Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:05 AM - Re: The Quest for Any Answer (Speedy11@aol.com)
2. 01:46 AM - Re: Re: The Quest for Any Answer (Mickey Coggins)
3. 04:35 AM - Flying Now (Thanks to Bob) (Tinne maha)
4. 05:31 AM - Re: Re: The Quest for Any Answer (Rodney Dunham)
5. 05:39 AM - Re: The Quest for Any Answer (BobsV35B@aol.com)
6. 06:14 AM - Re: Pitot/antenna (Bill Boyd)
7. 07:47 AM - Re: Flying Now (Thanks to Bob) (C Smith)
8. 08:19 AM - Re: Flying Now (Thanks to Bob) (Alan K. Adamson)
9. 11:11 AM - Re: Quest for the One-Word Answers (Carlos Trigo)
10. 11:30 AM - Re: Quest for the One-Word Answers (Chuck Jensen)
11. 01:12 PM - Re: Quest for the One-Word Answers (C Smith)
12. 01:16 PM - Re: Quest for the One-Word Answers (C Smith)
13. 02:05 PM - Re: Quest for the One-Word Answers (Carlos Trigo)
Message 1
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: The Quest for Any Answer |
Carlos,
As you can see from the response, the List doesn't react well to criticism.
Both of us are likely to be banned from the list for daring to ask a question
or for questioning the "teacher." This is the first "academic" situation I've
encountered in which asking a question or questioning the teacher is
considered unacceptable.
The "teacher" hasn't caught on to the idea that the "students" aren't
visiting his "classroom" in order to learn. They are visiting the classroom in
order
to get answers to questions regarding the implementation of concepts and
ideas from the textbook. I have yet to find a textbook that adequately explains
its subject. The text always requires explanation and clarification. One
would hope to get an answer (any answer) rather than a long diatribe saying
nothing. The $time$ spent writing the worthless response could have been spent
providing an answer to the proposed question. But then, no "learning" would occur.
Perhaps it is due to my ignorance, but your question seemed relatively simple
and straight forward. You wanted to know if you can connect a second battery
to an already existing ground wire from the main battery without causing a
ground loop. From what I know of electrics, you can connect the second battery
to the main battery ground wire without causing a ground loop.
Now, as Bob and others pointed out, there may be other problems caused by
pursuing your method or there may be better ways to accomplish your desired
results, but it seems as though the pure answer (one-word answer?) to your question
is that your proposed connection will not cause a ground loop.
I wish you luck getting a better or expanded answer to your question, but it
likely will not happen on this forum so long as our queries are considered
"temper tantrums."
Good Luck in the New Year,
Stan Sutterfield
Do not archive
Yeah, this group really sucks sometimes! There are folks who hang
around here just to use it as a personal Q&A Butler . . . the
answer is probably in the archives, in the book or even in dozens
of places out on the 'net. But to take the (gasp) $time$ to dig
it out and understand it . . . . It's obviously easier to ask
a question and then presume that what comes back is an acceptable
alternative to personal investigation and resolution. The degree
of acceptability is often assigned by perceptions "greatness"
ascribed to individuals who choose to answer.
The questions about the remote battery raised additional questions
that an astute designer would add to the mix of issues to be
resolved. My duty as teacher dictates that we explore and address
as many of those issues as we're capable of . . . do the best we
know how to do. It's too bad if this little quirk of mine (and
others here on the List) gets in the way of anyone's sensibilities
and/or quest for the one-word answer.
A simple-idea that has been around for millennia: "You
get what you pay for". One may interpret this to mean that
since nobody pays much in the way of cash for their participation,
disappointments for unrealized expectations should be taken in stride.
However, may I suggest that the rudimentary medium of exchange is
not dollars but minutes. A minute spent here on the List for any
purpose is lost forever and cannot be recovered or re-invested
anywhere else.
Minutes expended to pose questions for which one desires
one-word answers are high risk investments. For example, "will
grounding my battery in the tail cause a ground loop?" There is
no quick and short answer to that without further exploration . . .
Several times a year, somebody will send me a note extolling the
virtues of my book. They'll cite great understanding acquired
by their participation on the List. Then they toss in some
drawings that they claim are "slight adaptations" of figure
Z-whatever and they wish to have me look it over. Most even
offer to pay my exorbitant consulting fees for the service.
What I receive is often difficult to decipher. It seems to be
some new architecture with mystery features that are un-explained.
The language (schematic symbology) and organization
are poor it would take a lot of $time$ just to deduce the ideas
much less evaluate them for usefulness.
I get a sinking feeling when opening these packages. Somebody
has expended a lot of $time$ on the effort with an exceedingly
poor prospect for return on investment for either understanding
or improved system functionality. Adding to that expense is not
productive for me or the customer. I generally toss those packages
in the round file and try to forget them.
So, Carlos . . . how would you have me (or anyone else here on
the List) respond? Your questions for which you desired one-word
answers painted a rather startling image in the gray matter
of this ol' wire stringer.
I can do one of two things: (1) toss your ideas out to the List
for consideration not only for the technical but practical
merits or (2) toss them in the round file as "un-answerable
in the present form - please re-phrase and resubmit."
If I offered the one-word answers you sought and the system had
problems later, then you might be inclined to whack on that
gray-haired ol' f@#t in Wichita who told you it would be
okay. So if you're interested in deducing whether or not
your proposed architecture is consistent with the best we know
how to do, then more details are needed.
Carlos and Stan, I'm not trying to sell you a bill of goods.
If you find the $time$ spent here on the List to be
of poor investment, may I suggest you spend it elsewhere? The
same $time$ used to install some rivets or bend some metal might
be a much better deal in your situation. But know too that
$time$ spent in Mutual Gunching Society meetings does not
speak well of anyone's skill in allocation of resources.
I hope neither of you believes that your p@#$'n-and-m@#$#ing
about the "poor service" here on the List is going to effect
any changes. As I write these words, my two-year old
niece is throwing a rather noisy fit upstairs for some odd
reason or another. It matters not. Her $time$ and effort in
this endeavor will have an exceedingly poor return on investment.
The choice is yours gentlemen. How may we serve you?
Message 2
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: The Quest for Any Answer |
This discussion reminds me of the film "The Pink Panther Strikes Again"
with Peter Sellers.
Clouseau: Does your dog bite?
Hotel Clerk: No.
Clouseau: [bowing down to pet the dog] Nice doggie.
[Dog barks and bites Clouseau in the hand]
Clouseau: I thought you said your dog did not bite!
Hotel Clerk: That is not my dog.
Substitute your favorite question and one word answer.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
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: | Flying Now (Thanks to Bob) |
Bob & List,
I've made my first few flights in this last week & am at last a very happy
airplane builder. Despite the very simple VFR panel with Z-11 architecture,
wiring the aircraft was a monumental task for a bone head like myself. I
can say with great confidence that the aircraft project likely would not
have been completed without the help of this list, most notably ofcourse Bob
Nuckolls. I can say with absolute certainty that, had it been completed
without him, the electrical system would not have been anywhere near the
level that it is now. Z-11 is functionally a quantum leap over that
recommended by the kit manufacturer. Lighter weight too, which is always
good. Although my understanding of it all is still very basic, it is much
greater than what would have been without Bob's help. I look forward to
learning more & hopefully completing another project some day.
Anyway, blah blah blah, THANKS A MILLION BOB!
Grant Krueger
_________________________________________________________________
Fixing up the home? Live Search can help
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: | Re: The Quest for Any Answer |
Mickey,
Bulls eye!
Rodney
DO NOT ARCHIVE
>From: Mickey Coggins <mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The Quest for Any Answer
>Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 10:45:38 +0100
>
><mick-matronics@rv8.ch>
>
>This discussion reminds me of the film "The Pink Panther Strikes Again"
>with Peter Sellers.
>
>Clouseau: Does your dog bite?
>Hotel Clerk: No.
>Clouseau: [bowing down to pet the dog] Nice doggie.
>[Dog barks and bites Clouseau in the hand]
>Clouseau: I thought you said your dog did not bite!
>Hotel Clerk: That is not my dog.
>
>Substitute your favorite question and one word answer.
>
>--
>Mickey Coggins
>http://www.rv8.ch/
>#82007 finishing
>
>
>do not archive
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Fixing up the home? Live Search can help
Message 5
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: The Quest for Any Answer |
In a message dated 12/30/2006 3:48:37 A.M. Central Standard Time,
mick-matronics@rv8.ch writes:
This discussion reminds me of the film "The Pink Panther Strikes Again"
with Peter Sellers.
Clouseau: Does your dog bite?
Hotel Clerk: No.
Clouseau: [bowing down to pet the dog] Nice doggie.
[Dog barks and bites Clouseau in the hand]
Clouseau: I thought you said your dog did not bite!
Hotel Clerk: That is not my dog.
Substitute your favorite question and one word answer.
--
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/
#82007 finishing
Good Morning Mickey,
I LOVE it!
I also like the list just the way it is.
Happy Skies and a Very Happy New Year to all.
PLEASE -- Do Not Archive!
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
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: Pitot/antenna |
Keep in mind, though, that with too much "top (bottom) hat" length,
you'll be concocting a shape that might have some ugly flutter
characteristics once excited. The vertical portion of such a
structure will need lots of torsional stiffness to keep things tame
under the wing.
Bill B
On 12/29/06, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckollsr@cox.net> wrote:
>
> At 02:08 PM 12/29/2006 -0600, you wrote:
>
> >
> >That aft-end of the T could be closed with some small radially drilled
> >holes and used as the static port.
>
> That kind of rings a bell for something I've seen before
> although I'm sure the pitot-static tube was not also an
> antenna. Great thought! I'll add that to the mix. A pitot-static
> tube that is also a reasonably efficient antenna. I believe
> that's doable.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
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: | Flying Now (Thanks to Bob) |
Forgive my ignorance here gentleman, but what is Z-11 architecture?
Craig Smith
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Flying Now (Thanks to Bob)
<tinnemaha@hotmail.com>
Bob & List,
Despite the very simple VFR panel with Z-11 architecture,
wiring the aircraft was a monumental task for a bone head like myself. I
can say with great confidence that the aircraft project likely would not
have been completed without the help of this list, most notably ofcourse Bob
Nuckolls. I can say with absolute certainty that, had it been completed
without him, the electrical system would not have been anywhere near the
level that it is now. Z-11 is functionally a quantum leap over that
recommended by the kit manufacturer. Lighter weight too, which is always
good. Although my understanding of it all is still very basic, it is much
greater than what would have been without Bob's help. I look forward to
learning more & hopefully completing another project some day.
Anyway, blah blah blah, THANKS A MILLION BOB!
Grant Krueger
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: | Flying Now (Thanks to Bob) |
See the "Z diagrams" on this website... And buy the book with them included
and lots more information.
Alan
http://www.aeroelectric.com/whatsnew.html
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of C Smith
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 10:46 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Flying Now (Thanks to Bob)
--> <pilot4profit@sbcglobal.net>
Forgive my ignorance here gentleman, but what is Z-11 architecture?
Craig Smith
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Flying Now (Thanks to Bob)
<tinnemaha@hotmail.com>
Bob & List,
Despite the very simple VFR panel with Z-11 architecture, wiring the
aircraft was a monumental task for a bone head like myself. I can say with
great confidence that the aircraft project likely would not have been
completed without the help of this list, most notably ofcourse Bob
Nuckolls. I can say with absolute certainty that, had it been completed
without him, the electrical system would not have been anywhere near the
level that it is now. Z-11 is functionally a quantum leap over that
recommended by the kit manufacturer. Lighter weight too, which is always
good. Although my understanding of it all is still very basic, it is much
greater than what would have been without Bob's help. I look forward to
learning more & hopefully completing another project some day.
Anyway, blah blah blah, THANKS A MILLION BOB!
Grant Krueger
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: Quest for the One-Word Answers |
Bob
Due to your unfriendly post, and not wanting to feed an useless
discussion, perhaps I should not answer, but since I believe, on one
side, that you didn't noticed my first post, and on the other side, that
you must cope with criticism, recognize your errors and correct your
action accordingly, here it goes.
First of all, I shall say that I recognize your huge knowledge in
aeroelectric matters, so I'm not like your "friends" George and Paul,
who called you ignorant and even insulted you further (although
sometimes you seem to prefer loosing time to write endless posts
responding to those kind of guys).
Maybe you can remember a tall, "heavy", moustache guy from Portugal who
attended a seminar you held in Highland, IL at the WICKS Aircraft store,
in March 2005. No doubt I must be at your seminars' Book of Records as
being the guy who traveled from the farthest place (more than 5.000
miles) just to attend your seminar, and most probably the only one who
came from another continent of this Planet!!
Second, perhaps you should reread my last post, where I wrote "...most
of the times, this forum is useful..." and the only thing I hate is when
"..Some times on this list, you ask apples and you get an answer in
oranges.."
I surely don't deserve your comments and you own me an apologize.
Further comments embedded below
>
> Yeah, this group really sucks sometimes!
>
I agree.
I began my initial post saying that I was planning to put an avionics
back-up battery in my aircraft's tail because of W&B issues, and asked
if it was electrically correct to connect the battery's ground locally,
and the first 2 or 3 guys who answered, including yourself, only
criticized the idea of puting the battery in the tail (critique which I
obviously accept), instead of helping me with the grounding question!!
This really sucks! Isn't this "apples and oranges"??! Of course it is!
> There are folks who hang
> around here just to use it as a personal Q&A Butler . . . the
> answer is probably in the archives, in the book or even in dozens
> of places out on the 'net.
I didn't find it, and I believe you cannot either.
> But to take the (gasp) $time$ to dig
> it out and understand it . . . . It's obviously easier to ask
> a question
Of course it is! You must understand (I know you do) that people use
internet groups to get quick and direct answers to their questions,
exactly to avoid loosing time digging in archives and in books. It's the
progress! However I still do it sometimes the old fashion way ( Even
yesterday I consulted the book about an audio multiple input issue).
>
> The questions about the remote battery raised additional questions
> that an astute designer would add to the mix of issues to be
> resolved.
I aggree. But the problem was that you only addressed the W&B issue,
leaving my question unanswered. Thus it was not a mix response, it was
an answer to something I didn't ask. If the group had answered my
question, and also addressed the W&B issue, I would never have
complained!
> My duty as teacher dictates that we explore and address
> as many of those issues as we're capable of . . . do the best we
> know how to do. It's too bad if this little quirk of mine (and
> others here on the List) gets in the way of anyone's sensibilities
> and/or quest for the one-word answer.
For me, no problem. My sensibility doesn't go that way. I always learn
when several issues are explored, even with criticism to some of my own
options or decisions. But I surely like to get answers to my questions.
> A simple-idea that has been around for millennia: "You
> get what you pay for".
OK, that is a low and cheap comment. If you use this argument, you'd
better close the list. Internet discussion groups are free by
definition, therefore if you're in this "market", you must abide by its
rules. If you don't want to answer, it's your previlege, but you should
refrain from attacking those who are asking.
> However, may I suggest that the rudimentary medium of exchange is
> not dollars but minutes. A minute spent here on the List for any
> purpose is lost forever and cannot be recovered or re-invested
> anywhere else.
I aggree again, but what you are saying now contradicts what you were
saying at the top of your post, and in the title. "One-word answers" are
quicker than long diatribes, thus if you give one-word answers, you are
saving more minutes to re-invest in other subjects, or giving direct
answers to other askers, or even being a "personal Q&A Buttler" to those
"folks who hang around here just" for that :-) (sorry, I couldn't
resist)
> For example, "will grounding my battery in the tail cause a ground
loop?" > There is no quick and short answer to that without further
exploration . . .
>
> So, Carlos . . . how would you have me (or anyone else here on
> the List) respond? Your questions for which you desired one-word
> answers painted a rather startling image in the gray matter
> of this ol' wire stringer.
>
> I can do one of two things: (1) toss your ideas out to the List
> for consideration not only for the technical but practical
> merits or (2) toss them in the round file as "un-answerable
> in the present form - please re-phrase and resubmit."
Now is the time to repeat my first post (Dec, 24), which probably you
didn't noticed:
Since I will have to put some wheight in the tail of my RV-9A because of
W&B issues, I am planning to install a small battery (probably around
4.5Ah, depending on its own wheight) to act as a back-up battery for
some avionics (EFIS and Auto-pilot).
For the (+) terminal of that future battery, I already passed a AWG#14
tefzel wire all the way from the tail to the back of instrument pannel,
but
for the (-) wire, I am thinking that I could attach it to a ground lug
that
I already have in the tail, which is directly connected to the "Main"
battery (-) terminal, and where are also connected the ground wires from
the tail light, the tail strobe beacon and the elevator trim motor.
Can I connect that battery's (-) terminal to the tail ground lug ?
Is there a possibility for ground loop ?
What did you need more to give me electrical one-word answers, instead
(or along with) the W&B comments?
>
> Carlos and Stan, I'm not trying to sell you a bill of goods.
> If you find the $time$ spent here on the List to be
> of poor investment, may I suggest you spend it elsewhere?
I didn't say that, and I don't think that. But you have to react
different when someone criticize you (or the group), mainly when the
critique is fair, like mine is (was).
> I hope neither of you believes that your p@#$'n-and-m@#$#ing
> about the "poor service" here on the List is going to effect
> any changes.
I never referred to "poor service". What I said, and maintain, is that I
hate when someone asks "apples" and the group answers in "oranges", but
you already got my point...
>
> The choice is yours gentlemen. How may we serve you?
>
> Bob . . .
>
My choice is reading all the posts (except of course the grasping one's,
including this one), to try to learn something, and sometimes ask the
questions I need an answer to, to receive "one-word answers" or more
elaborated ones, whichever applys the best.
You may serve us keeping up the good work, sharing your knowledge and
having the patience to do it
Cheers and Happy New year
Carlos
(Sorry for the LONG post)
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Message 10
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Quest for the One-Word Answers |
Carlos,
In addition to the old saying that "you get what you pay for", there is
another appropo to this problem you seem to be experiencing, that being,
"don't look a gifted horse in the mouth". Perhaps your are examining
the horse's teeth a bit more closely than justified....and if the teeth
are a bit worn for your tastes, just give the horse back and don't
bother with it.
Chuck Jensen
Do Not Archive.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Carlos Trigo
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 2:07 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Quest for the One-Word Answers
Bob
Due to your unfriendly post, and not wanting to feed an useless
discussion, perhaps I should not answer, but since I believe, on one
side, that you didn't noticed my first post, and on the other side, that
you must cope with criticism, recognize your errors and correct your
action accordingly, here it goes.
First of all, I shall say that I recognize your huge knowledge in
aeroelectric matters, so I'm not like your "friends" George and Paul,
who called you ignorant and even insulted you further (although
sometimes you seem to prefer loosing time to write endless posts
responding to those kind of guys).
Maybe you can remember a tall, "heavy", moustache guy from Portugal who
attended a seminar you held in Highland, IL at the WICKS Aircraft store,
in March 2005. No doubt I must be at your seminars' Book of Records as
being the guy who traveled from the farthest place (more than 5.000
miles) just to attend your seminar, and most probably the only one who
came from another continent of this Planet!!
Second, perhaps you should reread my last post, where I wrote "...most
of the times, this forum is useful..." and the only thing I hate is when
"..Some times on this list, you ask apples and you get an answer in
oranges.."
I surely don't deserve your comments and you own me an apologize.
Further comments embedded below
>
> Yeah, this group really sucks sometimes!
>
I agree.
I began my initial post saying that I was planning to put an avionics
back-up battery in my aircraft's tail because of W&B issues, and asked
if it was electrically correct to connect the battery's ground locally,
and the first 2 or 3 guys who answered, including yourself, only
criticized the idea of puting the battery in the tail (critique which I
obviously accept), instead of helping me with the grounding question!!
This really sucks! Isn't this "apples and oranges"??! Of course it is!
> There are folks who hang
> around here just to use it as a personal Q&A Butler . . . the
> answer is probably in the archives, in the book or even in dozens
> of places out on the 'net.
I didn't find it, and I believe you cannot either.
> But to take the (gasp) $time$ to dig
> it out and understand it . . . . It's obviously easier to ask
> a question
Of course it is! You must understand (I know you do) that people use
internet groups to get quick and direct answers to their questions,
exactly to avoid loosing time digging in archives and in books. It's the
progress! However I still do it sometimes the old fashion way ( Even
yesterday I consulted the book about an audio multiple input issue).
>
> The questions about the remote battery raised additional questions
> that an astute designer would add to the mix of issues to be
> resolved.
I aggree. But the problem was that you only addressed the W&B issue,
leaving my question unanswered. Thus it was not a mix response, it was
an answer to something I didn't ask. If the group had answered my
question, and also addressed the W&B issue, I would never have
complained!
> My duty as teacher dictates that we explore and address
> as many of those issues as we're capable of . . . do the best we
> know how to do. It's too bad if this little quirk of mine (and
> others here on the List) gets in the way of anyone's sensibilities
> and/or quest for the one-word answer.
For me, no problem. My sensibility doesn't go that way. I always learn
when several issues are explored, even with criticism to some of my own
options or decisions. But I surely like to get answers to my questions.
> A simple-idea that has been around for millennia: "You
> get what you pay for".
OK, that is a low and cheap comment. If you use this argument, you'd
better close the list. Internet discussion groups are free by
definition, therefore if you're in this "market", you must abide by its
rules. If you don't want to answer, it's your previlege, but you should
refrain from attacking those who are asking.
> However, may I suggest that the rudimentary medium of exchange is
> not dollars but minutes. A minute spent here on the List for any
> purpose is lost forever and cannot be recovered or re-invested
> anywhere else.
I aggree again, but what you are saying now contradicts what you were
saying at the top of your post, and in the title. "One-word answers" are
quicker than long diatribes, thus if you give one-word answers, you are
saving more minutes to re-invest in other subjects, or giving direct
answers to other askers, or even being a "personal Q&A Buttler" to those
"folks who hang around here just" for that :-) (sorry, I couldn't
resist)
> For example, "will grounding my battery in the tail cause a ground
loop?" > There is no quick and short answer to that without further
exploration . . .
>
> So, Carlos . . . how would you have me (or anyone else here on
> the List) respond? Your questions for which you desired one-word
> answers painted a rather startling image in the gray matter
> of this ol' wire stringer.
>
> I can do one of two things: (1) toss your ideas out to the List
> for consideration not only for the technical but practical
> merits or (2) toss them in the round file as "un-answerable
> in the present form - please re-phrase and resubmit."
Now is the time to repeat my first post (Dec, 24), which probably you
didn't noticed:
Since I will have to put some wheight in the tail of my RV-9A because of
W&B issues, I am planning to install a small battery (probably around
4.5Ah, depending on its own wheight) to act as a back-up battery for
some avionics (EFIS and Auto-pilot).
For the (+) terminal of that future battery, I already passed a AWG#14
tefzel wire all the way from the tail to the back of instrument pannel,
but
for the (-) wire, I am thinking that I could attach it to a ground lug
that
I already have in the tail, which is directly connected to the "Main"
battery (-) terminal, and where are also connected the ground wires from
the tail light, the tail strobe beacon and the elevator trim motor.
Can I connect that battery's (-) terminal to the tail ground lug ?
Is there a possibility for ground loop ?
What did you need more to give me electrical one-word answers, instead
(or along with) the W&B comments?
>
> Carlos and Stan, I'm not trying to sell you a bill of goods.
> If you find the $time$ spent here on the List to be
> of poor investment, may I suggest you spend it elsewhere?
I didn't say that, and I don't think that. But you have to react
different when someone criticize you (or the group), mainly when the
critique is fair, like mine is (was).
> I hope neither of you believes that your p@#$'n-and-m@#$#ing
<mailto:p@#$'n-and-m@#$#ing>
> about the "poor service" here on the List is going to effect
> any changes.
I never referred to "poor service". What I said, and maintain, is that I
hate when someone asks "apples" and the group answers in "oranges", but
you already got my point...
>
> The choice is yours gentlemen. How may we serve you?
>
> Bob . . .
>
My choice is reading all the posts (except of course the grasping one's,
including this one), to try to learn something, and sometimes ask the
questions I need an answer to, to receive "one-word answers" or more
elaborated ones, whichever applys the best.
You may serve us keeping up the good work, sharing your knowledge and
having the patience to do it
Cheers and Happy New year
Carlos
(Sorry for the LONG post)
DO NOT ARCHIVE
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: | Quest for the One-Word Answers |
Carlos, for a man from another country and having English as a second
language, I must compliment you on both your content and intent. You have a
fine way with words, and demonstrate an even better grasp of humanity.
Craig Smith
_____
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carlos
Trigo
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 2:07 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Quest for the One-Word Answers
Bob
Due to your unfriendly post, and not wanting to feed an useless discussion,
perhaps I should not answer, but since I believe, on one side, that you
didn't noticed my first post, and on the other side, that you must cope with
criticism, recognize your errors and correct your action accordingly, here
it goes.
First of all, I shall say that I recognize your huge knowledge in
aeroelectric matters, so I'm not like your "friends" George and Paul, who
called you ignorant and even insulted you further (although sometimes you
seem to prefer loosing time to write endless posts responding to those kind
of guys).
Maybe you can remember a tall, "heavy", moustache guy from Portugal who
attended a seminar you held in Highland, IL at the WICKS Aircraft store, in
March 2005. No doubt I must be at your seminars' Book of Records as being
the guy who traveled from the farthest place (more than 5.000 miles) just to
attend your seminar, and most probably the only one who came from another
continent of this Planet!!
...
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: | Quest for the One-Word Answers |
Oh, just forgot to mention that a very famous certified aircraft
manufacturer places their avionics back-up battery, along with roughly half
of the avionics equipment in the tail for weight and balance reasons. That
aircraft is the Cessna 182 with the G-1000.
Craig Smith
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: Quest for the One-Word Answers |
Craig
Thanks very much for your compliment, and for the information about the
C182. I knew I had not reinvented the wheel.
Carlos
----- Original Message -----
From: C Smith
To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 9:11 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Quest for the One-Word Answers
Carlos, for a man from another country and having English as a second
language, I must compliment you on both your content and intent. You
have a fine way with words, and demonstrate an even better grasp of
humanity.
Craig Smith
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! --
|