not a noteworthy test. >I WISH it were so simple. Could have save my bosses >$millions$." Bob, you obviously know more and could do better, write them with your test plan. They often revisit myths and retest. How do you do it Bob? I agree the purpose is entertainment, which most TV shows are. Just remember Bob it needs to fit into 15-20 minutes of TV time and be interesting. How many EMF and RFI test have you done on avionics? I thought you guys just bought what Honeywell or Collins sold and you all just bolted it in. AS FAR AS MYTHBUSTERS!!! Aviation Related Mythbuster Shows: Pilot 1 - "Jet Assisted Chevy" (JATO car flys) Pilot 2 - "Vacuum Toilet" (Fat woman stuck to toilet seat ) Episode 9 - "Chicken Gun (vs piper windscreen)" Episode 10 - "Explosive Decompression" Episode 13 - "Jet (blast vs.) Taxi" Episode 14 - "Chicken Gun (vs piper windscreen)" (Revisited) Episode 32 - "Jet Pack" Episode 33 - "Killer Brace Position" (seat test) Episode 37 - "Escape Slide Parachute" Episode 37 - "Exploding Hair Cream" (F-104 pilot O2 mask fire) Episode 38 - "Explosive Decompression" (Revisited) Episode 45 - "Shredded Plane" Cel Phone Shows: Episode 2 -"Cell Phone Destruction" (gas station fill-up blow-up) Episode 33 - "Cell Phones vs. Drunk Driving" (dive now talk later) Episode 49 - "Cell Phones on a Plane" (info above found at http://en.wikipedia.org/) Myth Busters RULES! As a current airline pilot and former aerospace engineer DER I can say episodes 9,10, 33 are killer. Yes Boeing spends millions doing these test, but mythbusters reproduces valid test for peanuts. Any one can spend money, but thats not a measure of the quality of a test. "Don't try this at home, we are what you call professionals" :-) hahaha Cheers George ----------------------------------------------------- >From: Dj Merrill > >>Dave Morris "BigD" wrote: >> >> >>I agree that the myth busters have strayed and >>nowadays most of their shows are mostly >>entertainment, with little real >>scientific >>evidence to back up their "busted / not busted" >>binary logic. > > > What, you mean proving you can't die from your >own farts in a sealed room wasn't scientific? >*wink* :-) -Dj ------------------------------------------------ >posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" > > > >After trying unsuccessfully to implement a Pentium >II 120MHz computer in the cockpit of my airplane >(until I suddenly realized, duh, that the clock >speed was smack dab in the middle of the aircraft >band and would break the squelch full quieting on >about 100 different commonly used aircraft comm >frequencies), and then switching to a 240MHz version >of the same computer and still wiping out the entire >aircraft band with RF interference, I honestly don't >know how airliners stayed in the air back in the >days when laptops were running at such slow speeds. >But, as Bob said below, it's not just the "one" main >frequency that's producing interference. In a >laptop computer there are several different clocks >(aka transmitters) all putting out junk. In a >cellphone, you might have oscillators for the >receiving circuits, oscillators for the transmitting >circuits, oscillators for the LCD display, >oscillators for the dial pad, the PC sync cable, the >bluetooth, the WiFi, the 400MHz CPU, etc. etc. etc. >Every oscillator puts out a signal on its design >frequency, and on harmonics (2x, 3x, 4x, etc.), so I >imagine a spectrum analysis of a typical airliner >with everybody playing on laptops, gameboys, PDAs, >DVD players, etc. must be an incredibly awesome >sight. >I agree that the mythbusters have strayed and >nowadays most of their shows are mostly >entertainment, with little real scientific evidence >to back up their "busted / not busted" binary logic. Dave Morris -------------------------------------------------- >posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > >I saw this episode. If it were not offered with >such good intentions, it would have been laughable. >Their techniques for deducing sensitivity of various >systems to radiation from cell phone emissions >demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of how >both systems work and how one conducts repeatable >Experiments to quantify and qualify results. > >Take it from someone who has written dozens of test >plans and spent a goodly part of a career in a >screen-room, the "results" from their tests had no >scientific validity. Now, that's not to say that >their conclusion was incorrect . . . >I've done a LOT of testing of equipment that was >radiated strongly by sources that cover the cell >phone frequencies and found no effect on the >equipment under test. Indeed, that's a design goal >of the supplier and a requirement for certification. >Suffice it to say that squirting a bit of RF around >the cockpit while watching to see if anything >twitches is not a noteworthy test . . . I WISH > it were so simple. Could have save my bosses >$millions$. > > Bob . . . --------------------------------- ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 04:25:08 AM PST US From: "Peter Laurence" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Questions for Bob N. April 1, 2006 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Peter Laurence" -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric M. Jones Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 5:21 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Questions for Bob N. April 1, 2006 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" 4) What is this "String Theory" stuff about? Is this a NASA thing? My wife has the answer for his one. If I don't produce a string of pearls in my universe in addition to my RV, then I will not get..uh.. strung. Peter Do not archive ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 06:18:13 AM PST US From: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Computer radiation --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" My problem stems from the fact that I'm designing a completely computerized instrument panel, where the RF generator will be in close proximity to the RF receiver. I was trying to use a tablet computer, but it appears I'm going to have to put the computer in a shielded compartment away from the receivers and just put the display on the panel. The tablet computers I've tried were Fujitsu Stylistic 1200 and 2400 models, and they broke the squelch (full quieting) of my com radio from a distance of 100 feet. www.MyGlassCockpit.com has the details. Dave Morris At 06:07 AM 4/1/2006, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > > >Dave if your laptop is wiping out your Com, I would >look into your avionics installation or get a new >laptop or both. Back in the day was only 20 years >ago, airplanes had few computers and laptop an cel >phones rare. > > All major consumer electronic devices has to meet >FCC specification for EMF & RFreq interference. Before >everyone panics when the iPod, PDA or laptop comes >out on a plane, the power of the RF is so nil its of >little concern. Again as Kevin and yes Myth Busters >have shown, commercial aircraft are very well shielded >from RF, by design. Lightning strikes is even more of a >worry than a passenger laptop. Notice that FM radios >and many devices are forbidden at all times on airliners. > > To be honest if you wanted to be perfect no portable >device should be used, including computers, but the >fly consumer, business traveler would not stand for >that. We agree the risk is small. Yes? > >The truth is if there is enough power on the right freq >you can hurt any avionics, at least certainly the NAV >signal and even COM. Typical portable devices don't >radiate enough energy. > ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 06:35:45 AM PST US From: Mickey Coggins Subject: AeroElectric-List: power for headsets --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins I'm about to install the headset and mic jacks, and I'm wondering if there is an "industry standard" way to provide power for ANR type headsets. I've got the Bose, and they want USD 31 for a special jack, and USD 195 for the new headset cord. That would buy a lot of batteries. Is there a better way? Thanks! -- Mickey Coggins http://www.rv8.ch/ #82007 finishing do not archive ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 07:27:09 AM PST US From: "Alan K. Adamson" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: power for headsets --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" Mickey, I sourced the "jacks" from the manufacturer a few years ago and bought a couple for a Cessna 172. The jacks alone were as much as the $31 kits from ACS. My vote is to use an "inline" fuse and get the jacks and wiring harnesses all made up from ACS - they are $31 and that may be the price you mentioned? In the long run, that is the cheapest way to go. My .02, Alan -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mickey Coggins Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 9:34 AM Subject: AeroElectric-List: power for headsets --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins --> I'm about to install the headset and mic jacks, and I'm wondering if there is an "industry standard" way to provide power for ANR type headsets. I've got the Bose, and they want USD 31 for a special jack, and USD 195 for the new headset cord. That would buy a lot of batteries. Is there a better way? Thanks! -- Mickey Coggins http://www.rv8.ch/ #82007 finishing do not archive ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 08:24:02 AM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Comm Antenna Radiation Pattern --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd DAVID REEL wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" > > On my second test flight yesterday, The control tower's transmission during my initial climb was so weak I could just barely tell someone had transmitted. > ... > First, is the null on the ground plane side of this type of installation deep enough to attenuate the tower transmission so thoroughly? It could be. There really is no way to tell without testing with something like a far-field field-strength meter. You should do some flyover tests with someone on the ground who has a receiver with a signal strength meter so you can plot signal strength vs. position. It is tough to do on the ground because of ground proximity distorting the radiation pattern. > Second, would moving the antenna further aft reduce this problem? Any time you can put the antenna on an uncluttered ground plane with clear line-of-sight is going to be better but there are so many variables in this picture that I just can't advise you. Again, if you can mount it on an uncluttered ground plane with a clear LoS it will work as good as it can. The gear legs very well could be distorting the radiation pattern. -- Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . - Antoine de Saint-Exupery ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 08:34:22 AM PST US From: Mickey Coggins Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: power for headsets --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins > I sourced the "jacks" from the manufacturer a few years ago and bought a > couple for a Cessna 172. The jacks alone were as much as the $31 kits from > ACS. My vote is to use an "inline" fuse and get the jacks and wiring > harnesses all made up from ACS - they are $31 and that may be the price you > mentioned? In the long run, that is the cheapest way to go. Hi Alan, Thanks for the info. I'm a bit confused. From what I understand, I need to modify my current headsets, which have the standard jacks and the AA battery pack, to use a different cable, which is USD 195, or USD 164 (can't tell which) and I need to buy two USD 31 installation kits for the aircraft. http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/bosehdst.php After I've done this, I think my aircraft jacks will only work with Bose headsets. I am curious if there is a more "generic" way to get power to ANR headsets, since I may experiment with other types of headsets down the road, and I don't want to have a "bose only" installation. Also, the investment seems to be substantial. I can't see myself paying USD 200 to replace a few AA batteries. Thanks, Mickey -- Mickey Coggins http://www.rv8.ch/ #82007 finishing do not archive ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 09:15:13 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: power for headsets --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com Good Morning Mickey, I went through that exercise a couple of years ago and I did install Bose jacks and used the Bose interface cord. I think I made a mistake. Now, I can only use my Bose headsets in the airplane that has the special Bose Jacks. Our number one son decided to live with batteries so that he could use his Bose headsets in any airplane desired. Works fine for him. The Bose X headsets automatically shut of the power if the unit is not used so the batteries do last a long time A very close friend had another idea. He made a small plastic device that fit in the Bose battery compartment and picked up the connection to the battery terminals. From that he extended a cord that fit in a small two and half or three and a half millimeter power receptacle. When he wanted to use the Bose headsets in his airplane he used his homemade attachment to provide power from the aircraft system. For use in other airplanes, he just stuck in the batteries. I believe my friend's solution is the most elegant of all! Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 4/1/2006 10:35:59 A.M. Central Standard Time, mick-matronics@rv8.ch writes: Hi Alan, Thanks for the info. I'm a bit confused. From what I understand, I need to modify my current headsets, which have the standard jacks and the AA battery pack, to use a different cable, which is USD 195, or USD 164 (can't tell which) and I need to buy two USD 31 installation kits for the aircraft. http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/bosehdst.php After I've done this, I think my aircraft jacks will only work with Bose headsets. ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 09:19:42 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Cell phone --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 04:07 AM 4/1/2006 -0800, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Cell phone > >Dj: THANK YOU! WINK ;-) > > Dave and Bob: > > > Come-on guys Myth Busters is entertainment. Lighten >up. Sorry I mentioned it. However they did get a >result albeit contrived, it was interesting and I >would not blow it off as laughable. Humor is, of course, in the mind of the observer. If I observed a "cabinet maker" measuring with a yardstick and cutting with an ax, it would seem humorous to me. But if the guy was offering his skills and techniques as a do-it-yerself show . . . it's another matter. > >The test they did was valid for the hypothesis they >postulated. I think they defined their test objective >and tested for that. It may not pass FAA/FCC mustard >but it was interesting. It was not valid. If you screen your refrigerator for e-coli and find it 'clean' it does not explain nor offer remedy for illness promulgated by fungi. While they were setting adjacent to an airport and experimenting to see if the OBS/VOR/LOC needle "twitched" the radio was not in it's intended mode of operation. Sitting in a cockpit attempting to visually OBSERVE effects of interference was totally lame (believe it or not, there are SOME FAA approved tests that do just that . . . absolutely mindless). Science is deeply rooted in the quantified, qualified repeatable experiment. The Mythbusters episode on cell phones didn't even emulate science. The episode on Franklin's kite/lightning experiment was so badly hosed as to bring tears to the eyes of real scientists. Entertainment? Yes. Interesting? Most of the time. I enjoy watching it. Valid as a teaching or demonstration tool? Very rarely due either to badly crafted experiments, lack of quantification, or to a mis-understanding of the science they're attempting to illustrate. > >I think its fair to evaluate the transmission freq of the >celphone as the potential main offender. Absolutely not. When we find an actionable interference problem to be fixed, it's NEVER at operating frequency of the antagonist. The potential antagonist does what it's supposed to do to function. You have strong emissions sources on all aircraft. Transponders, radar, comm transmitters, radar altimeters, etc. One EXPECTS these signals to be strong in the vicinity of all potential victims. Therefore, victims are designed and tested to operate reliably in a predictable environment that includes those signal sources. > Spurious RF >coming out the back cover in a different spectrum is >always possible and almost expected. However most of >the electronics are shielded in the phone (I have a >friend at Ericsson-Sony). Notice FCC stickers on >electronic devices. "Other" RF is at much lower power. Define "lower". Here is a exemplar emissions limits plot from DO-160. Note that for some device to be qualified to live in the real world of airplanes, signals that it spews into the environment must be at or below values on the curve: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Emissions_Limits.gif Note that levels are cite in MICROVOLTS per meter. Note further that emissions in frequencies of interest to on board systems are restricted still further by as much as 20db (100x smaller) in some cases. Now look at: http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Susceptibility_Limits.gif Here we see that depending on what class of equipment is being tested, it's bombarded by potentially interfering signals measure in tens to hundreds of VOLTS per meter. These signals may be tens of millions of times stronger than the emission limits cited above. The run-of-the mill testing for most electrowhizzies is done at 50 VOLTS per meter. The idea that a cell phone or even their non-quantified super-cell-phone signal would irradiate the airplane's equipment at anything close DO-160 test limits is suspect. In any case, the cell phone equipment radiates a signal that is many orders of magnitude stronger than any "allowable limits" cited in the earlier chart . . . and if any given cell phone were being qualified for aircraft use, this fact would be ignored. This is because it has to run at that power level to be functional just like your 10W comm transmitter, 100W transponder and 10KW radar. This is why the emissions limit testing speak only to spurious signals that are much smaller than susceptibility limits which the Mythbuster's episode DID NOT explore or demonstrate. I could take my personal cell-phone to the lab and probably show that it could be qualified for use on airplanes. Okay, how about your cell phone? Or anyone else's cell phone? Given the huge numbers of such devices that roll over in style and features every few months, it's a given that they will NEVER be qualified for use on aircraft simply because the folks who design and sell them would not stand up to the costs of qualifying each new model (about $25K worth of testing for each product). The idea that most individuals got from watching the Mythbusters is that government imposed limits on use of their phones is without foundation because some entertainers were unable to duplicate an urban myth for which they had no scientific data and attempted to demonstrate with a yardstick and and axe. > > Back to myth busters. If you think these guys are >buffoons, they have lots of consultants who are way >smarter than all of us put together. In fact on the >cellphone subject matter, I am sure their researchers >and consultants (aerospace avionics experts) helped >them define and limited the scope of the test and was >indeed valid for what it was. Where are the facts to back up this statement? I've seen nothing in their presentations that suggest anything of the kind. When virtually all of Hollywood's productions are stroked for entertainment value at the expense of all scientific objectiveness how is it that this one television show becomes so elevated? > > > Bob wrote: > >"demonstrated a complete lack of understanding" > > >"Take it from someone who has written dozens of test > >plans and spent a goodly part of a career in a > >screen-room, the "results" from their tests had no > >scientific validity" > > >"squirting a bit of RF around the cockpit while watching > >to see if anything twitches is not a noteworthy test. > >I WISH it were so simple. Could have save my bosses > >$millions$." > > Bob, you obviously know more and could do better, >write them with your test plan. They often revisit >myths and retest. How do you do it Bob? I agree >the purpose is entertainment, which most TV shows >are. Just remember Bob it needs to fit into 15-20 >minutes of TV time and be interesting. How many > EMF and RFI test have you done on avionics? I > thought you guys just bought what Honeywell or > Collins sold and you all just bolted it in. > > > AS FAR AS MYTHBUSTERS!!! > > Aviation Related Mythbuster Shows: > >Pilot 1 - "Jet Assisted Chevy" (JATO car flys) >Pilot 2 - "Vacuum Toilet" (Fat woman stuck to toilet seat ) > Episode 9 - "Chicken Gun (vs piper windscreen)" >Episode 10 - "Explosive Decompression" >Episode 13 - "Jet (blast vs.) Taxi" >Episode 14 - "Chicken Gun (vs piper windscreen)" (Revisited) > Episode 32 - "Jet Pack" >Episode 33 - "Killer Brace Position" (seat test) >Episode 37 - "Escape Slide Parachute" >Episode 37 - "Exploding Hair Cream" (F-104 pilot O2 mask fire) >Episode 38 - "Explosive Decompression" (Revisited) > Episode 45 - "Shredded Plane" > > Cell Phone Shows: > >Episode 2 -"Cell Phone Destruction" (gas station fill-up blow-up) >Episode 33 - "Cell Phones vs. Drunk Driving" (dive now talk later) >Episode 49 - "Cell Phones on a Plane" > > (info above found at http://en.wikipedia.org/) > >Myth Busters RULES! > > As a current airline pilot and former aerospace engineer DER >I can say episodes 9,10, 33 are killer. Yes Boeing spends >millions doing these test, but mythbusters reproduces valid >test for peanuts. Any one can spend money, but thats not a >measure of the quality of a test. > > "Don't try this at home, we are what you call professionals" Yes, just enough credibility to lull the uneducated into mindless acceptance. Engineers and scientists do not get a pass on any given piece of work just because they've been mostly right and/or un-controversial in the past. Every piece of work is fair game for critical review and real scientists welcome the opportunity to resist any wedges that learned individuals might try to drive into their ideas . . . it's how bad ideas get headed off at the pass. In the cases of Franklin and cell phone interference aboard aircraft, they were way out in left field. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 09:52:38 AM PST US From: "Alan K. Adamson" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: power for headsets --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" Bose will sell you the old style "series II" battery pack, and cable. It allows the panel mount connector to plug into it when running off batteries and then it has the 2 cables that you plug into the regular headphone/mic plugs. When you are in a panel mounted airplane, you just plug into the panel mount jack. I have no idea how much they want for it... Or go buy a used set of II's and just use the battery pack/cord. I suspect that the X's will last a good long time on the old sytle box. It's a 9v box with 6 - AA's in it :) Alan -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of BobsV35B@aol.com Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 12:14 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: power for headsets --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com Good Morning Mickey, I went through that exercise a couple of years ago and I did install Bose jacks and used the Bose interface cord. I think I made a mistake. Now, I can only use my Bose headsets in the airplane that has the special Bose Jacks. Our number one son decided to live with batteries so that he could use his Bose headsets in any airplane desired. Works fine for him. The Bose X headsets automatically shut of the power if the unit is not used so the batteries do last a long time A very close friend had another idea. He made a small plastic device that fit in the Bose battery compartment and picked up the connection to the battery terminals. From that he extended a cord that fit in a small two and half or three and a half millimeter power receptacle. When he wanted to use the Bose headsets in his airplane he used his homemade attachment to provide power from the aircraft system. For use in other airplanes, he just stuck in the batteries. I believe my friend's solution is the most elegant of all! Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 4/1/2006 10:35:59 A.M. Central Standard Time, mick-matronics@rv8.ch writes: Hi Alan, Thanks for the info. I'm a bit confused. From what I understand, I need to modify my current headsets, which have the standard jacks and the AA battery pack, to use a different cable, which is USD 195, or USD 164 (can't tell which) and I need to buy two USD 31 installation kits for the aircraft. http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/bosehdst.php After I've done this, I think my aircraft jacks will only work with Bose headsets. ________________________________ Message 12 ____________________________________ Time: 09:52:38 AM PST US From: "Alan K. Adamson" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: power for headsets --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Alan K. Adamson" Ah, what version of the Bose do you have? I have the series II's and they have the panel jack on them... BUT, they also came with a battery pack and an adapter harness so that they could be powered from either source (battery or ship). If you have the X's, you are screwed, you either buy the other cable, or you keep feeding them batteries. Sorry, I don't think there is anyway to added ship power to those with out going to to the panel connector. Alan -----Original Message----- From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mickey Coggins Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 11:31 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: power for headsets --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins --> > I sourced the "jacks" from the manufacturer a few years ago and bought > a couple for a Cessna 172. The jacks alone were as much as the $31 > kits from ACS. My vote is to use an "inline" fuse and get the jacks > and wiring harnesses all made up from ACS - they are $31 and that may > be the price you mentioned? In the long run, that is the cheapest way to go. Hi Alan, Thanks for the info. I'm a bit confused. From what I understand, I need to modify my current headsets, which have the standard jacks and the AA battery pack, to use a different cable, which is USD 195, or USD 164 (can't tell which) and I need to buy two USD 31 installation kits for the aircraft. http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/bosehdst.php After I've done this, I think my aircraft jacks will only work with Bose headsets. I am curious if there is a more "generic" way to get power to ANR headsets, since I may experiment with other types of headsets down the road, and I don't want to have a "bose only" installation. Also, the investment seems to be substantial. I can't see myself paying USD 200 to replace a few AA batteries. Thanks, Mickey -- Mickey Coggins http://www.rv8.ch/ #82007 finishing do not archive ________________________________ Message 13 ____________________________________ Time: 12:37:22 PM PST US From: "Steve & Denise" Subject: AeroElectric-List: Dual shunts and amp gauge --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve & Denise" I have single battery/dual alt setup. I also have EI volt/amp gauge. The amp gauge works using an external shunt but the value of the shunt must be known in order for the gauge to work properly. Therefore my gauge is VA-1A-60, works with 50mV/60amp shunt. The shunt wires to the aux alternator lead is 50mv/10A and therefore may not work properly. I would like to replace this aux shunt with 50mV/60amp so that I can switch from MAIN alterntor to AUX alternator and read the current on the EI gauge. Is there any harm in using 50mV/60amp shunt for the aux alt when aeroelectric connection shows 50mv/10A? Steve RV7A ________________________________ Message 14 ____________________________________ Time: 01:22:37 PM PST US From: Mickey Coggins Subject: AeroElectric-List: Headset jack cables - shielded or not? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins I've read the discussion on shielded wires on page 18-13, and it's pretty clear. I still have a question about it. The intercom I'm installing (Flightcom 403) does not indicated shielded wires to the headset and mic jacks on the wiring diagram, but has this in the instructions "You may need to use shielded wire on audio, mic and headphone lines." I take it that if I get some noise, then they suggest re-wiring with shielded wire. What is the "real world" experience with shielding these wires? Has anyone run unshielded and wished they had run shielded? I've got plenty of shielded wire handy, but this sentence in Bob's text gives me pause: "...there is greater risk that shielding improperly terminated at both ends is 100x more likely to be the root cause of a noise problem (due to ground loop) than if the wire had never been shielded in the first place (electrostatic coupling to some high noise wiring)." Barring better advice, what I plan to do is use the shielded wire, and make sure that it is only grounded at the intercom. Thanks for your better advice! -- Mickey Coggins http://www.rv8.ch/ #82007 finishing ________________________________ Message 15 ____________________________________ Time: 01:45:27 PM PST US From: Matt Dralle Subject: AeroElectric-List: Matronics Email List Wiki! --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Dralle Dear Listers, I have added a new feature to the Email List Forums at Matronics called a Wiki. What's "Wiki" you ask? A Wiki is a website. You go to it and browse just like you would any other web site. The difference is, you can change it. You can put anything you want on this web site without having to be a web designer or even being the owner. You can write a new page just like writing an email message on the BBS. You don't need to send it off to anyone to install on the site. It is kind of like a Blog (weblog) in which anyone can post. Here is a great page on where the term Wiki came from and what it means in the context of a website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki So on to the new Matronics Email List Wiki... I've created this site for anyone from any of the Email Lists to use. I envision that there are a great many things that can be added to this new Wiki since there are always new and interesting tidbits of useful information traversing the Lists. Off the main Matronics Email List Wiki page, you will find a link called "Community Portal". Here you will find more links to stubs for all the various Lists found at Matronics (and a few other links). Brian Lloyd and others from the Yak-List have already begun adding content in a number of areas. Bob Nuckolls of AeroElectric fame has added a great article on "Ageing Aircraft". I have discussed the new Matronics Email List Wiki with Tedd McHenry and Dwight Frye of the RV Wiki Site and they have decided to merge their site over onto the new Matronics Wiki server giving everyone a single source for information on RV building and flying! This migration will begin today and you should be able to find all of the content currently found at www.rvwiki.org moved over to the Matronics Wiki within a few days. To make edits to the Matronics Wiki, you will need to have a login account on the Matronics Wiki and I have disabled anonymous edits. This protects the Wiki site from automated spam engines and other nuisances that could compromise the data at the site. Signing up for an account is fast and easy and begins by clicking on the "create an account or log in" link in the upper right hand corner of any page. Note that you do not have to have a login or be logged in to view any of the content. The Matronics Email List Wiki is YOUR Wiki! It is only as useful as the content found within. The concept of the Wiki is that the people the use it and update it. If you've got an interesting procedure for doing something, MAKE A WIKI PAGE ON IT! You can even upload pictures. Saw something interesting at a flyin? MAKE A WIKI PAGE ON IT! Don't be shy, this is YOUR site to share information with others with similar interests. Here is a users guide on using the Wiki implemented at Matronics: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents This gives a lot of great information on how to get started editing pages. And finally, here is the URL for the Matronics Email List Wiki: http://wiki.matronics.com Brian Lloyd has written an excellent introduction to Wikis on the front page. I encourage you to read it over, then drill into the "Community Portal" and HAVE FUN!! Best regards, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________ Message 16 ____________________________________ Time: 02:08:09 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Headset jack cables - shielded or not? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 11:19 PM 4/1/2006 +0200, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Mickey Coggins > > >I've read the discussion on shielded wires on page >18-13, and it's pretty clear. I still have a question >about it. The intercom I'm installing (Flightcom 403) >does not indicated shielded wires to the headset and >mic jacks on the wiring diagram, but has this in the >instructions "You may need to use shielded wire on >audio, mic and headphone lines." > >I take it that if I get some noise, then they suggest >re-wiring with shielded wire. I suspect it's a CYA statement. I've never encountered a noise problem that was cured by converting properly installed microphone or headphone wiring from twisted individual strands to a shielded equivalent. >What is the "real world" experience with shielding >these wires? Has anyone run unshielded and wished >they had run shielded? I don't believe so. >I've got plenty of shielded wire handy, but this >sentence in Bob's text gives me pause: "...there >is greater risk that shielding improperly terminated at >both ends is 100x more likely to be the root cause >of a noise problem (due to ground loop) than if the >wire had never been shielded in the first place >(electrostatic coupling to some high noise wiring)." I LIKE shielded pairs, trios and quads for a LOT of applications that do not call for shielding. This is because I'm offered a multi-conductor bundle with a smooth outer surface that is easy to work with if you have the tools. I have strippers and solder sleeves that make multi-conductor bundles a snap whether the shielding is called for or not. More often than not, the shield provides yet another conductor in the bundle. >Barring better advice, what I plan to do is use the >shielded wire, and make sure that it is only grounded >at the intercom. Thanks for your better advice! That will work. But know too that a single shielded and a twisted pair as a headset feeder are equally likely to perform as desired. The insulating washers or other isolation techniques used to separate mic and headset grounds from the airframe are far more critical than which style of wire you use. Bob . . . < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > < the authority which determines whether there can be > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > ________________________________ Message 17 ____________________________________ Time: 02:15:18 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Computer radiation --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 08:12 AM 4/1/2006 -0600, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" > > >My problem stems from the fact that I'm designing a completely >computerized instrument panel, where the RF generator will be in >close proximity to the RF receiver. I was trying to use a tablet >computer, but it appears I'm going to have to put the computer in a >shielded compartment away from the receivers and just put the display >on the panel. The tablet computers I've tried were Fujitsu Stylistic >1200 and 2400 models, and they broke the squelch (full quieting) of >my com radio from a distance of 100 feet. > >www.MyGlassCockpit.com has the details. > >Dave Morris Yup, those things can be horrific radiators. Processor based autopilots I've tested were quite noisy at and below the processor clock speed. We always mounted them in totally enclosed cabinets and brought wiring out through filtered pathways. They're FCC Part 15 tested which says, "Yeah, I'm really noisy but still below certain limits and by the way, if I do interfere with some other system, its your duty to turn me off or separate me from the higher priority service." For the most part, portable devices aboard large aircraft are located far enough from antennas and from cockpit mounted equipment to be very tiny risks. But as you've noted, when you bring this class of product aboard a small aircraft and even consider mounting it on the panel, the playing field can change dramatically. Bob . . . < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > < the authority which determines whether there can be > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > ________________________________ Message 18 ____________________________________ Time: 03:45:59 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Dual shunts and amp gauge --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 03:34 PM 4/1/2006 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Steve & Denise" > > >I have single battery/dual alt setup. I also have EI volt/amp gauge. > >The amp gauge works using an external shunt but the value of the shunt must >be known in order for >the gauge to work properly. Therefore my gauge is VA-1A-60, works with >50mV/60amp shunt. > >The shunt wires to the aux alternator lead is 50mv/10A and therefore may not >work properly. I >would like to replace this aux shunt with 50mV/60amp so that I can switch >from MAIN alterntor >to AUX alternator and read the current on the EI gauge. > >Is there any harm in using 50mV/60amp shunt for the aux alt when >aeroelectric connection shows 50mv/10A? No. If you have a 10A shunt from either me or B&C, I'll swap it for a 60A. Bob . . . < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that > < the authority which determines whether there can be > < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of > < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests > < with experiment. > < --Lawrence M. Krauss > ________________________________ Message 19 ____________________________________ Time: 04:00:40 PM PST US From: Brian Lloyd Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Headset jack cables - shielded or not? --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd Mickey Coggins wrote: > Barring better advice, what I plan to do is use the > shielded wire, and make sure that it is only grounded > at the intercom. Thanks for your better advice! That is the right answer. -- Brian Lloyd 361 Catterline Way brian-yak at lloyd dot com Folsom, CA 95630 +1.916.367.2131 (voice) +1.270.912.0788 (fax) I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things . . . - Antoine de Saint-Exupery ________________________________ Message 20 ____________________________________ Time: 04:11:39 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Comm Antenna Radiation Pattern --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 06:30 AM 4/1/2006 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "DAVID REEL" > >On my second test flight yesterday, The control tower's transmission >during my initial climb was so weak I could just barely tell someone had >transmitted. I was climbing with the tower at my back and at a pretty >steep angle due to other problems. Except during this climb phase, I >heard the tower loud and clear. Refering to the radiation pattern in >figure 13-7 of the AeroElectric Connection book, I'm theorizing that my >comm antenna, which is mounted beneath the left wing/fuselage joint so >that about a half foot of the bent antenna protrudes behind the left flap >on my RV8A, was blocked by the wing/fuselage from radiating towards the >tower. So, I have two questions. > >First, is the null on the ground plane side of this type of installation >deep enough to attenuate the tower transmission so thoroughly? > >Second, would moving the antenna further aft reduce this problem? The variables here are huge. First, we know that the radiation/reception pattern of antennas mounted on aircraft seldom have lab-perfect shapes. Further, depending on operating frequency, antenna location and aircraft geometry, the variability from minimum to maximum performance can be large . . . notice "large" is not quantified. If you just departed an airport and had trouble communicating from less than 5 miles away, I'm skeptical that ordinary distortions of the antenna's pattern could cause the tower to drop away markedly in strength. They use 20-50 watt transmitters and very omni-directional antennas. You'll need to conduct some experiments to see if you can duplicate the condition. Then vary your heading by 20 degrees or so either side of the "null" without changing deck angle. If the signal strength comes up markedly by changing directions, then pattern is certainly a component of your difficulty. How's your performance at altitude for stations out at the horizon? One of the problems for testing comm antenna patterns is that there are no steady-on ground based signal sources like we have with VOR, LOC, VOT, etc. At RAC, we have a steady-on beacon we can use to radiate for flight testing antennas. The aircraft flies a zero-bank 360 out 100 miles or so and we plot the received signal strength from the ground beacon. Gives very nice pattern data. You may be suffering from both pattern effects and efficiency problems. A weakly performing antenna will display pattern effects that are otherwise quite tolerable. I've had a friend stand in a clear space with a hand held and give me several minutes of long "aaaaaahhhhhhh" while I did the a merry-go-'round maneuver to check for deep nulls. Be sure the hand-held will tolerate this. MANY comm transmitters are not rated for long transmissions like this. If the hand-held has a high-low power setting, you can certainly do it in the low power setting. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 21 ____________________________________ Time: 08:51:38 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Questions for Bob N. April 1, 2006 --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" At 05:21 PM 3/31/2006 -0500, you wrote: >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" > >An IQ is your measure of intelligence right? Or is >it? I'm confused. Can you explain it? I know you're smart so I hope this is >the right forum to post this in. Not my area of expertise so I checked my answer with Dr. Dee. She agrees so here goes . . . Most tests offered by the public schools can be maxed out by folks who can memorize facts. Knowledge is a demonstration of memory. Intelligence is demonstrated of one's ability to use knowledge. For example, there are well documented individuals capable of amazing tasks of memory and/or certain demonstrations of mental dexterity. They can recite back long lists of numbers, do big math problems in their head, etc. One would think that all folks having such a command of knowledge would be successful but such is not the case. At the same time, there are successful individuals who's imagination and motivations limit them to narrow interests that make them appear dull when in fact they may converse quite well with the likes of Stephen Hawking or Lawrence Krauss. When crafting a test to measure IQ, one must spend a lot of time and experimentation to design an instrument that is knowledge and culture-neutral. The fact that batteries of IQ test tools yield a wide range of results on the same individuals attests to the difficulty of the task. Tests for knowledge are easy . . . facts, is facts, is facts. The fact that your friend can get good grades suggests that the doors for in flow of information are wide open to him. Whether or not he can make exceptional use of that information may not be apparent for years . . . and even if he does not, it may not be due to lack of intelligence. On the other hand, individuals with a high degree of intelligence can be crippled by a lack of knowledge. They are probably very adept at thriving in their environment but never get past the stone age for lack of discovery. The presence of both qualities is certainly the most desirable circumstance - a shortage of either can be severely limiting of one's fortunes as an honorable individual. Of course if one chooses to be dishonorable, a lack of intelligence, knowledge or both can be compensated for to some degree but at increased hazard from those dedicated to the protection of liberty. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 22 ____________________________________ Time: 11:33:07 PM PST US From: Matt Dralle Subject: AeroElectric-List: Official AeroElectric-List FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Dralle Dear Listers, Please read over the AeroElectric-List Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) below. The complete AeroElectric-List FAQ including the Usage Guidelines can be found at the following URL: http://www.matronics.com/FAQs/AeroElectric-List.FAQ.html Thank you, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator [ Note: This FAQ was designed to be displayed with a fixed width font such as Courier. Proportional fonts will cause display formatting errors. ] This FAQ can also be viewed in HTML online at the following address: http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm ************************************************************ ******* LIST POLICIES AND FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ******* ************************************************************ PLEASE READ. This document contains AeroElectric-List policies and information for new and old subscribers. Understanding the AeroElectric-List policies will minimize problems for the Administrator, and will help keep the AeroElectric-List running smoothly for all of us. **************************************** *** How to Subscribe and Unsubscribe *** **************************************** Simply go to the Web Page shown below and enter your email address and select the List(s) that you wish to subscribe or unsubscribed from. You may also use the handy "Find" function to determine the exact syntax of your email address as it is subscribed to the List. Please see the complete instructions at the top of the Web Page for more information. The Subscribe/Unsubscribe web page is: http://www.matronics.com/subscribe Note that you will receive TWO conformation emails regarding your subsciption process. The first verifies that your subscription/unsubsciption request was received, and the second confirms that the process has been completed. You should receive the first email within a few minutes of your request. The second conformation will arrive in less than 24 hours. You cannot post until you receive the second conformation email message. ***************************** *** How to Post a Message *** ***************************** Send an email message to: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Your message will be redistributed to everyone currently subscribed to the List. ***************************************************** *** SPAM Fighter - You Must be Subscribed to Post *** ***************************************************** When a new post is received by the system, the From: line of the message is checked and compared against the current subscription list. If the email address is found, the message is passed on to the List Processor. If the email address isn't found in the current list of subscribers, it is dumped. This serves to very effectively thwart 99% of the SPAM that gets posted to the Lists. Remember, however, that the syntax of your email address is very important with regard to the configuration of your email application such as Outlook or Eudora. For example, the following two email addresses may be functionally equivalent, but only one would pass the Matronics Email SPAM test depending on which was syntax was subscribed to the given List: smith@machine.domain.com smith@domain.com Either email address syntax is alright, just be sure that you configure your email application to match *exactly* the address you've subscibed to the List. ***************************************************************** *** Enclosures Stripped Out - Can't Get a Virus From the List *** ***************************************************************** Any enclosures that are posted to the List will automatically be stripped off, and ONLY the plain/text portion of the message will be forwarded to the List. Please configure your Email application to send Plain Text Only, and disable any "Quoted Printable" or "HTML" encoding whenever possible. Because enclosures are stripped out of incoming posts to the List, the likelihood of getting a virus from the List is extremely small. If you do receive a message that appears to be from the List, and it does include a virus, it is very likely that it was sent *directly* to you from someone on the List who has a virus. This is a specific kind of virus, and you should try to inform the sender, if possible. The best protection against viruses is a good virus protection program such as Norton Antivirus. State of the art in virus protection today's world gives maximum protection with little or no negative impact on the computer system. You can't afford to be without a good virus protection program these days. Note that some limited enclosure posting is now enabled on a number of Lists. Allowed types include .jpg, .gif, .txt, .pdf, .xls, and a few other similar types. ******************* *** Digest Mode *** ******************* Each day, starting at 12 midnight PST US, a new 'digest' will be started. This digest will contain the same information that is currently appended to the archive file. It has all of the headers except for the "From:" and "Subject:" lines removed, and includes a message separator consisting of a line of underscores. Each day at 23:55 PST US, the day's messages as described above will be combined and sent as a single message to everyone on the digest email list. To subscribe to the digest list, use the same subscription web form described above, and just select the Digest version of the List. http://www.matronics.com/subscribe Note that you *can* be subscribed to both the realtime and digest versions of the List at the same time. This is perfectly acceptable. Now some caveats: * Messages sent to "aeroelectric-list-digest" will be forwarded to the standard email list. In other words, you cannot post messages only to the digest List. * If you are subscribed to both the regular List and the digest List, you will receive the realtime postings as well as the digest at the end of the day. * If you reply to the digest email, your message will be forwarded to the normal list associated with the digest. Important Note: Please change the subject line to reflect the topic of your response! Also, please *do not include all or most of the digest in your reply*. **************************** *** List Digest Browser *** **************************** An archive of all the List Digests can be found online in either plain text or HTML format. These archives contain the exact Digest that was posted to the Digest email list on the given day. The Digest Archives can be found at the following location: http://www.matronics.com/digest ***************************************** *** The "DO NOT ARCHIVE" Message Flag *** ***************************************** At times, your message may concern something that is revelent only to a very small number of persons or to a limited area, and you may not wish to archive it. In such a case, simply put the following phrase anywhere in the message: do not archive Your message will not be appended to the archive, but will be sent to List email distribution as normal. ********************************************** ***** READ THIS - Automatic Unsubscribes ***** ********************************************** Note that if your email address begins to cause problems such as bounced email, mailbox is filled, or any other errors, your address will be promptly removed from the List. If you discover that you are no longer receiving messages from the AeroElectric-List, go to the following Web page, and look for your email address and a possible reason for your removal. The Matronics Email List uses utility called the "Email Weasel" that automatically looks though the day's bounced email for addresses that caused problems due to common things like "user is unknown", "mailbox full", etc. If the Email Weasel removes your email address from the Lists you will find record of it at the following URL: http://www.matronics.com/unsubscribed If the problem listed on the web site above has been resolved, please feel free to resubscribe to the Lists of your choice. ******************************* *** List Member Information *** ******************************* If you have not done so already, please email me your phone numbers and paper mail address in the following format: smith@somehost.com Joe Smith 123 Airport Lane Tower, CA 91234-1234 098-765-1234 w 123-456-7890 h Please forward this information to the following email address: requests@matronics.com I have a file of such things, that I typically use to contact you when there are problems with your email address. The information will NOT be used for any other commercial purpose. **************************************** *** Realtime Web Email List Browsing *** **************************************** Recent messages posted to the AeroElectric-List are also made available on the Web for realtime browsing. Seven days worth of back postings are available with this feature. The messages can be sorted by Subject, Author, Date, or Message Thread. The Realtime List Browser indexes are updated twice per hour at xx:15 and xx:45. You can also reply to a message or start a new message directly from the List Browser Interface (coming soon). You do not have to be subscribed to the given list to use the List Browser Interface in view-mode. http://www.matronics.com/browselist/aeroelectric-list ******************************************* *** Web Forums Bulletin Board Interface *** ******************************************* A phpBB BBS web Forums front end is available for all AeroElectric-List content. content. The Forums contain all of the same content available via the email distribution and found on the various archive viewing formats such as the List Browse, etc. Any posts on the web Forums will be cross posted to the respective email List, and posts to the Email List will be cross posted to the web Forums. You may view all List content on the Forums without any special login. If you wish to post a message via the Web Forum interface, however, you will need to Register. This is a simple process that takes only a few minutes. A link to the Registration page can be found at the top of the main web Forums page. Note that registering on the Forum web site also enables you to send email posts to the Lists as well. You will also need to Subscribe to the respective Email List as described above to receive the Email Distribution of the List, however. The Matroincs Email List Web BBS Forums can be found at the following URL: http://forums.matronics.com ********************************* *** Matronics Email List Wiki *** ********************************* In an attempt to make it easy to store and find structured and often accessed information, Matronics has installed a Wiki at: http://wiki.matronics.com The Wiki allows individuals to create web pages to contain useful information for other users of the mailing lists and web site. Unlike an ordinary web page where the content needs to be submitted to Matronics for inclusion, the Wiki permits the users to construct their own pages and have them visible immediately. While constructing pages for the Wiki is not difficult, some may not be comfortable building pages. In that case, simply prepare the text and any images and email it to: wiki-support@matronics.com One of the volunteers on that list will take your submission and construct a Wiki page for you. Often someone produces a particularly useful posting in email one one of the Lists that would be of general interest. In that case Matronics may take that post and convert it into a Wiki page. ********************* *** List Archives *** ********************* A file containing of all of the previous postings to the AeroElectric-List is available on line. The archive file information is available via the Web and FTP in a number of forms. Each are briefly described below: * AeroElectric-List.FAQ - Latest version of the AeroElectric-List Frequently Asked Question page (this document). * AeroElectric-Archive.digest.complete - Complete file with most of the email header info removed and page breaks inserted between messages. * AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-?? - Same as the file above, but broken up into small sections that can more easily handled. * AeroElectric-Archive.digest.complete.zip - Same as the AeroElectric-Archive.digest.complete file above, but in PKZIP format. Use "binary" data transfer methods. * AeroElectric-Archive.digest.complete.Z - Same as the AeroElectric-Archive.digest.complete file above, but in UNIX compress format. Use "binary" data transfer methods. Download Via FTP ---------------- The archive file is available via anonymous FTP from ftp.matronics.com in the "/pub/Archives" directory. It is updated daily and can be found in a number of formats as described above. (All filenames are case sensitive.) ftp://ftp.matronics.com/pub/Archives Download Via Web ---------------- The archives are also available via a web listing. These can be found toward the bottom of the following web page: http://www.matronics.com/archives ****************************************** *** Complete List Web Archive Browsing *** ****************************************** All messages posted to the AeroElectric-List are also available using the Email List Archive Browsing feature. With this utility, all messages in the List are indexed, and individual sub-archives can be browsed. http://www.matronics.com/archive/archive-index.cgi?AeroElectric ***************************************** **** High-Speed Archive Search Engine *** ***************************************** You can use the custom, high-performance Matronics Email List Search Engine to quickly locate and browse any messages that have been posted to the List. The Engine allows the user to easily search any of the currently available List archives. http://www.matronics.com/search **************************** *** File and Photo Share *** **************************** With the Matronics Email List File and Photo Share you can share pictures and other data with members of the List without having to forward a copy of it to everyone. To share your Files and Photos, simply email them to: pictures@matronics.com !! ==> Please including the following information with each submission: 1) Email Lists that they are related to. 2) Your Full Name. 3) Your Email Address. 4) One line Subject description. 5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic. 6-x) One-line Description of each photo or file Prior to public availability of the files and photos, each will be scanned for viruses. Please also note that the process of making the files and photos available on the web site is a pseudo-manual process, and I try to process them every few days. Following the availability of the new Photoshare, an email message will be sent to the Email Lists enumerated in 1) above indicating that the new Share is available and what the direct URL to it is. For a current list of available Photoshares, have a look at the Main Index Page: http://www.matronics.com/photoshare ************************** *** List Archive CDROM *** ************************** A complete Matronics Email List Archive CD is available that contains all of the archives since the beginning of each of the Lists. The archives for all of the Lists are included on the CD along with a freeware search engine written by a list member. The CD is burned the day you order it and will contain archive received up to the last minute. They make great gifts! http://www.matronics.com/ArchiveCDROM ********************************** *** List Support Contributions *** ********************************** The Matronics Lists are run *completely* through the support of it members. You won't find any PopUpAds, flashing Banner ads, or any other form of annoying commercialism on either the Email Messages or the List web pages associated with the Matronics Email Lists. Every year during November I run a low-key, low-pressure "Fund Raiser" where, throughout the month, I ask List members to make a Contribution in any amount with which they are comfortable. I will often offer free gifts with certain contribution levels during the Fund Raiser to increase the participation. The gifts are usually donated by companies that are themselves List members. Your Contributions go directly to supporting the operation of the Lists including the high-speed, business-class Internet connection, server system hardware and software upgrades, and to partially offset the many many hours I spend running, maintaining, upgrading, and developing the variety of services found here. Generally Contributions range from $20 to $100 and are completely voluntary and non-compulsory. I ask only that if person enjoys the Lists and obtains value from them, that they make a Contribution of equal magnitude. Contributions are accepted throughout the year, and if you've just subscribed, feel free to make a Contribution when you've settled in. The website for making SSL Secure Contributions is listed below. There are a variety of payment methods including Visa and MasterCard, PayPal, and sending a personal check. If you enjoy and value the List, won't you make a Contribution today to support its continued operation? http://www.matronics.com/contributions Thank you! Matt Dralle Email List Administrator ****************************************************************************** AeroElectric-List Usage Guidelines ****************************************************************************** The following details the official Usage Guidelines for the AeroElectric-List. You are encouraged to read it carefully, and to abide by the rules therein. Failure to use the AeroElectric-List in the manner described below may result in the removal of the subscribers from the List. AeroElectric-List Policy Statement The purpose of the AeroElectric-List is to provide a forum of discussion for things related to this particular discussion group. The List's goals are to serve as an information resource to its members; to deliver high-quality content; to provide moral support; to foster camaraderie among its members; and to support safe operation. Reaching these goals requires the participation and cooperation of each and every member of the List. To this end, the following guidelines have been established: - Please keep all posts related to the List at some level. Do not submit posts concerning computer viruses, urban legends, random humor, long lost buddies' phone numbers, etc. etc. - THINK carefully before you write. Ask yourself if your post will be relevant to everyone. If you have to wonder about that, DON'T send it. - Remember that your post will be included for posterity in an archive that is growing in size at an extraordinary rate. Try to be concise and terse in your posts. Avoid overly wordy and lengthy posts and responses. - Keep your signature brief. Please include your name, email address, aircraft type/tail number, and geographic location. A short line about where you are in the building process is also nice. Avoid bulky signatures with character graphics; they consume unnecessary space in the archive. - DON'T post requests to the List for information when that info is easily obtainable from other widely available sources. Consult the web page or FAQ first. - If you want to respond to a post, DO keep the "Subject:" line of your response the same as that of the original post. This makes it easy to find threads in the archive. - When responding, NEVER quote the *entire* original post in your response. DO use lines from the original post to help "tune in" the reader to the topic at hand, but be selective. The impact that quoting the entire original post has on the size of the archive can not be overstated! - When the poster asks you to respond to him/her personally, DO NOT then go ahead and reply to the List. Be aware that clicking the "reply" button on your mail package does not necessarily send your response to the original poster. You might have to actively address your response with the original poster's email address. - DO NOT use the List to respond to a post unless you have something to add that is relevant and has a broad appeal. "Way to go!", "I agree", and "Congratulations" are all responses that are better sent to the original poster directly, rather than to the List at large. - When responding to others' posts, avoid the feeling that you need to comment on every last point in their posts, unless you can truly contribute something valuable. - 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. - Occassional posts by vendors or individuals who are regularyly subscribed to a given List are considered acceptable. Posts by List members promoting their respective products or items for sale should be of a friendly, informal nature, and should not resemble a typical SPAM message. The List isn't about commercialism, but is about sharing information and knowledge. This applies to everyone, including those who provide products to the entire community. Informal presentation and moderation should be the operatives with respect to advertising on the Lists. ------- [This is an automated posting.] ________________________________ Message 23 ____________________________________ Time: 11:33:09 PM PST US From: Matt Dralle Subject: AeroElectric-List: Official AeroElectric-List Usage Guidelines --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Matt Dralle Dear Listers, Please read over the AeroElectric-List Usage Guidelines below. The complete AeroElectric-List FAQ including these Usage Guidelines can be found at the following URL: http://www.matronics.com/FAQs/AeroElectric-List.FAQ.html Thank you, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ****************************************************************************** AeroElectric-List Usage Guidelines ****************************************************************************** The following details the official Usage Guidelines for the AeroElectric-List. You are encouraged to read it carefully, and to abide by the rules therein. Failure to use the AeroElectric-List in the manner described below may result in the removal of the subscribers from the List. AeroElectric-List Policy Statement The purpose of the AeroElectric-List is to provide a forum of discussion for things related to this particular discussion group. The List's goals are to serve as an information resource to its members; to deliver high-quality content; to provide moral support; to foster camaraderie among its members; and to support safe operation. Reaching these goals requires the participation and cooperation of each and every member of the List. To this end, the following guidelines have been established: - Please keep all posts related to the List at some level. Do not submit posts concerning computer viruses, urban legends, random humor, long lost buddies' phone numbers, etc. etc. - THINK carefully before you write. Ask yourself if your post will be relevant to everyone. If you have to wonder about that, DON'T send it. - Remember that your post will be included for posterity in an archive that is growing in size at an extraordinary rate. Try to be concise and terse in your posts. Avoid overly wordy and lengthy posts and responses. - Keep your signature brief. Please include your name, email address, aircraft type/tail number, and geographic location. A short line about where you are in the building process is also nice. Avoid bulky signatures with character graphics; they consume unnecessary space in the archive. - DON'T post requests to the List for information when that info is easily obtainable from other widely available sources. Consult the web page or FAQ first. - If you want to respond to a post, DO keep the "Subject:" line of your response the same as that of the original post. This makes it easy to find threads in the archive. - When responding, NEVER quote the *entire* original post in your response. DO use lines from the original post to help "tune in" the reader to the topic at hand, but be selective. The impact that quoting the entire original post has on the size of the archive can not be overstated! - When the poster asks you to respond to him/her personally, DO NOT then go ahead and reply to the List. Be aware that clicking the "reply" button on your mail package does not necessarily send your response to the original poster. You might have to actively address your response with the original poster's email address. - DO NOT use the List to respond to a post unless you have something to add that is relevant and has a broad appeal. "Way to go!", "I agree", and "Congratulations" are all responses that are better sent to the original poster directly, rather than to the List at large. - When responding to others' posts, avoid the feeling that you need to comment on every last point in their posts, unless you can truly contribute something valuable. - 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. - Occassional posts by vendors or individuals who are regularyly subscribed to a given List are considered acceptable. Posts by List members promoting their respective products or items for sale should be of a friendly, informal nature, and should not resemble a typical SPAM message. The List isn't about commercialism, but is about sharing information and knowledge. This applies to everyone, including those who provide products to the entire community. Informal presentation and moderation should be the operatives with respect to advertising on the Lists. ------- [This is an automated posting.]