Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:21 AM - Switch Selection (SMITHBKN@aol.com)
2. 04:34 AM - Re: alternator autopsy (Kingsley Hurst)
3. 05:05 AM - Re: Cellphones in the air (Larry Rosen)
4. 05:13 AM - Re: alternator autopsy (Chuck Jensen)
5. 05:47 AM - Re: alternator autopsy (Chuck Jensen)
6. 05:47 AM - Re: Switch Selection (Larry Rosen)
7. 05:55 AM - Re: alternator autopsy (Steve Thomas)
8. 06:01 AM - Re: alternator autopsy (Bill Boyd)
9. 06:16 AM - Re: Cellphones in the air (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 06:16 AM - Re: Switch Selection (Bill Steer)
11. 06:20 AM - Re: alternator autopsy (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 06:25 AM - Re: alternator autopsy (Bret Smith)
13. 06:27 AM - Re: antenna interference (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 06:29 AM - Re: Barry's secret (Rodney Dunham)
15. 06:29 AM - Re: Cellphones in the air (Bill Boyd)
16. 06:34 AM - Re: Switch Selection (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
17. 06:39 AM - Re: alternator autopsy (Reginald E. DeLoach)
18. 06:40 AM - Re: Cellphones in the air (Harold Kovac)
19. 06:47 AM - Re: alternator autopsy (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
20. 06:50 AM - DVD Player Ground (Larry Rosen)
21. 06:51 AM - Re: Switch Selection (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
22. 07:23 AM - Re: alternator autopsy (6440 Auto Parts)
23. 07:25 AM - Re: Cellphones in the air (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
24. 08:51 AM - Re: DVD Player Ground (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
25. 09:01 AM - Re: alternator autopsy (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
26. 09:02 AM - Re: Cellphones in the air (Dave N6030X)
27. 09:11 AM - Re: Switch Selection (Larry Rosen)
28. 09:11 AM - Re: alternator autopsy / Thank you. (DBerelsman@aol.com)
29. 09:19 AM - Re: alternator autopsy (Ernest Christley)
30. 10:29 AM - CHT/EGT instrument wire? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
31. 12:22 PM - Re: Cellphones in the air (Matt Prather)
32. 02:19 PM - Re: alternator autopsy (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
33. 03:15 PM - Re: explosion proof fans (Doug Windhorn)
34. 03:21 PM - Re: explosion proof fans - more (Doug Windhorn)
35. 06:05 PM - Re: explosion proof fans - more (sarg314)
36. 07:39 PM - Dead Horses don't die... (Fiveonepw@aol.com)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Switch Selection |
Group,
What type of switch do I need (S700-?) in order to get the following
function: Off-On-On
I want the "on" positions to power two different set of cabin lights and I
only want one set to be on at time.
Thanks,
Jeff
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: | alternator autopsy |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Kingsley Hurst" <khurst@taroom.qld.gov.au>
Barry,
> Why indeed ... Because so many of you follow the leader with heads
stuck so
> far up their butts that it LQQKs like the heads are in the right
place.
Strange that ! 'cause after three years on this list, I am far from
reaching the same conclusion. If you had said that a few on this list
think they are mightier than thou, then I think I may have been able to
concur.
> It is NOT a game of I've got a secret
Then what is it ? Is it just that if one person on the list disagrees
with you that you then withhold your knowledge ? Or are you the type of
person who only says things once and anybody who simply misunderstands
or can't recollect, gets ignored ?
> I TOLD the secret MANY, MANY times but
you (the collective) refuse to listen. Do you recall what I posted?
Sorry but I as part of the 'collective', DID NOT REFUSE TO LISTEN and
NO, I don't recall what you 'singular' posted !
> Do you recall the mindless regurgitation of how I was wrong.
NO again. Starting to wonder if you have a complex !
> Well, this is just an example of Over Engineering and Electronic
Babble.
Not what I would have called it !
> Remember I have screamed about K.I.S.S. ME
Actually I do remember something about that but I'd rather decline the
offer thank you.
> I have a Hyundai, I spent two months swapping alternators, bench
checking
alternators and even replaced the battery (Didn't I tell fellow that
replacing
the battery won't help!) ALL to no avail.
Well I haven't got a Hyundai so it matters little to me now whether you
tell me or not.
> You know Kingsley, you are the ONLY one to question my posts on this
topic.
The ONLY one to ask.
Fat lot of good it did me, you didn't answer so what was the point of my
asking ?
> Hell, "the only stupid question is the one not asked".
I'll need time on this one . . . . question to myself . . . . . "how can
a question be a question (stupid or otherwise) if it is not asked ?"
thinking . . . . . . . thinking . . . . . . . . .
> Someone finally did respond with what I believe to be the correct
answer.
Yet, we may never know. Even if they and I are right.
????? I'm bewildered. Are you now saying you may NOT be right ?
> Last hint: There are No such freek'n things as ground loops in a DC
circuit.
And what is the common metal on both the plane and Hyundai?
Ah ! well at least I now know it is not caused by a Ground Loop. Even
I know that things that don't exist don't cause problems !!
Common metal ? Dunno . . . . Mine is made of FRP ! Also, it is strange
how you are so touchy about others disagreeing with you but now you
disagree with many others on the list with your profound statement about
'ground loops'. Gee, I hope they don't react like you do !
> "With respect" - Thank you for the respect, but all I want is a nation
that
thinks for themselves.
With less respect now Barry, please don't worry about this any more,
I've lost interest in finding out your 'Magic Solution'
To everyone else on the list that has bothered to read this far, please
accept my apologies for being drawn into this. Have been doing long
hours lately and maybe I've just got SOL (Shit On Liver) from "Chop'd
Liver" I'll be over it tomorrow.
Kingsley
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cellphones in the air |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
It is an FTC regulation that prohibits the use of cell phones in
airplanes, not an FAA regulation.
Larry
Bill Boyd wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Boyd"
> <sportav8r@gmail.com>
>
> With analog phones, if you can still find one, it is illegal. He
> specified CMDA; the old rules seem not to apply to this service. As
> PIC, he certifies what is legal in his airplane as far as interference
> risks to safety of flight.
>
> My experience has been that down low, the reception is fine. Up high,
> it is as described - very frustrating. Text messages still work when
> voice won't, often. Perhaps the downward tilt of the antenna lobes on
> the cell towers. It's been discussed in the archives, but I'll wait
> to see if any new info surfaces this time around ;-)
>
> -Bill B
>
> On 10/23/06, David M. <ainut@hiwaay.net> wrote:
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David M." <ainut@hiwaay.net>
>>
>> That used to be illegal -- might still be. Old cells would tie in with
>> any tower they could see and from an airplane they could see a lot,
>> causing jamming to the cell system.
>>
>> David M.
>>
>>
>> Dave N6030X wrote:
>>
>> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X
>> > <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
>> >
>> > I've tried to use my Verizon (CDMA) cellphone on several flights now,
>> > well within coverage areas, with good signal strength, from 3500 feet
>> > to as high as 8500 feet in line of sight and close to - or over -
>> > plenty of civilization. It never works.
>> >
>> > I'll have as many as 5 bars showing, but they are changing rapidly
>> > from no bars to 3 bars to 5 bars, dancing all around.
>> >
>> > What happens is that I dial the number, it spends a few seconds longer
>> > than normal connecting, and then either connects for a split second,
>> > or doesn't connect at all, but in either case it pops up a message
>> > saying "Signal Lost" and disconnects.
>> >
>> > Is anybody on this list able to reliably use a cellphone from in your
>> > airplane?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> >
>> > Dave Morris
>> > 1960 Mooney M20A
>> > N6030X at 52F
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
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: | alternator autopsy |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
Kingsley,
Can you spell N-A-R-C-I-S-S-T-I-C? One word can explain many things.
Chuck Jensen
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Kingsley Hurst
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 7:35 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: alternator autopsy
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Kingsley Hurst"
--> <khurst@taroom.qld.gov.au>
Barry,
> Why indeed ... Because so many of you follow the leader with heads
stuck so
> far up their butts that it LQQKs like the heads are in the right
place.
Strange that ! 'cause after three years on this list, I am far from
reaching the same conclusion. If you had said that a few on this list
think they are mightier than thou, then I think I may have been able to
concur.
> It is NOT a game of I've got a secret
Then what is it ? Is it just that if one person on the list disagrees
with you that you then withhold your knowledge ? Or are you the type of
person who only says things once and anybody who simply misunderstands
or can't recollect, gets ignored ?
> I TOLD the secret MANY, MANY times but
you (the collective) refuse to listen. Do you recall what I posted?
Sorry but I as part of the 'collective', DID NOT REFUSE TO LISTEN and
NO, I don't recall what you 'singular' posted !
> Do you recall the mindless regurgitation of how I was wrong.
NO again. Starting to wonder if you have a complex !
> Well, this is just an example of Over Engineering and Electronic
Babble.
Not what I would have called it !
> Remember I have screamed about K.I.S.S. ME
Actually I do remember something about that but I'd rather decline the
offer thank you.
> I have a Hyundai, I spent two months swapping alternators, bench
checking
alternators and even replaced the battery (Didn't I tell fellow that
replacing
the battery won't help!) ALL to no avail.
Well I haven't got a Hyundai so it matters little to me now whether you
tell me or not.
> You know Kingsley, you are the ONLY one to question my posts on this
topic.
The ONLY one to ask.
Fat lot of good it did me, you didn't answer so what was the point of my
asking ?
> Hell, "the only stupid question is the one not asked".
I'll need time on this one . . . . question to myself . . . . . "how can
a question be a question (stupid or otherwise) if it is not asked ?"
thinking . . . . . . . thinking . . . . . . . . .
> Someone finally did respond with what I believe to be the correct
answer.
Yet, we may never know. Even if they and I are right.
????? I'm bewildered. Are you now saying you may NOT be right ?
> Last hint: There are No such freek'n things as ground loops in a DC
circuit.
And what is the common metal on both the plane and Hyundai?
Ah ! well at least I now know it is not caused by a Ground Loop. Even
I know that things that don't exist don't cause problems !!
Common metal ? Dunno . . . . Mine is made of FRP ! Also, it is strange
how you are so touchy about others disagreeing with you but now you
disagree with many others on the list with your profound statement about
'ground loops'. Gee, I hope they don't react like you do !
> "With respect" - Thank you for the respect, but all I want is a nation
that
thinks for themselves.
With less respect now Barry, please don't worry about this any more,
I've lost interest in finding out your 'Magic Solution'
To everyone else on the list that has bothered to read this far, please
accept my apologies for being drawn into this. Have been doing long
hours lately and maybe I've just got SOL (Shit On Liver) from "Chop'd
Liver" I'll be over it tomorrow.
Kingsley
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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 autopsy |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
P.S. You can put another 'I' and 'S' in narcissistic if you wish.
Can you spell N-A-R-C-I-S-S-T-I-C? One word can explain many things.
Chuck Jensen
Do Not Archive
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Kingsley Hurst
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 7:35 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: alternator autopsy
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Kingsley Hurst"
--> <khurst@taroom.qld.gov.au>
Barry,
> Why indeed ... Because so many of you follow the leader with heads
stuck so
> far up their butts that it LQQKs like the heads are in the right
place.
Strange that ! 'cause after three years on this list, I am far from
reaching the same conclusion. If you had said that a few on this list
think they are mightier than thou, then I think I may have been able to
concur.
> It is NOT a game of I've got a secret
Then what is it ? Is it just that if one person on the list disagrees
with you that you then withhold your knowledge ? Or are you the type of
person who only says things once and anybody who simply misunderstands
or can't recollect, gets ignored ?
> I TOLD the secret MANY, MANY times but
you (the collective) refuse to listen. Do you recall what I posted?
Sorry but I as part of the 'collective', DID NOT REFUSE TO LISTEN and
NO, I don't recall what you 'singular' posted !
> Do you recall the mindless regurgitation of how I was wrong.
NO again. Starting to wonder if you have a complex !
> Well, this is just an example of Over Engineering and Electronic
Babble.
Not what I would have called it !
> Remember I have screamed about K.I.S.S. ME
Actually I do remember something about that but I'd rather decline the
offer thank you.
> I have a Hyundai, I spent two months swapping alternators, bench
checking
alternators and even replaced the battery (Didn't I tell fellow that
replacing
the battery won't help!) ALL to no avail.
Well I haven't got a Hyundai so it matters little to me now whether you
tell me or not.
> You know Kingsley, you are the ONLY one to question my posts on this
topic.
The ONLY one to ask.
Fat lot of good it did me, you didn't answer so what was the point of my
asking ?
> Hell, "the only stupid question is the one not asked".
I'll need time on this one . . . . question to myself . . . . . "how can
a question be a question (stupid or otherwise) if it is not asked ?"
thinking . . . . . . . thinking . . . . . . . . .
> Someone finally did respond with what I believe to be the correct
answer.
Yet, we may never know. Even if they and I are right.
????? I'm bewildered. Are you now saying you may NOT be right ?
> Last hint: There are No such freek'n things as ground loops in a DC
circuit.
And what is the common metal on both the plane and Hyundai?
Ah ! well at least I now know it is not caused by a Ground Loop. Even
I know that things that don't exist don't cause problems !! Common metal
? Dunno . . . . Mine is made of FRP ! Also, it is strange how you are
so touchy about others disagreeing with you but now you disagree with
many others on the list with your profound statement about 'ground
loops'. Gee, I hope they don't react like you do !
> "With respect" - Thank you for the respect, but all I want is a nation
that
thinks for themselves.
With less respect now Barry, please don't worry about this any more,
I've lost interest in finding out your 'Magic Solution'
To everyone else on the list that has bothered to read this far, please
accept my apologies for being drawn into this. Have been doing long
hours lately and maybe I've just got SOL (Shit On Liver) from "Chop'd
Liver" I'll be over it tomorrow.
Kingsley
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: Switch Selection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
Use a S700-X-10 On-On-On and don't connect one of the terminals.
See this section of the connection
<http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/switches.pdf>
Larry Rosen
RV-10 #356
SMITHBKN@aol.com wrote:
> Group,
>
> What type of switch do I need (S700-?) in order to get the following
> function: Off-On-On
>
> I want the "on" positions to power two different set of cabin lights
> and I only want one set to be on at time.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff
> *
>
>
> *
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: alternator autopsy |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Steve Thomas <lists@stevet.net>
What is it about alternators that generates so much angst?. Every
time this topic comes up, it seems like someone on the list goes
bizonkers. Are these devices invaded by demons, only to be released
every time this topic comes up?
Chop'd Liver, how hard is it to say, "I covered this in a previous
post. Please see the archives"? Geeze, I don't understand the
snotty commentary.
Best Regards,
Steve Thomas
____________________________________________________________________
On Oct 23, 2006, at 7:37 PM, FLYaDIVE@aol.com wrote:
> Because so many of you follow the leader with heads stuck so
> far up their butts that it LQQKs like the heads are in the right
> place.
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 autopsy |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r@gmail.com>
That's a tough one, Chuck. You seem to be having trouble spelling it,
too ;-) But I couldn't agreee more with your diagnosis-at-a-distance.
M-E-G-A-L-O-M-A-N-I-A.
-Bill B
do not archive
On 10/24/06, Chuck Jensen <cjensen@dts9000.com> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen@dts9000.com>
>
> Kingsley,
>
> Can you spell N-A-R-C-I-S-S-T-I-C? One word can explain many things.
>
> Chuck Jensen
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cellphones in the air |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:22 PM 10/23/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
>
>I've tried to use my Verizon (CDMA) cellphone on several flights now, well
>within coverage areas, with good signal strength, from 3500 feet to as
>high as 8500 feet in line of sight and close to - or over - plenty of
>civilization. It never works.
>
>I'll have as many as 5 bars showing, but they are changing rapidly from no
>bars to 3 bars to 5 bars, dancing all around.
>
>What happens is that I dial the number, it spends a few seconds longer
>than normal connecting, and then either connects for a split second, or
>doesn't connect at all, but in either case it pops up a message saying
>"Signal Lost" and disconnects.
>
>Is anybody on this list able to reliably use a cellphone from in your
>airplane?
The old "cell" phone technology used some site-selection
philosophies based on signal strength. It was assumed that
when a phone was in use, it would be in range of perhaps
a half-dozen adjacent antenna sites and they would talk
amongst themselves to decide who would service the call
and which adjacent cell would take over if the phone was
moving.
Accessing these systems from the air might cause dozens
of sites to get pinged and the site swap algorithm would
get overloaded.
The digital systems are much more agile. I suspect that
when your phone requests service now, the system deduces
when you're airborne and simply locks you out. I've
tried several brands of mobile phones from inside airplanes
at all altitudes with very mixed results . . . mostly
poor.
If 9-11 happened today, it's much less likely that folks
within a hijacked aircraft would be able to establish
useful communications with the ground via hand-held
phones.
Bob . . .
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Switch Selection |
You can do it with a 2-10 switch - ON-ON-ON. Just don't hook up the
bottom ON position. See page 11-19 of the Aeroelectric Connection book.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: SMITHBKN@aol.com
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 6:17 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Switch Selection
Group,
What type of switch do I need (S700-?) in order to get the following
function: Off-On-On
I want the "on" positions to power two different set of cabin lights
and I only want one set to be on at time.
Thanks,
Jeff
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
10/23/2006
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: alternator autopsy |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 02:11 PM 10/23/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "6440 Auto Parts"
><sales@6440autoparts.com>
>
> Could be the chassi brain box causing a problem also. I think
> Barry may be right about that. A lot of automobiles these days depend on
> the brian box to tell it when to charge. Yep they are too complicated.
. . . which presupposes that there are alternators in
existence that may be controlled from outside. I.e.,
turned ON and OFF at will based on command fed in
via one of the small wires.
I've yet to see one and to date, nobody has come
forward here on the List with a brand/model number
for such an alternator.
We can produce lots of hypothesizing, wishing, and
hip-shot assertions . . . all of which are simply
interesting conversation until we have the demonstrable
experiment.
Bob . . .
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: alternator autopsy |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bret Smith" <smithhb@tds.net>
It's starting to remind me of the PM days....
Bret
----- Original Message -----
From: <FLYaDIVE@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 10:37 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: alternator autopsy
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 10/23/06 6:39:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> khurst@taroom.qld.gov.au writes:
>
>> Barry,
>>
>> Why do you play this game of "I've got a secret" ?
>>
>> Forgive me, but I thought this was a forum where ideas are exchanged.
>>
>> With respect
>>
>> Kingsley in Oz
> ======================
> Thank you Kingsley:
>
> Why indeed ... Because so many of you follow the leader with heads stuck
> so
> far up their butts that it LQQKs like the heads are in the right place.
>
> It is NOT a game of I've got a secret, I TOLD the secret MANY, MANY times
> but
> you (the collective) refuse to listen. Do you recall what I posted? Do
> you
> recall the mindless regurgitation of how I was wrong. Well, this is just
> an
> example of Over Engineering and Electronic Babble. Remember I have
> screamed
> about K.I.S.S. ME
>
> I have a Hyundai, I spent two months swapping alternators, bench checking
> alternators and even replaced the battery (Didn't I tell fellow that
> replacing
> the battery won't help!) ALL to no avail. I failed to listen to my own
> advice.
> I kick myself in the ass on that one.
>
> "Forgive me, but I thought this was a forum where ideas are exchanged." -
> Ideas are not exchanged here, only regurgitated. And if someone does not
> agree
> with the herd. They are whipped with the entrails of the herd.
>
> You know Kingsley, you are the ONLY one to question my posts on this
> topic.
> The ONLY one to ask. Hell, "the only stupid question is the one not
> asked".
> Look at how many questions were not asked!
>
> Someone finally did respond with what I believe to be the correct answer.
> Yet, we may never know. Even if they and I are right.
>
> Last hint: There are No such freek'n things as ground loops in a DC
> circuit.
> And what is the common metal on both the plane and Hyundai?
>
> "With respect" - Thank you for the respect, but all I want is a nation
> that
> thinks for themselves.
>
> Barry
> "Chop'd Liver"
>
> "Show them the first time, correct them the second time, kick them the
> third
> time."
> Yamashiada
>
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: antenna interference |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>Or, he could break the AL hinge once in the middle & use it as the dipole.
>
>(I haven't even stayed in a Holiday Inn recently; please don't take this
>seriously.)
Actually, I considered that too . . . and it's quite doable. However,
it takes some time and understanding to do the system integration.
We have HF antennas on the bizjets that depend on certain structural
characteristics to be in place for optimum performance. Because
the HF system was an accessory added some 30 years after the
airplane was designed, there's no symbiotic relationship possible
between structure and antenna. The structure becomes as much an
"antenna" as the intended radiator wreaking havoc on numerous
on-board systems.
In this case, the proposed hinge-dipole is probably doable
within limits for structural integrity needed for keeping the
rudder attached!
Can the hinge be 40" or longer?
Bob . . .
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Barry's secret |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rodney Dunham" <rdunhamtn@hotmail.com>
Barry,
Though I do read this list daily, I don't recall the thing about airplanes (
and Hyundais ) to which you refer. In fact, until now, I don't recall you
"bitching" about ANYTHING. I've always been thoroughly entertained,
elightened or both by your posts.
So, how 'bout you share it with me??? I promise not to tell ! I'm dyin' of
curiosity ;o(
BTW, remember, I'm just a country doctor, so 'splain it REAL simple, would
ya'???
Rodney in Tennessee
_________________________________________________________________
Get today's hot entertainment gossip
http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cellphones in the air |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r@gmail.com>
It's my understanding that CDMA devices are not prohibited from such
use, but that's from prior discussions here years back. Do you have
"chapter and verse" to share with us? I for one would like to stay
current on this topic, as I do use my cell phone aloft from time to
time (and as I said, down low, below 2000AGL, usually with success.)
-BB
On 10/24/06, Larry Rosen <LarryRosen@comcast.net> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
>
> It is an FTC regulation that prohibits the use of cell phones in
> airplanes, not an FAA regulation.
>
> Larry
>
> Bill Boyd wrote:
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Boyd"
> > <sportav8r@gmail.com>
> >
> > With analog phones, if you can still find one, it is illegal. He
> > specified CMDA; the old rules seem not to apply to this service. As
> > PIC, he certifies what is legal in his airplane as far as interference
> > risks to safety of flight.
> >
> > My experience has been that down low, the reception is fine. Up high,
> > it is as described - very frustrating. Text messages still work when
> > voice won't, often. Perhaps the downward tilt of the antenna lobes on
> > the cell towers. It's been discussed in the archives, but I'll wait
> > to see if any new info surfaces this time around ;-)
> >
> > -Bill B
> >
> > On 10/23/06, David M. <ainut@hiwaay.net> wrote:
> >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David M." <ainut@hiwaay.net>
> >>
> >> That used to be illegal -- might still be. Old cells would tie in with
> >> any tower they could see and from an airplane they could see a lot,
> >> causing jamming to the cell system.
> >>
> >> David M.
> >>
> >>
> >> Dave N6030X wrote:
> >>
> >> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X
> >> > <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
> >> >
> >> > I've tried to use my Verizon (CDMA) cellphone on several flights now,
> >> > well within coverage areas, with good signal strength, from 3500 feet
> >> > to as high as 8500 feet in line of sight and close to - or over -
> >> > plenty of civilization. It never works.
> >> >
> >> > I'll have as many as 5 bars showing, but they are changing rapidly
> >> > from no bars to 3 bars to 5 bars, dancing all around.
> >> >
> >> > What happens is that I dial the number, it spends a few seconds longer
> >> > than normal connecting, and then either connects for a split second,
> >> > or doesn't connect at all, but in either case it pops up a message
> >> > saying "Signal Lost" and disconnects.
> >> >
> >> > Is anybody on this list able to reliably use a cellphone from in your
> >> > airplane?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Dave Morris
> >> > 1960 Mooney M20A
> >> > N6030X at 52F
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Switch Selection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 06:17 AM 10/24/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>Group,
>
>What type of switch do I need (S700-?) in order to get the following
>function: Off-On-On
>
>I want the "on" positions to power two different set of cabin lights and I
>only want one set to be on at time.
>
>Thanks,
>
S700-2-10 and wired as illustrated in Figure 11-17 of the 'Connection.
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
| 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 autopsy |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Reginald E. DeLoach" <redeloach@fedex.com>
A ground loop is what I do most every time I fly my tail dragger!
:}
Kingsley Hurst wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Kingsley Hurst" <khurst@taroom.qld.gov.au>
>
> Barry,
>
> > Why indeed ... Because so many of you follow the leader with heads
> stuck so
> > far up their butts that it LQQKs like the heads are in the right
> place.
>
> Strange that ! 'cause after three years on this list, I am far from
> reaching the same conclusion. If you had said that a few on this list
> think they are mightier than thou, then I think I may have been able to
> concur.
>
> > It is NOT a game of I've got a secret
>
> Then what is it ? Is it just that if one person on the list disagrees
> with you that you then withhold your knowledge ? Or are you the type of
> person who only says things once and anybody who simply misunderstands
> or can't recollect, gets ignored ?
>
> > I TOLD the secret MANY, MANY times but
> you (the collective) refuse to listen. Do you recall what I posted?
>
> Sorry but I as part of the 'collective', DID NOT REFUSE TO LISTEN and
> NO, I don't recall what you 'singular' posted !
>
> > Do you recall the mindless regurgitation of how I was wrong.
>
> NO again. Starting to wonder if you have a complex !
>
> > Well, this is just an example of Over Engineering and Electronic
> Babble.
>
> Not what I would have called it !
>
> > Remember I have screamed about K.I.S.S. ME
>
> Actually I do remember something about that but I'd rather decline the
> offer thank you.
>
> > I have a Hyundai, I spent two months swapping alternators, bench
> checking
> alternators and even replaced the battery (Didn't I tell fellow that
> replacing
> the battery won't help!) ALL to no avail.
>
> Well I haven't got a Hyundai so it matters little to me now whether you
> tell me or not.
>
> > You know Kingsley, you are the ONLY one to question my posts on this
> topic.
> The ONLY one to ask.
>
> Fat lot of good it did me, you didn't answer so what was the point of my
> asking ?
>
> > Hell, "the only stupid question is the one not asked".
>
> I'll need time on this one . . . . question to myself . . . . . "how can
> a question be a question (stupid or otherwise) if it is not asked ?"
> thinking . . . . . . . thinking . . . . . . . . .
>
> > Someone finally did respond with what I believe to be the correct
> answer.
> Yet, we may never know. Even if they and I are right.
>
> ????? I'm bewildered. Are you now saying you may NOT be right ?
>
> > Last hint: There are No such freek'n things as ground loops in a DC
> circuit.
> And what is the common metal on both the plane and Hyundai?
>
> Ah ! well at least I now know it is not caused by a Ground Loop. Even
> I know that things that don't exist don't cause problems !!
> Common metal ? Dunno . . . . Mine is made of FRP ! Also, it is strange
> how you are so touchy about others disagreeing with you but now you
> disagree with many others on the list with your profound statement about
> 'ground loops'. Gee, I hope they don't react like you do !
>
> > "With respect" - Thank you for the respect, but all I want is a nation
> that
> thinks for themselves.
>
> With less respect now Barry, please don't worry about this any more,
> I've lost interest in finding out your 'Magic Solution'
>
> To everyone else on the list that has bothered to read this far, please
> accept my apologies for being drawn into this. Have been doing long
> hours lately and maybe I've just got SOL (Shit On Liver) from "Chop'd
> Liver" I'll be over it tomorrow.
>
> Kingsley
>
> DO NOT ARCHIVE
>
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cellphones in the air |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Harold Kovac" <kayce33@earthlink.net>
I believe the FCC does not allow cell use in flight.
Harold
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Rosen" <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 8:04 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Cellphones in the air
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Larry Rosen
> <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
>
> It is an FTC regulation that prohibits the use of cell phones in
> airplanes, not an FAA regulation.
>
> Larry
>
> Bill Boyd wrote:
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Boyd"
>> <sportav8r@gmail.com>
>>
>> With analog phones, if you can still find one, it is illegal. He
>> specified CMDA; the old rules seem not to apply to this service. As
>> PIC, he certifies what is legal in his airplane as far as interference
>> risks to safety of flight.
>>
>> My experience has been that down low, the reception is fine. Up high,
>> it is as described - very frustrating. Text messages still work when
>> voice won't, often. Perhaps the downward tilt of the antenna lobes on
>> the cell towers. It's been discussed in the archives, but I'll wait
>> to see if any new info surfaces this time around ;-)
>>
>> -Bill B
>>
>> On 10/23/06, David M. <ainut@hiwaay.net> wrote:
>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David M." <ainut@hiwaay.net>
>>>
>>> That used to be illegal -- might still be. Old cells would tie in with
>>> any tower they could see and from an airplane they could see a lot,
>>> causing jamming to the cell system.
>>>
>>> David M.
>>>
>>>
>>> Dave N6030X wrote:
>>>
>>> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X
>>> > <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
>>> >
>>> > I've tried to use my Verizon (CDMA) cellphone on several flights now,
>>> > well within coverage areas, with good signal strength, from 3500 feet
>>> > to as high as 8500 feet in line of sight and close to - or over -
>>> > plenty of civilization. It never works.
>>> >
>>> > I'll have as many as 5 bars showing, but they are changing rapidly
>>> > from no bars to 3 bars to 5 bars, dancing all around.
>>> >
>>> > What happens is that I dial the number, it spends a few seconds longer
>>> > than normal connecting, and then either connects for a split second,
>>> > or doesn't connect at all, but in either case it pops up a message
>>> > saying "Signal Lost" and disconnects.
>>> >
>>> > Is anybody on this list able to reliably use a cellphone from in your
>>> > airplane?
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Dave Morris
>>> > 1960 Mooney M20A
>>> > N6030X at 52F
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: alternator autopsy |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 10:37 PM 10/23/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: FLYaDIVE@aol.com
>
>Thank you Kingsley:
>
>Why indeed ... Because so many of you follow the leader with heads stuck so
>far up their butts that it LQQKs like the heads are in the right place.
<snip>
Barry,
In keeping with the philosophy offered by what appears to
be your adopted mentor (Yamashiada - for whom I cannot find
a single reference on the 'net) I will suggest that you've
been SHOWN how folks conduct themselves when sharing knowledge
and understanding here on the List. I will now take the
CORRECTIVE step of bringing it to your attention. Whether
or not we come to the last step is entirely up to you sir.
Be a gentleman or be gone.
Bob . . .
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | DVD Player Ground |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
Should the ground to the DVD player that I am installing in my RV-10 be
grounded pack to the cockpit ground bus?
See aeroelectric Z15-3 here
<http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z15-3.pdf>
Larry Rosen
RV-10 #356
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Switch Selection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:46 AM 10/24/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
>
>Use a S700-X-10 On-On-On and don't connect one of the terminals.
>See this section of the connection
><http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/switches.pdf>
Gee Larry, I forgot about that posting. Thanks for
stroking the memory!
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 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: alternator autopsy |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "6440 Auto Parts" <sales@6440autoparts.com>
In this instance I'm not 100% sure but it is possible that the ecm has
control over the alternator. But I do know for sure that mid 80's chryslers
we're controlled by what was called a logic module at that time. Mounted in
the rh front kick panel. Back in the day I sold quite a few of these for
that reason. They had 2 different types of alternators bosh which could have
had numbers such as 4339440, 5226600, 5227474, 5233474, 5233574,5233718 and
also chrysler design 5226200, 5227100. That may help in your quest. There
are other's that are controlled thru the brain also but cannot give you any
specific examples at this time. I would think an auto electric shop would be
a source of good info. I mean a shop that specializes in automobile
electrical problems only. I am just a used parts seller but if I can help
with some info I will do what I can.
I will say this, I would think that the extra wiring and weight
incurred by the addition of a logic module or ecm would not be worth the
effort in aviation.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 8:19 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: alternator autopsy
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 02:11 PM 10/23/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "6440 Auto Parts"
>><sales@6440autoparts.com>
>>
>> Could be the chassi brain box causing a problem also. I think
>> Barry may be right about that. A lot of automobiles these days depend on
>> the brian box to tell it when to charge. Yep they are too complicated.
>
> . . . which presupposes that there are alternators in
> existence that may be controlled from outside. I.e.,
> turned ON and OFF at will based on command fed in
> via one of the small wires.
>
> I've yet to see one and to date, nobody has come
> forward here on the List with a brand/model number
> for such an alternator.
>
> We can produce lots of hypothesizing, wishing, and
> hip-shot assertions . . . all of which are simply
> interesting conversation until we have the demonstrable
> experiment.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Cellphones in the air |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
I think we spend more time discussing off-topic stuff nowadays. Seems
like I'm deleting 90% of what is posted.
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cellonplanes.html <- Horses mouth
Now, can we stick with aircraft electrical systems.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Boyd
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Cellphones in the air
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Boyd"
--> <sportav8r@gmail.com>
It's my understanding that CDMA devices are not prohibited from such
use, but that's from prior discussions here years back. Do you have
"chapter and verse" to share with us? I for one would like to stay
current on this topic, as I do use my cell phone aloft from time to time
(and as I said, down low, below 2000AGL, usually with success.)
-BB
On 10/24/06, Larry Rosen <LarryRosen@comcast.net> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Larry Rosen
> --> <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
>
> It is an FTC regulation that prohibits the use of cell phones in
> airplanes, not an FAA regulation.
>
> Larry
>
> Bill Boyd wrote:
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Boyd"
> > <sportav8r@gmail.com>
> >
> > With analog phones, if you can still find one, it is illegal. He
> > specified CMDA; the old rules seem not to apply to this service. As
> > PIC, he certifies what is legal in his airplane as far as
> > interference risks to safety of flight.
> >
> > My experience has been that down low, the reception is fine. Up
> > high, it is as described - very frustrating. Text messages still
> > work when voice won't, often. Perhaps the downward tilt of the
> > antenna lobes on the cell towers. It's been discussed in the
> > archives, but I'll wait to see if any new info surfaces this time
> > around ;-)
> >
> > -Bill B
> >
> > On 10/23/06, David M. <ainut@hiwaay.net> wrote:
> >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David M."
> >> --> <ainut@hiwaay.net>
> >>
> >> That used to be illegal -- might still be. Old cells would tie in
> >> with any tower they could see and from an airplane they could see a
> >> lot, causing jamming to the cell system.
> >>
> >> David M.
> >>
> >>
> >> Dave N6030X wrote:
> >>
> >> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X
> >> > <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
> >> >
> >> > I've tried to use my Verizon (CDMA) cellphone on several flights
> >> > now, well within coverage areas, with good signal strength, from
> >> > 3500 feet to as high as 8500 feet in line of sight and close to -
> >> > or over - plenty of civilization. It never works.
> >> >
> >> > I'll have as many as 5 bars showing, but they are changing
> >> > rapidly from no bars to 3 bars to 5 bars, dancing all around.
> >> >
> >> > What happens is that I dial the number, it spends a few seconds
> >> > longer than normal connecting, and then either connects for a
> >> > split second, or doesn't connect at all, but in either case it
> >> > pops up a message saying "Signal Lost" and disconnects.
> >> >
> >> > Is anybody on this list able to reliably use a cellphone from in
> >> > your airplane?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Dave Morris
> >> > 1960 Mooney M20A
> >> > N6030X at 52F
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: DVD Player Ground |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:49 AM 10/24/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
>
>Should the ground to the DVD player that I am installing in my RV-10 be
>grounded pack to the cockpit ground bus?
>
>See aeroelectric Z15-3 here
><http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Adobe_Architecture_Pdfs/Z15-3.pdf>
>
>Larry Rosen
>RV-10 #356
Sure (or the avionics ground bus). It's a potential victim
of ground-loop noises. Now, having said that, be aware that
many appliances have case grounds that parallel their
pin-out grounds in connectors. This is one of the reasons
the panel or avionics ground bus was added to the panel at
Rev 11. This drastically shortens any potential ground loops
due to case grounds running in parallel with wired grounds.
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 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: alternator autopsy |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 09:14 AM 10/24/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bret Smith" <smithhb@tds.net>
>
>It's starting to remind me of the PM days....
One might be tempted to believe that personality-
driven conflicts are uniquely separate events.
In a population the size of this List there are
always one or more individuals who cannot
embrace the notion of assembling useful inventions
from an inventory of simple-ideas and sharing
understanding.
Personality duels have happened before and will happen
again. The best thing we can do is filter the noise,
focus on the mission and don't expend any emotional capital
on them.
Bob . . .
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cellphones in the air |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
I know all about the legalities, having studied both the FAA and the
FCC regs on the matter, and also having read the archives and
discussed it with a few experts off-list.
I was more curious about the practicality, i.e. whether people were
ABLE to make connections via cell phones. If not, and if there are
no rules against making calls in my Verizon contract, then it would
seem that Verizon is illegally impeding my use of my cellphone just
because I'm in the air, and I need to find out why.
Thanks to those of you who generally agreed that you can make calls
from down low, but not from up high.
Dave Morris
P.S. This is an RF issue, which falls under the science of
electromagnetism, and thus IMHO included in the mission of this list.
At 08:39 AM 10/24/2006, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Harold Kovac"
><kayce33@earthlink.net>
>
>I believe the FCC does not allow cell use in flight.
>Harold
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Rosen" <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
>To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 8:04 AM
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Cellphones in the air
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
>>
>>It is an FTC regulation that prohibits the use of cell phones in
>>airplanes, not an FAA regulation.
>>
>>Larry
>>
>>Bill Boyd wrote:
>>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r@gmail.com>
>>>
>>>With analog phones, if you can still find one, it is illegal. He
>>>specified CMDA; the old rules seem not to apply to this service. As
>>>PIC, he certifies what is legal in his airplane as far as interference
>>>risks to safety of flight.
>>>
>>>My experience has been that down low, the reception is fine. Up high,
>>>it is as described - very frustrating. Text messages still work when
>>>voice won't, often. Perhaps the downward tilt of the antenna lobes on
>>>the cell towers. It's been discussed in the archives, but I'll wait
>>>to see if any new info surfaces this time around ;-)
>>>
>>>-Bill B
>>>
>>>On 10/23/06, David M. <ainut@hiwaay.net> wrote:
>>>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David M." <ainut@hiwaay.net>
>>>>
>>>>That used to be illegal -- might still be. Old cells would tie in with
>>>>any tower they could see and from an airplane they could see a lot,
>>>>causing jamming to the cell system.
>>>>
>>>>David M.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Dave N6030X wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X
>>>> > <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
>>>> >
>>>> > I've tried to use my Verizon (CDMA) cellphone on several flights now,
>>>> > well within coverage areas, with good signal strength, from 3500 feet
>>>> > to as high as 8500 feet in line of sight and close to - or over -
>>>> > plenty of civilization. It never works.
>>>> >
>>>> > I'll have as many as 5 bars showing, but they are changing rapidly
>>>> > from no bars to 3 bars to 5 bars, dancing all around.
>>>> >
>>>> > What happens is that I dial the number, it spends a few seconds longer
>>>> > than normal connecting, and then either connects for a split second,
>>>> > or doesn't connect at all, but in either case it pops up a message
>>>> > saying "Signal Lost" and disconnects.
>>>> >
>>>> > Is anybody on this list able to reliably use a cellphone from in your
>>>> > airplane?
>>>> >
>>>> > Thanks,
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Dave Morris
>>>> > 1960 Mooney M20A
>>>> > N6030X at 52F
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Switch Selection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
No problem
It is linked from B&C web site in their switch section
<http://www.bandc.biz/cgi-bin/ez-catalog/cat_display.cgi?11X358218#s700-1-1>
along with another great article of your on Switch ratings.
here <http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/swtchrat.pdf>
Larry
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 08:46 AM 10/24/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Larry Rosen
>> <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
>>
>> Use a S700-X-10 On-On-On and don't connect one of the terminals.
>> See this section of the connection
>> <http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/switches.pdf>
>
> Gee Larry, I forgot about that posting. Thanks for
> stroking the memory!
>
> 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 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: alternator autopsy / Thank you. |
In a message dated 10/24/2006 12:04:34 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
nuckollsr@cox.net writes:
Personality duels have happened before and will happen
again. The best thing we can do is filter the noise,
focus on the mission and don't expend any emotional capital
on them.
Bob . . .
Well said....Thank you.
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: alternator autopsy |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
> At 02:11 PM 10/23/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>
>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "6440 Auto Parts"
>> <sales@6440autoparts.com>
>>
>> Could be the chassi brain box causing a problem also. I
>> think Barry may be right about that. A lot of automobiles these days
>> depend on the brian box to tell it when to charge. Yep they are too
>> complicated.
>
>
> . . . which presupposes that there are alternators in
> existence that may be controlled from outside. I.e.,
> turned ON and OFF at will based on command fed in
> via one of the small wires.
>
Using the simple ideas, would such a technique even make sense as a way
to reduce engine loads? The field voltage drops once the battery is
charged and not as much current is needed. When the field voltage drops
the thing is easy to spin. Basically, the alternator already draws only
enough power to maintain the charge state. There's no horsepower to be
gained by turning it off, and it still must keep operating to maintain
the running loads.
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |
Message 30
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | CHT/EGT instrument wire? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
I working on a panel upgrade on an RV-4 I bought several years ago. The
EGT/CHT cables are too short, I want to replace the existing cable to get
correct length. But I can't seem to find the same cable used to wire it.
Here are the markings: Clear Signal Cable from Inmac Santa Clara,CA 95054
E57891 Type CL2 90C 24AWG (UL) LL33523 CSA AWM A/B 80C 300V FT 4. Cable is
shielded w/ blue casing, it has 6 wires
(red,green,yellow,orange,brown,black). Two cables are used, one ea from 2
terminal blocks mounted on the firewall. Do you know where I can buy this
stuff...need about 8 ft.
Are these cables that run through the firewall bring
your EGT/CHT signals from the engine into the display?
The stuff you mention can't be thermocouple wire and
is not suitable to this task. I'm wondering if the
original builder did a poor-choice extension of the
wires.
What EGT/CHT instrument are we talking about? Do you
have the installation manual for it?
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 31
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Cellphones in the air |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
A few comments:
In some places, I have had a very easy time using my GSM phone while in
flight as high as 5000' AGL. Because the terrain around here is so high,
I can't recall trying to use the phone while above that altitude.
In urban areas (while flying), I think my luck is not as good. It's
possible that while in flight we get locked out when in areas where user
density demands high tower density. Handsets used in flight over an urban
area can see MANY more towers than when over sparsely populated areas.
Verizon may not be deliberatly excluding flying subscribers so much as
using antenna systems which concentrate on reliably communicating with
ground based ones. By doing this they can use fewer towers and/or lower
powered transmitters while providing at least as good coverage. I would
suspect that Verizon's coverage maps are modeled with ground based users
in mind.
Regards,
Matt-
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X
> <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
>
> I know all about the legalities, having studied both the FAA and the
> FCC regs on the matter, and also having read the archives and
> discussed it with a few experts off-list.
>
> I was more curious about the practicality, i.e. whether people were
> ABLE to make connections via cell phones. If not, and if there are
> no rules against making calls in my Verizon contract, then it would
> seem that Verizon is illegally impeding my use of my cellphone just
> because I'm in the air, and I need to find out why.
>
> Thanks to those of you who generally agreed that you can make calls
> from down low, but not from up high.
>
> Dave Morris
> P.S. This is an RF issue, which falls under the science of
> electromagnetism, and thus IMHO included in the mission of this list.
>
>
> At 08:39 AM 10/24/2006, you wrote:
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Harold Kovac"
>><kayce33@earthlink.net>
>>
>>I believe the FCC does not allow cell use in flight.
>>Harold
>>----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Rosen" <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
>>To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
>>Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 8:04 AM
>>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Cellphones in the air
>>
>>
>>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Larry Rosen
>>> <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
>>>
>>>It is an FTC regulation that prohibits the use of cell phones in
>>>airplanes, not an FAA regulation.
>>>
>>>Larry
>>>
>>>Bill Boyd wrote:
>>>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Bill Boyd"
>>>> <sportav8r@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>>With analog phones, if you can still find one, it is illegal. He
>>>>specified CMDA; the old rules seem not to apply to this service. As
>>>>PIC, he certifies what is legal in his airplane as far as interference
>>>>risks to safety of flight.
>>>>
>>>>My experience has been that down low, the reception is fine. Up high,
>>>>it is as described - very frustrating. Text messages still work when
>>>>voice won't, often. Perhaps the downward tilt of the antenna lobes on
>>>>the cell towers. It's been discussed in the archives, but I'll wait
>>>>to see if any new info surfaces this time around ;-)
>>>>
>>>>-Bill B
>>>>
>>>>On 10/23/06, David M. <ainut@hiwaay.net> wrote:
>>>>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "David M." <ainut@hiwaay.net>
>>>>>
>>>>>That used to be illegal -- might still be. Old cells would tie in
>>>>> with
>>>>>any tower they could see and from an airplane they could see a lot,
>>>>>causing jamming to the cell system.
>>>>>
>>>>>David M.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Dave N6030X wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dave N6030X
>>>>> > <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I've tried to use my Verizon (CDMA) cellphone on several flights
>>>>> now,
>>>>> > well within coverage areas, with good signal strength, from 3500
>>>>> feet
>>>>> > to as high as 8500 feet in line of sight and close to - or over -
>>>>> > plenty of civilization. It never works.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I'll have as many as 5 bars showing, but they are changing rapidly
>>>>> > from no bars to 3 bars to 5 bars, dancing all around.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > What happens is that I dial the number, it spends a few seconds
>>>>> longer
>>>>> > than normal connecting, and then either connects for a split
>>>>> second,
>>>>> > or doesn't connect at all, but in either case it pops up a message
>>>>> > saying "Signal Lost" and disconnects.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Is anybody on this list able to reliably use a cellphone from in
>>>>> your
>>>>> > airplane?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Thanks,
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Dave Morris
>>>>> > 1960 Mooney M20A
>>>>> > N6030X at 52F
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 32
| 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 autopsy |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>Using the simple ideas, would such a technique even make sense as a way to
>reduce engine loads? The field voltage drops once the battery is charged
>and not as much current is needed. When the field voltage drops the thing
>is easy to spin. Basically, the alternator already draws only enough
>power to maintain the charge state. There's no horsepower to be gained by
>turning it off, and it still must keep operating to maintain the
>running loads.
Yeah, return on investment for an "electrical load
shedding" feature would be problematic. The actual
brake-horsepower required to operate the alternator
under most flight regimes would not make much difference
in airplane performance.
I seem to recall that one of our small cars had a throttle
switch that would shut the air conditioner compressor off
while the throttle was fully open . . . ostensibly achieves
better passing performance.
My sense is that if you're pushing out that far into
the corner of the performance envelope, "conserving" accessory
hardware energy for the purpose of delivering it to the
prop instead is not going to contribute much to the pilot's
longevity.
The added complexity for such a control system would have
a stronger effect on system reliability due to increased
parts count.
Bob . . .
Message 33
| 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: explosion proof fans |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Doug Windhorn" <N1DeltaWhiskey@comcast.net>
Tom,
Have you considered taking the fan out of the equation?
I wouldn't consider an electrical device to be safe in a volatiles laden
atmosphere unless it is UL Listed or FM Approved as "intrinsically safe" in
accordance with the National Electrical Code. As already related, paint
booth explosions do occur - the company I work for (or its insuring
predecessors) probably paid a few buck on that IH explosion.
Volatiles have what are known as Upper and Lower Explosive Limits (UEL, LEL)
when mixed with air. Explosions will only occur when the volatiles content
is within those ranges with the severest explosions occurring at the right
stoichiometric ratio. Determining whether you will get into these ranges or
not is a rather complicated analysis based on knowing the number of room air
changes per minute, and the rate of release of the volatiles into the room
environment, the latter being more difficult to determine. The more common
method of doing this is taking empirical measurements with a volatiles
detector. Obviously, all of this can become moot if there is no ignition
source present. Static potential from the plastic or other sources will be
reduced with higher humidity, do don't spray on a cold dry day.
Consider also, that most volatiles are heavier than air, so where you place
your air supply and exhaust is just, if not more, relevant than what you are
using to move fresh air through the system.
To take the fan out of the equation, consider using it to push air into the
booth rather than to exhaust it out. Install an air plenum on top of your
booth into which your fan blows. Provide large openings (to slow the air
movement) between the plenum and the booth with filters to remove dust that
might be drawn in. Exhaust the air from floor level.
Regards,
Doug Windhorn
----- Original Message -----
From: "sarg314" <sarg314@comcast.net>
Sent: Sunday, 22 October, 2006 12:49
Subject: AeroElectric-List: explosion proof fans
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
>
> An exhaust fan on a home made paint booth has the potential to spark an
> explosion if you get the right mixture range of a flammable solvent in the
> air and some sparks.
> However, virtually all consumer fans use brushless AC motors (don't
> they?). And, with the fan mounted right on the motor shaft, there's no
> belt to generate static (though I guess there are other ways to generate
> static). So, is such a fan suitable to use to exhaust a paint booth?
>
> Also, Does any one have any idea of what fan capacity is needed for an
> RV-sized paint booth?
>
> --
> Tom S., RV-6A
>
>
>
Message 34
| 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: explosion proof fans - more |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Doug Windhorn" <N1DeltaWhiskey@comcast.net>
Forgot one of your questions - regarding sizing of a fan.
You should plan for a minimum 12 air changes per hour in your booth, or at
least one complete air change every 5 minutes. Fans are usually rated in
cam (which is reduced by backpressure exerted by filters and other
resistances). I would use a fan that would provide 150% or so of the
required airflow to meet the recommended change frequency.
Doug
----- Original Message -----
From: "sarg314" <sarg314@comcast.net>
Sent: Sunday, 22 October, 2006 12:49
Subject: AeroElectric-List: explosion proof fans
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
>
> An exhaust fan on a home made paint booth has the potential to spark an
> explosion if you get the right mixture range of a flammable solvent in the
> air and some sparks.
> However, virtually all consumer fans use brushless AC motors (don't
> they?). And, with the fan mounted right on the motor shaft, there's no
> belt to generate static (though I guess there are other ways to generate
> static). So, is such a fan suitable to use to exhaust a paint booth?
>
> Also, Does any one have any idea of what fan capacity is needed for an
> RV-sized paint booth?
>
> --
> Tom S., RV-6A
>
>
>
Message 35
| 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: explosion proof fans - more |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sarg314 <sarg314@comcast.net>
Doug:
Thanks for that information. At present I am favoring using a
waterborne urethane from Stewart Aircraft Finishing systems. It is
much less dangerous in all respects. They claim that after the paint
cures, it is the same as any other urethane. I'm going to talk to them
at the Copperstate Fly-in this weekend.
Doug Windhorn wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Doug Windhorn"
> <N1DeltaWhiskey@comcast.net>
>
> Forgot one of your questions - regarding sizing of a fan.
>
> You should plan for a minimum 12 air changes per hour in your booth,
> or at least one complete air change every 5 minutes. Fans are usually
> rated in cam (which is reduced by backpressure exerted by filters and
> other resistances). I would use a fan that would provide 150% or so
> of the required airflow to meet the recommended change frequency.
>
> Doug
Message 36
| 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: | Dead Horses don't die... |
Apologies to belabor these two points, but another builder I know is dead-set
on the ol' Cessna Split Master switch and a separate Avionics master. As a
long-time Nuckollhead, my plane is faithfully a Z-11, and electrically all
runs, all hits, no errors. My protestations have come to naught despite my best
explanations.
The Avionics Master won't die because so many radio makers still insist on
them by inclusion in installation schematics and threats of no warranty coverage
if not used. (I know this was true of Microair when I installed mine, and I
have requests out to GRT, Trutrak and Garmin for clarification) I suppose one
could feed avionics by connecting a separate fuse block to the normal supply
side of the e-bus through an "Avionics Master Switch" and accept the
single-point failure potential.
On the split master side, I could propose using the switch, provided crowbar
protection and low-voltage monitor/annunciation are employed.
In order to offer guidance, I have searched the A-list archives &
AeroElectric Connection website for supporting documentation and found Bob's article
on
Avionics Masters, but not the critical arguments I have seen for the past six
or seven years supporting avoidance of the split master. Can someone please
point to specific references?
Sorry for the broad request, but I am trying to spread the gospel here!
Mark Phillips RV-6A with 366 hours of happy electrons...
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! --
|