---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 12/30/06: 13 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 01:05:13 AM PST US From: Speedy11@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 01:46:31 AM PST US From: Mickey Coggins Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:35:56 AM PST US From: "Tinne maha" Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:31:27 AM PST US From: "Rodney Dunham" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The Quest for Any Answer Mickey, Bulls eye! Rodney DO NOT ARCHIVE >From: Mickey Coggins >To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The Quest for Any Answer >Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 10:45:38 +0100 > > > >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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:39:29 AM PST US From: BobsV35B@aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 06:14:13 AM PST US From: "Bill Boyd" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 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 _____________________________________ Time: 07:47:30 AM PST US From: "C Smith" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 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) 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 _____________________________________ Time: 08:19:11 AM PST US From: "Alan K. Adamson" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 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) --> Forgive my ignorance here gentleman, but what is Z-11 architecture? Craig Smith Subject: AeroElectric-List: Flying Now (Thanks to Bob) 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 _____________________________________ Time: 11:11:07 AM PST US From: "Carlos Trigo" 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 > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 11:30:36 AM PST US Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Quest for the One-Word Answers From: "Chuck Jensen" 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 > 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:12:19 PM PST US From: "C Smith" 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 _____ 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 ____________________________________ Time: 01:16:44 PM PST US From: "C Smith" Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: 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 ____________________________________ Time: 02:05:37 PM PST US From: "Carlos Trigo" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message aeroelectric-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.