AeroElectric-List Digest Archive

Sun 02/04/07


Total Messages Posted: 29



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 12:21 AM - Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     2. 04:14 AM - Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held (Carlos Trigo)
     3. 04:56 AM - Re: Re: FAA woes . . . (Bill Boyd)
     4. 07:05 AM -  Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held (BobsV35B@aol.com)
     5. 08:20 AM - Re: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE GPS (Walter Fellows)
     6. 08:26 AM - Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     7. 08:53 AM - Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held (John Coloccia)
     8. 09:43 AM - Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held (Carlos Trigo)
     9. 09:58 AM - Re: Re: Circuit needed (John Burnaby)
    10. 09:58 AM - Re: TurboCad question (John Burnaby)
    11. 10:00 AM - Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held (Doug Windhorn)
    12. 10:20 AM - Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held (John Coloccia)
    13. 10:20 AM - Re: Re: FAA woes . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    14. 10:23 AM - Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    15. 11:14 AM - Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held (Dave N6030X)
    16. 11:23 AM - Re: Re: Cause and effect in a regulated world. (LarryRobertHelming)
    17. 11:55 AM - Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held (John Coloccia)
    18. 11:57 AM - Re: Re: Cause and effect in a regulated world. (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    19. 12:01 PM - Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    20. 12:11 PM - Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held (Dave N6030X)
    21. 12:25 PM - Re: Re: Circuit needed (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    22. 12:31 PM - Re: Re: Cause and effect in a regulated world. (LarryRobertHelming)
    23. 01:36 PM - Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held (BobsV35B@aol.com)
    24. 01:42 PM - Cause and effect in a regulated world. (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    25. 02:25 PM - Audio book links (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    26. 02:36 PM - Snap Bushing Through Thick Material (Larry Rosen)
    27. 04:15 PM - Re: Snap Bushing Through Thick Material (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
    28. 09:20 PM - Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held (Matt Prather)
    29. 09:55 PM - Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
 
 
 


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
    Time: 12:21:33 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held
    At 07:43 PM 2/3/2007 -0800, you wrote: >Bob, > >Re website with discussion on IC-ANT-SB ><http://www.flight.org/forums/showthread.php?t=274288>www.flight.org/forums/showthread.php?t=274288 > Hmmmmm . . . the read I got on use of the word "crude" was that he didn't think that a 3.5mm audio connector was well suited for radio frequency coax transmission lines. I note that Jim Weir weighed in on the topic and rebutted someone assertions that use of the wrong connector would introduce significant loss. I didn't see anyone's teardown analysis that went in to look at the construction or robustness of the jack. THIS is where the device will become troublesome. Thanks for the link! Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ----------------------------------------


    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
    Time: 04:14:08 AM PST US
    From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo@mail.telepac.pt>
    Subject: Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held
    With so many different opinions about that little ICOM mixer box, and Bob N.'s new bad opinion about his own box, I am glad to have decided to install 2 antennas: one in the upper fuselage skin, exclusively dedicated to my panel mounted COMM, and the other in the belly, exclusively for the hand held. And it's not so obvious that my solution is heavier than the sole-antenna-with-mixer-and-adapters one ... After all, I needed some weight behind the baggage compartment ... OK, there's also the aesthetic and aerodynamics issues of two sticks protruding from the bird ... Carlos RV-9A, still wiring ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 8:20 AM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held > <nuckollsr@cox.net> > > At 07:43 PM 2/3/2007 -0800, you wrote: > >>Bob, >> >>Re website with discussion on IC-ANT-SB >><http://www.flight.org/forums/showthread.php?t=274288>www.flight.org/forums/showthread.php?t=274288 > > Hmmmmm . . . the read I got on use of the > word "crude" was that he didn't think that a > 3.5mm audio connector was well suited for > radio frequency coax transmission lines. > I note that Jim Weir weighed in on the topic > and rebutted someone assertions that use > of the wrong connector would introduce > significant loss. I didn't see anyone's > teardown analysis that went in to look at > the construction or robustness of the jack. > > THIS is where the device will become troublesome. > > Thanks for the link! > > Bob . . . >


    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
    Time: 04:56:42 AM PST US
    From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: FAA woes . . .
    That, sir, gets a bookmark all its own in my "favorite places" folder. Have you considered writing for Mark Alexander's PatriotPost.us? I believe they have a second career for you. Thanks & do not archive -Bill B On 2/3/07, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckollsr@cox.net> wrote: > > At 03:38 PM 2/2/2007 -0600, you wrote: > > > > >Yes indeed. And then spend a few minutes at www.Senate.gov and > >www.House.gov and let your elected officials know you are unhappy. If all > >they ever hear is bland, politically correct official statements from > >AOPA, they won't know how pissed we are. > >:) > > > >Dave Morris > >Rebel with a vote > > Always an good place to start . . . > > But understand too that 'government' (just WHO is > that anyway?) has us just where they want us. We're > a small fraction (600K) of the whole (130 millions) > of eligible voters. > > This is a situation shared with EVERY other special > interest group in the US. The folks in Congress are > delighted that we've all found niche causes to champion > because it distracts us from the fundamental cause that > every voting citizen should be pulling for. > > Our plight as an 'abused' minority is shared with every > other 'abused' minority and there's not a thing we can > do about it because we continue to act as minorities > i.e., not enough votes in the block to be a real threat > to those who 'abuse' us. > > To explore how these losses to liberty came to pass > one needs to study and understand the simple-ideas > upon which the government was originally formed and > then study the history that brought us to where we > are. For those interested, I'll suggest the following > resources. > > Foundation for the original thoughts . . . > > See: > > http://12.164.81.10/paine/commonsense/singlehtml.htm > > or get the free audio book at: > > http://www.freeaudio.org/tpaine/commonsense.html > > This famous document "Common Sense" was penned > by Thomas Paine. Yea, we all probably heard about it > in high school . . . but I heard it from some > very unimaginative teachers who were unable or > unwilling to get me engaged in the significance. > > Then see: > > http://www.lexrex.com/informed/otherdocuments/thelaw/main.htm > > There are audio books on this too . . . but I've > not yet located a downloadable copy. > > I keep copies of both these documents in .mp3 format > to listen too on long drives. I've listened to both > perhaps three times each and try to renew my acquaintance > with their wisdom regularly. Got a driving trip to > Little Rock coming up next week. > > To recap the major thoughts brought forth by these > two teachers: (1) the primary purpose of law is to > protect liberty. Liberty being a condition that > allows one to traverse life free of force or fraud > against their person or property. (2) the role of > government should be clearly and simply defined and > those definitions kept in mind when sending > representation to Washington. > > Of course, there is this docoument: > > http://tinyurl.com/2mukgm > > Reall that the Constitution was written by > ordinary citizens who where farmers and merchants. > None were professional legislators. None believed they > were undertaking a task to lay the foundations for what > passes for government today. The document is only > 24 pages long and 90% of it has to do with organizational > housekeeping. Take a highligher and mark those passages > that speak to governmental operations that affect you > personally . . . and you'll find that it's not much > and the meanings are quite clear without benefit of > a constitutional law student from Harvard to > interpret for you. > > The point of this exercise is to offer some insight > as to how we find ourselves commiserating over the > latest perceived injustice in aviation while every > other minority special interest group commiserates > over their particular perceptions. > > The next time your prospective representative appears > at a town hall meeting or campaign rally, the questions > to ask should not be based on what you want from > Washington. For myself, I would ask that every candidate > seeking my vote be cloistered in a quiet room with > their favorite music, a handful of pencils and one of > those theme books we used in school to craft an > example of our knowledge and understanding for the > purpose of receiving a grade. > > Writing task for the prospective legislator: > > Define liberty > > Define honorable behavior > > Define dishonorable behavior > > Is it possible to be neither dishonorable or honorable? - > explain > > What are the guiding principals which you call upon > while considering legislation? List and explain > what you consider to be the three most important. > > Do you believe in prime-directives? I.e, are there > some lines that the legislature should never cross? > Explain. > > What in your opinion are the three most powerful ideas > in the Constitution. Explain. (no "right" answer for > this - I just want to see how well the candidate > understands the document . . . or even if he/she has > read the thing). > > What are the constitutional roles of the House, the > Senate and the President? > > Is it the roll of the courts to judge actions of citizens > against the meaning your legislation or against their > interpretations of the Constitution? > > Cite words from the Constitution that justifies > government notice that I am anyone but a citizen of > voting age? Where does government receive the charter to > know how old I am, my sex, my job, my income, etc. > > Press buzzer for drinks, sandwiches or potty break. > > Now, the unfortunate part is that very few if any > folks we've sent to Washington could produce a cogent > document answering those questions. The saddest part yet > is that should a candidate demonstrate an exemplary > understanding of the role of government in a > democratic republic, few of our fellow citizens are > sufficiently cognizant of the topic to accurately > judge the candidate's qualification to office. > > Bottom line is, yes write your Congressfolks and do > it regularly. It's easy. See: > > http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issuesaction/orgs/ > > This is an interesting site for it not only provides > a conduit into which you can place your own thoughts > but it highlights the thoughts of your fellow citizens > on matters of legislation and citizen expectations of > Congress. Try not to get too depressed when you read them. > > Yes, write about specific issues of interest to your > particular abused minority . . . but include words > in EVERY letter that indicates your understanding of > how Congress ignores their sworn duty under the > Constitution. Touch also on how any particular action > of Congress has attacked the liberty of yourself or > fellow citizens. It doesn't hurt to quote Paine or > Bastiat from time to time (But I'll bet very few > legislators know who these fellows were or have > read what they wrote). > > As a member of an abused minority focused on the > complaint du jour, you don't represent much of a threat > to your representative's generous salary and spectacular > retirement package. But as a member of the cognizant majority > who correctly identifies and spotlights their dishonor, THAT > they will find worrisome. > > Will this 'fix' any of the current complaints? Probably > not. In fact, I cannot imagine what it would be like > to recover from an event that suddenly restricts government > to its constituted constraints. For one thing, we would > immediately have millions of unemployed workers from no-value- > added careers who would suddenly have to find useful jobs like > the rest of us. It wouldn't be easy but I'd welcome the > short term chaos with open arms. Flying our airplanes in > the future could be a whole new world! But it's a sure bet > that as a minority complainer, our pleas are summarily > ignored beyond, "Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. > I will keep them in mind as I deliberate the next attack on > the liberty of you or some of your fellow citizens". > Yeah, right. > > Bob . . . > >


    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
    Time: 07:05:46 AM PST US
    From: BobsV35B@aol.com
    Subject: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held
    In a message dated 2/4/2007 6:16:28 A.M. Central Standard Time, trigo@mail.telepac.pt writes: With so many different opinions about that little ICOM mixer box, and Bob N.'s new bad opinion about his own box, I am glad to have decided to install 2 antennas: one in the upper fuselage skin, exclusively dedicated to my panel mounted COMM, and the other in the belly, exclusively for the hand held. And it's not so obvious that my solution is heavier than the sole-antenna-with-mixer-and-adapters one ... After all, I needed some weight behind the baggage compartment ... OK, there's also the aesthetic and aerodynamics issues of two sticks protruding from the bird ... Carlos RV-9A, still wiring Good Morning Carlos, Many years ago in a land far, far away, I was a fairly active participant in the competitive glider flying scene. Many of my friends used a hole in the belly through which they shoved an antenna when they wanted to use their radio. I tried it a few times and it seemed to work OK. For competitive flying, the hole was covered with a hunk of two hundred mile per hour white racing tape (otherwise known as 3M electrical tape.) Do Not Archive Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503


    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
    Time: 08:20:08 AM PST US
    From: "Walter Fellows" <walter.fellows@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE
    GPS I would request anyone who writes a message here about politics (Republican, Democrat, Conservative or Liberal) to include the word SPAM in the message header so that my spam filter has a chance of catching it and if not, I know to delete it without reading it. On 2/3/07, David M. <ainut@hiwaay.net> wrote: > > lawsuits. > > David M. > > > B Tomm wrote: > > > I agree, but what to do? Do we as a group embark on mass disobedience with > solidarity? Fly our aircraft by the thousands in massive formations over > the state Capitol? Or do we continue what we've been doing by just building > and flying and gathering at Oshkosh, Sun-n-fun, and so many other shows as a > public showing of the size of our numbers. I think so. But surely as we > enjoy ourselves, we must be aware of the ground-bound bureaucrats and those > they wish to influence below us as they look up with some degree of > jealousy. Get out there, build, fly, vote and "talk-up" aviation with all > who will listen. Having fun and having the sense of freedom that flying > brings is very contagious. Spread it and support those who are spreading it. > > Bevan > RV7A > Egg H6 on order > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com <owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com>] On Behalf Of Robert L. > Nuckolls, III > Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 9:54 AM > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR > PORTABLE GPS > > --> <nuckollsr@cox.net> <nuckollsr@cox.net> > > At 10:51 AM 2/2/2007 -0600, you wrote: > > > --> <N6030X@DaveMorris.com> <N6030X@DaveMorris.com> > > The government is always so helpful when it comes to halting advances > in safety dead in their tracks. What ever happened to government "of, > by, and for the people"? > > > This is pretty consistent with past policies. You > don't need to make log entries for things that > are not physically attached . . . i.e., portable > personal accessories and piloting aids. > > This is why my dual gps installation wedges between > the of the glare shield and windshield held in place > with small dollops of windshield sealant. No connections > to the aircraft's wiring. All goes back into the flight > bag when I park the airplane and leaves no tracks for > having been there. > > This isn't going to get better folks. Look at it this > way: > > Everyone has notions that what they do for a living > will produce an ever increasing flow of revenue and > greater stature amongst their peers. Suppose your > job right out of college was: "Here's the books > son. Read. Memorize. Go forth and make aviation > safer." > > Given that the only tools of your craft are > crafting of rules, publishing of rules, policing > compliance with the rules and punishment of transgressors. > What are your options for working up the ladder in > the career of your choice? > > Microsoft, Sony, Chrysler, and McDonalds MUST > drive up returns by judicious investments in activities > designed to increase CUSTOMER perceptions of value. > Their fortunes are driven by increasing gross sales > by offering more attractive product or increasing > numbers of customers for the current products. > > The FAA has no customers. I.e, no consumer/supplier > relationship and therefore no accountability > or perception of value-received for their efforts. > Further, the only way a bureaucrat can move up in > the world is to either (1) be party to expansion of > the activity's operating horizons (more rules) or > (2) take over command of greater numbers of bureaucrats. > > There are no other metrics by which an organization > chartered with "enhancement of public safety" can > grow professionally . . . public risks from the > presence of aviation are so small that ANY endeavor > to reduce them is exceedingly expensive, restrictive > of personal liberties and still more difficult to > demonstrate that any one effort has produced a useful > outcome. > > When challenged on this perception by those who > like to believe in the value of this activity > I will ask, "How many lives did you save last year? Or > if your function ceased to be performed, how many > folks would die as a result next year? If you ceased > to do your job, how many individuals would go elsewhere > to find an alternate source for your services?" I've > yet to receive a cogent answer . . . > > I've had a working relationship with this organization > for over 30 years. If I plot observed and demonstrated > present trends out to the future, our industry in its > present form is doomed. > > 20 years? 30 years? Impossible to predict with accuracy > but the TREND is relentlessly trudging on in the wrong > direction. Without a fundamental change in direction, > the outcome is as inevitable as the sun coming up > tomorrow morning. > > Bob . . . > > > * > > > * > >


    Message 6


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:26:29 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held
    At 12:09 PM 2/4/2007 +0000, you wrote: ><trigo@mail.telepac.pt> > >With so many different opinions about that little ICOM mixer box, and Bob >N.'s new bad opinion about his own box, I am glad to have decided to >install 2 antennas: one in the upper fuselage skin, exclusively dedicated >to my panel mounted COMM, and the other in the belly, exclusively for the >hand held. >And it's not so obvious that my solution is heavier than the >sole-antenna-with-mixer-and-adapters one ... After all, I needed some >weight behind the baggage compartment ... >OK, there's also the aesthetic and aerodynamics issues of two sticks >protruding from the bird ... A dedicated antenna is ALWAYS the simplest, most reliable means for making sure your hand held is not crippled along with the panel mount because something common to both radios in the antenna system came unhooked. This scenario is exceedingly unlikely . . . after all, how many parts are shared and how vulnerable are they to failure? I'm not sure I've read a cogent opinion about the ICOM box yet. One individual opined as to the choice of connectors but offered nothing about real performance losses or longevity in the a/c. The jury is still out on this folks . . . and even if we do craft something perceived to be a cut above the present technologies, that doesn't necessarily make the current offerings "bad" . . . they're simply candidates for improvement. If someone could identify a 3.5mm jack that's more robust than the Radio Shack part I used in the original article, that would be an attractive step up. I've got some ICOM boxes coming. Let's tear one open and see what they look like. 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
    Time: 08:53:18 AM PST US
    From: John Coloccia <john@ballofshame.com>
    Subject: Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held
    Has anyone taken a radio, say an SL-30, and measured the resistance of the antenna input when the radio is off? If it's anywhere near 50 ohms, this problem is trivial to solve with a T coax fitting and a 50 ohm terminator. -John www.ballofshame.com Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > <nuckollsr@cox.net> > > At 12:09 PM 2/4/2007 +0000, you wrote: > >> <trigo@mail.telepac.pt> >> >> With so many different opinions about that little ICOM mixer box, and >> Bob N.'s new bad opinion about his own box, I am glad to have decided >> to install 2 antennas: one in the upper fuselage skin, exclusively >> dedicated to my panel mounted COMM, and the other in the belly, >> exclusively for the hand held. >> And it's not so obvious that my solution is heavier than the >> sole-antenna-with-mixer-and-adapters one ... After all, I needed some >> weight behind the baggage compartment ... >> OK, there's also the aesthetic and aerodynamics issues of two sticks >> protruding from the bird ... > > A dedicated antenna is ALWAYS the simplest, most reliable > means for making sure your hand held is not crippled along > with the panel mount because something common to both radios > in the antenna system came unhooked. This scenario is exceedingly > unlikely . . . after all, how many parts are shared and how > vulnerable are they to failure? > > I'm not sure I've read a cogent opinion about the > ICOM box yet. One individual opined as to the choice of > connectors but offered nothing about real performance > losses or longevity in the a/c. > > The jury is still out on this folks . . . and even > if we do craft something perceived to be a cut above > the present technologies, that doesn't necessarily make > the current offerings "bad" . . . they're simply > candidates for improvement. If someone could identify > a 3.5mm jack that's more robust than the Radio Shack part > I used in the original article, that would be an attractive > step up. I've got some ICOM boxes coming. Let's tear one open > and see what they look like. > > Bob . . . > >


    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
    Time: 09:43:51 AM PST US
    From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo@mail.telepac.pt>
    Subject: Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held
    Hi Old Bob Good Afternoon ( 4h30 p.m.) from where I am. The solution you pointed out is another possibility, good for competition, but a little messy if you are having problems with your panel COMM in a heavy traffic situation. By the way, since I am very close with aeronautical competition (I'm involved with to 2 FAI Sports Commissions) I am curious where and when did you compete in glider flying? Carlos ----- Original Message ----- From: BobsV35B@aol.com To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 3:04 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held In a message dated 2/4/2007 6:16:28 A.M. Central Standard Time, trigo@mail.telepac.pt writes: With so many different opinions about that little ICOM mixer box, and Bob N.'s new bad opinion about his own box, I am glad to have decided to install 2 antennas: one in the upper fuselage skin, exclusively dedicated to my panel mounted COMM, and the other in the belly, exclusively for the hand held. And it's not so obvious that my solution is heavier than the sole-antenna-with-mixer-and-adapters one ... After all, I needed some weight behind the baggage compartment ... OK, there's also the aesthetic and aerodynamics issues of two sticks protruding from the bird ... Carlos RV-9A, still wiring Good Morning Carlos, Many years ago in a land far, far away, I was a fairly active participant in the competitive glider flying scene. Many of my friends used a hole in the belly through which they shoved an antenna when they wanted to use their radio. I tried it a few times and it seemed to work OK. For competitive flying, the hole was covered with a hunk of two hundred mile per hour white racing tape (otherwise known as 3M electrical tape.) Do Not Archive Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503


    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
    Time: 09:58:15 AM PST US
    From: "John Burnaby" <jonlaury@impulse.net>
    Subject: Re: Circuit needed
    I think the problem here is that I haven't communicated what I want this circuit to do. When I power up the aux fuel pump switch {Off-On-(On)}, I want an LED to flash, indicating power on and no fluid being pumped. When I switch to (On) the pump should energize, pump fuel and pressurize the line and P-switch upstream of the check valve. The P-switch should now take over the power delivery to the pump, as long as it's closed/open under pressure, and light a steady ON LED, indicating fluid being pumped. When the pump exhausts the aux tank fuel, pressure should go to 0psi, P-switch opens/closes, pump stops, LED flashes indicating no more fuel in line. Downstream, of the check valve, is the EFI return line flow, with some marginal amount of pressure, that I think will add to and be sufficient to actuate the P-switch. Sorry for the confusion. J


    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
    Time: 09:58:15 AM PST US
    From: "John Burnaby" <jonlaury@impulse.net>
    Subject: Re: TurboCad question
    I had TC v. 7 ( which is way overkill for any wire schematic) running on my Win 98 machine and it liked XP just fine when I upgraded my OS. I just upped TC from v. 7 to 11.2 (Ebay, $25) and I don't see a whole lot of difference between the two when dealing with 2D drawing. Version 11.x ( and maybe others) allows you to bypass installing the 3D portion if you just need 2D. My impression of TC, over the years, is that it is very stable and adaptable, and I would bet dollars to donuts that later versions will run just fine on W98 in 2D mode. John


    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
    Time: 10:00:36 AM PST US
    From: "Doug Windhorn" <N1DeltaWhiskey@comcast.net>
    Subject: Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held
    John, Not sure what you are getting at here, but simply measuring the in "resistance" of the antenna input will, I think, tell you little. Or, maybe I am missing what you are suggesting. Did a quick look at "characteristic impedance" on Wikipedia. When one talks about transmission cables (and matching connections), impedance is the "apparent resistance" to AC signals that the line is rated in, not simple resistance. I believe you are talking about measuring the impedance, not solely the resistance, of the input. I could surmise some thing about this, but probably make myself look a little (maybe a lot) unknowledgeable, so will leave further clarification to those with a better understanding of the subject. But a good starting place for discussion is to have an understanding of the relevant terms Regards, Doug Windhorn. ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Coloccia" <john@ballofshame.com> Sent: Sunday, 04 February, 2007 8:52 Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held > <john@ballofshame.com> > > Has anyone taken a radio, say an SL-30, and measured the resistance of the > antenna input when the radio is off? If it's anywhere near 50 ohms, this > problem is trivial to solve with a T coax fitting and a 50 ohm terminator. > > -John > www.ballofshame.com > > Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >> <nuckollsr@cox.net> >> >> At 12:09 PM 2/4/2007 +0000, you wrote: >> >>> <trigo@mail.telepac.pt> >>> >>> With so many different opinions about that little ICOM mixer box, and >>> Bob N.'s new bad opinion about his own box, I am glad to have decided to >>> install 2 antennas: one in the upper fuselage skin, exclusively >>> dedicated to my panel mounted COMM, and the other in the belly, >>> exclusively for the hand held. >>> And it's not so obvious that my solution is heavier than the >>> sole-antenna-with-mixer-and-adapters one ... After all, I needed some >>> weight behind the baggage compartment ... >>> OK, there's also the aesthetic and aerodynamics issues of two sticks >>> protruding from the bird ... >> >> A dedicated antenna is ALWAYS the simplest, most reliable >> means for making sure your hand held is not crippled along >> with the panel mount because something common to both radios >> in the antenna system came unhooked. This scenario is exceedingly >> unlikely . . . after all, how many parts are shared and how >> vulnerable are they to failure? >> >> I'm not sure I've read a cogent opinion about the >> ICOM box yet. One individual opined as to the choice of >> connectors but offered nothing about real performance >> losses or longevity in the a/c. >> >> The jury is still out on this folks . . . and even >> if we do craft something perceived to be a cut above >> the present technologies, that doesn't necessarily make >> the current offerings "bad" . . . they're simply >> candidates for improvement. If someone could identify >> a 3.5mm jack that's more robust than the Radio Shack part >> I used in the original article, that would be an attractive >> step up. I've got some ICOM boxes coming. Let's tear one open >> and see what they look like. >> >> 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
    Time: 10:20:33 AM PST US
    From: John Coloccia <john@ballofshame.com>
    Subject: Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held
    If you short a 50 ohm resistor across the end of a 50 ohm coax, you will effectively remove that "leg" of the cable from the circuit so far as back reflection is concerned. This is called terminating. Basically, the 50ohm resistor acts the same as an infinitely long coax, if that makes sense? So if radio manufacturers where clever, they would setup their antenna inputs to short across a 50ohm load when the unit is off, effectively terminating their end of the cable. On the panel, you use a T with a 50 ohm terminator in the panel side. If you need to use a handheld, you can turn off the panel mount and replace the 50 ohm terminator with your handheld input. The downside is that you will loose range. Don't take any of this as a suggestion. It was just something that flashed into my brain this morning when I thought about how to make every compatible. I think this would work but you'd sacrifice performance, so it's probably not viable. -John Doug Windhorn wrote: > <N1DeltaWhiskey@comcast.net> > > John, > > Not sure what you are getting at here, but simply measuring the in > "resistance" of the antenna input will, I think, tell you little. Or, > maybe I am missing what you are suggesting. > > Did a quick look at "characteristic impedance" on Wikipedia. When one > talks about transmission cables (and matching connections), impedance > is the "apparent resistance" to AC signals that the line is rated in, > not simple resistance. I believe you are talking about measuring the > impedance, not solely the resistance, of the input. > > I could surmise some thing about this, but probably make myself look a > little (maybe a lot) unknowledgeable, so will leave further > clarification to those with a better understanding of the subject. > But a good starting place for discussion is to have an understanding > of the relevant terms > > Regards, > > Doug Windhorn. > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Coloccia" <john@ballofshame.com> > To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com> > Sent: Sunday, 04 February, 2007 8:52 > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the > hand-held > > >> <john@ballofshame.com> >> >> Has anyone taken a radio, say an SL-30, and measured the resistance >> of the antenna input when the radio is off? If it's anywhere near 50 >> ohms, this problem is trivial to solve with a T coax fitting and a 50 >> ohm terminator. >> >> -John >> www.ballofshame.com >> >> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >>> <nuckollsr@cox.net> >>> >>> At 12:09 PM 2/4/2007 +0000, you wrote: >>> >>>> <trigo@mail.telepac.pt> >>>> >>>> With so many different opinions about that little ICOM mixer box, >>>> and Bob N.'s new bad opinion about his own box, I am glad to have >>>> decided to install 2 antennas: one in the upper fuselage skin, >>>> exclusively dedicated to my panel mounted COMM, and the other in >>>> the belly, exclusively for the hand held. >>>> And it's not so obvious that my solution is heavier than the >>>> sole-antenna-with-mixer-and-adapters one ... After all, I needed >>>> some weight behind the baggage compartment ... >>>> OK, there's also the aesthetic and aerodynamics issues of two >>>> sticks protruding from the bird ... >>> >>> A dedicated antenna is ALWAYS the simplest, most reliable >>> means for making sure your hand held is not crippled along >>> with the panel mount because something common to both radios >>> in the antenna system came unhooked. This scenario is exceedingly >>> unlikely . . . after all, how many parts are shared and how >>> vulnerable are they to failure? >>> >>> I'm not sure I've read a cogent opinion about the >>> ICOM box yet. One individual opined as to the choice of >>> connectors but offered nothing about real performance >>> losses or longevity in the a/c. >>> >>> The jury is still out on this folks . . . and even >>> if we do craft something perceived to be a cut above >>> the present technologies, that doesn't necessarily make >>> the current offerings "bad" . . . they're simply >>> candidates for improvement. If someone could identify >>> a 3.5mm jack that's more robust than the Radio Shack part >>> I used in the original article, that would be an attractive >>> step up. I've got some ICOM boxes coming. Let's tear one open >>> and see what they look like. >>> >>> Bob . . . >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >


    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
    Time: 10:20:36 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: FAA woes . . .
    At 07:55 AM 2/4/2007 -0500, you wrote: > >That, sir, gets a bookmark all its own in my "favorite places" folder. >Have you considered writing for Mark Alexander's PatriotPost.us? I >believe they have a second career for you. > >Thanks & do not archive Thank you for the kind words and your understanding . . . but I've got too many careers already and my major career change focus now needs to be for launching the Wichita graymatter collective. I have been working on another book . . . it's a collection of essays that take on the task of disassembling what appear to be complex features of our lives down to simplest components. It's for my grandchildren. A major theme through the writing illuminates the fact that the livelihood of many citizens depends on other citizens believing that some task or level of understanding is too complex for individuals to be entrusted with. They go out of their way to increase perceived levels of complexity so as to maintain their positions as learned arbiters of weighty matters. They sandbag their self-exalted positions by words, actions and even threat of punishment (force of law) that are fraudulent but plausible because (1) we ARE as a nation exceedingly ignorant of the fundamentals - not stupid but ill-informed and (2) the words and actions are by persons having airs of authority most of which are not supported by honorable behavior or demonstrable skills beyond the art selling of their particular brand of snake oil. When illuminated and disassembled under the microscope, the premises upon which all such parasites exist at the expense of others falls apart. Like the 'Connection, the Simple Ideas Occasional is a living work. When I'm reasonably satisfied with the initial body of material, publication will begin on another website NOT YET in service a http://simple-ideas.org Fly comfortably sir. 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
    Time: 10:23:41 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held
    At 10:04 AM 2/4/2007 -0500, you wrote: >In a message dated 2/4/2007 6:16:28 A.M. Central Standard Time, >trigo@mail.telepac.pt writes: >With so many different opinions about that little ICOM mixer box, and Bob >N.'s new bad opinion about his own box, I am glad to have decided to install >2 antennas: one in the upper fuselage skin, exclusively dedicated to my >panel mounted COMM, and the other in the belly, exclusively for the hand >held. >And it's not so obvious that my solution is heavier than the >sole-antenna-with-mixer-and-adapters one ... After all, I needed some weight >behind the baggage compartment ... >OK, there's also the aesthetic and aerodynamics issues of two sticks >protruding from the bird ... > >Carlos >RV-9A, still wiring >Good Morning Carlos, > >Many years ago in a land far, far away, I was a fairly active participant >in the competitive glider flying scene. > >Many of my friends used a hole in the belly through which they shoved an >antenna when they wanted to use their radio. I tried it a few times and it >seemed to work OK. For competitive flying, the hole was covered with a >hunk of two hundred mile per hour white racing tape (otherwise known as 3M >electrical tape.) Hmmmm . . . don't know if I dare admit this but for a time I had a "portable antenna" that could be taped to the strut of a high wing airplane, coax routed down the strut and through the lower aft corner of one of those cabin doors that never did shut tight. . . . or through a fresh air scoop that didn't feature screened ducts. It offered a quantum jump in performance for the little 1 watt hand-held and it's performance-limited rubber duck antenna. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ----------------------------------------


    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
    Time: 11:14:47 AM PST US
    From: Dave N6030X <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
    Subject: Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held
    John, I don't think it's as simple as that. If you put a 50 ohm resistor at the end of a piece of coax you are transmitting into, the resistor becomes a "dummy load", and will heat up to the extent that it is rated near the power level of the transmitter. You cannot then simply add a T connector to another device and assume that the dummy load will be invisible to the system. If you connect a handheld radio with a 2W output into the receiver input of a panel mounted radio, you'd better hope that receiver's input section is capable of handling that level of power. I'm not sure any of them are. Dave Morris At 12:19 PM 2/4/2007, you wrote: > >If you short a 50 ohm resistor across the end of a 50 ohm coax, you >will effectively remove that "leg" of the cable from the circuit so >far as back reflection is concerned. This is called >terminating. Basically, the 50ohm resistor acts the same as an >infinitely long coax, if that makes sense? > >So if radio manufacturers where clever, they would setup their >antenna inputs to short across a 50ohm load when the unit is off, >effectively terminating their end of the cable. On the panel, you >use a T with a 50 ohm terminator in the panel side. If you need to >use a handheld, you can turn off the panel mount and replace the 50 >ohm terminator with your handheld input. The downside is that you >will loose range. > >Don't take any of this as a suggestion. It was just something that >flashed into my brain this morning when I thought about how to make >every compatible. I think this would work but you'd sacrifice >performance, so it's probably not viable. > >-John > >Doug Windhorn wrote: >><N1DeltaWhiskey@comcast.net> >> >>John, >> >>Not sure what you are getting at here, but simply measuring the in >>"resistance" of the antenna input will, I think, tell you >>little. Or, maybe I am missing what you are suggesting. >> >>Did a quick look at "characteristic impedance" on Wikipedia. When >>one talks about transmission cables (and matching connections), >>impedance is the "apparent resistance" to AC signals that the line >>is rated in, not simple resistance. I believe you are talking >>about measuring the impedance, not solely the resistance, of the input. >> >>I could surmise some thing about this, but probably make myself >>look a little (maybe a lot) unknowledgeable, so will leave further >>clarification to those with a better understanding of the subject. >>But a good starting place for discussion is to have an >>understanding of the relevant terms >> >>Regards, >> >>Doug Windhorn. >> >> >> >> >>----- Original Message ----- From: "John Coloccia" <john@ballofshame.com> >>To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com> >>Sent: Sunday, 04 February, 2007 8:52 >>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with >>the hand-held >> >> >>><john@ballofshame.com> >>> >>>Has anyone taken a radio, say an SL-30, and measured the >>>resistance of the antenna input when the radio is off? If it's >>>anywhere near 50 ohms, this problem is trivial to solve with a T >>>coax fitting and a 50 ohm terminator. >>> >>>-John >>>www.ballofshame.com >>> >>>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >>>>III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> >>>> >>>>At 12:09 PM 2/4/2007 +0000, you wrote: >>>> >>>>><trigo@mail.telepac.pt> >>>>> >>>>>With so many different opinions about that little ICOM mixer >>>>>box, and Bob N.'s new bad opinion about his own box, I am glad >>>>>to have decided to install 2 antennas: one in the upper fuselage >>>>>skin, exclusively dedicated to my panel mounted COMM, and the >>>>>other in the belly, exclusively for the hand held. >>>>>And it's not so obvious that my solution is heavier than the >>>>>sole-antenna-with-mixer-and-adapters one ... After all, I needed >>>>>some weight behind the baggage compartment ... >>>>>OK, there's also the aesthetic and aerodynamics issues of two >>>>>sticks protruding from the bird ... >>>> >>>> A dedicated antenna is ALWAYS the simplest, most reliable >>>> means for making sure your hand held is not crippled along >>>> with the panel mount because something common to both radios >>>> in the antenna system came unhooked. This scenario is exceedingly >>>> unlikely . . . after all, how many parts are shared and how >>>> vulnerable are they to failure? >>>> >>>> I'm not sure I've read a cogent opinion about the >>>> ICOM box yet. One individual opined as to the choice of >>>> connectors but offered nothing about real performance >>>> losses or longevity in the a/c. >>>> >>>> The jury is still out on this folks . . . and even >>>> if we do craft something perceived to be a cut above >>>> the present technologies, that doesn't necessarily make >>>> the current offerings "bad" . . . they're simply >>>> candidates for improvement. If someone could identify >>>> a 3.5mm jack that's more robust than the Radio Shack part >>>> I used in the original article, that would be an attractive >>>> step up. I've got some ICOM boxes coming. Let's tear one open >>>> and see what they look like. >>>> >>>> Bob . . . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >


    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
    Time: 11:23:33 AM PST US
    From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
    Subject: Re: Cause and effect in a regulated world.
    WOW ! ! This exchange is something we could all consider for forwarding to our congressmen, state representatives, and local school boards. I for one do not know who Bob is responding to. Larry in Indiana . ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 6:45 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Cause and effect in a regulated world. > <nuckollsr@cox.net> > > At 11:14 AM 2/3/2007 -0600, you wrote: > > This will be my last comment as I have airplanes to work on and, frankly > it's more fun and much more productive. > Have any of you heard of the Sport Pilot Rule? If the FAA is sooooo bad, > how do you explain what is arguably the most progressive movement > in flying? > > Yes, a step forward in one venue amongst > years of stepping backward in others. We > should take care lest our grateful reaction > to little tid-bits of 'progress' blind our > willingness to study or even be aware of > the big picture. > > Along with my LSA repairman maintenance ticket, I was given the phone > number of Edsel Ford, the administrator in charge of Sport Pilot, and told > if I had any questions or concerns, please, call him direct, he wants to > keep track of "his guys". Hell, he even came and audited the first class. > Seen anybody from the bureaucracy working that hard for you lately? > > I know lots of really good people who work > for the FAA too. Many are dedicated folks > who have reason to be proud of their personal > achievements and honorable behavior . . . > > Every barrel has a few bad apples, look at the fine time we have here with > GMCjetpilot. The trick is to get rid of the bad apples and keep the rest > of the barrel. > > This isn't about the people, it's about the whole > premise as to what we as responsible citizens of > a democratic republic should expect or even accept > from government. Are we NOT the consumers who > pay the tariffs for goods and services they offer? > > As for FAA causing the demise of GA, I'd argue that cost has a lot more to > do with it than anything else. Just eight years ago, when I finally got > around to finishing my PPL, a 172 was $60 an hour, wet. What is it now? > When I worked for Cessna in the mid seventies a new 172 was in the low > $20K range. All the cost of TC had been amortised long before that and > look what a 172 costs today. When you're paying a disproportionate amount > of your hard earned income for catastrophic health care extortion, er > insurance, where do you find the money for an activity like flying UNLESS > it is directed toward your economic improvement? > > True, costs have risen disproportionately to other > technology driven venues. When I worked at Cessna > in '63 I think a 150 cost about $5,000 and a 172 was > about $7,500. In 1963 you could buy a Ford Falcon > with all the goodies offered for $2,500. > > According to the inflation calculator at . . . > > http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ > > . . . you have to spend about $15,000 to get the same > value for an entry level automobile today. Okay, go > out and see what you can buy for that kind of money > and compare it with the features offered cars sold > for $2500 in 1963. I'd say that cars, like MOST > products we buy today have improved tremendously in > value after considering inflation-adjusted, lower > out-of-pocket costs. > > A piece-o-crap Firestone 500 (best-we-knew-how-to-do) > cost me about $40 in 1963. What kind of tires can I buy > for $240 each today? Shucks, my last set of top-o-the- > line tires for my van cost me about $500 for THE SET. > > Now consider that C-172. The inflation calculator says > that machine should sell for $49,000 today. Hmmmm . . . > are the airplane companies reaping huge windfall profits? > Is somebody getting paid too much to build them? What's the > deal? > > Aircraft manufacturing is exceedingly labor intensive. Because > of low volumes and high development costs, there has been > very little motion toward automated assembly . . . but there > are limits to what can be realized there as well. What I've > personally observed over the years is that we spend 2 to 3 > times more person hours in shepherding a new product to the > airplane than we did 30 years ago. Further, all of that > increased labor did NOT go into improving on the-best-we- > know-how-to-do . . . to the contrary, we spend less effort > toward that goal. Unless you pull the wheels up, a C-172 > doesn't perform any better today than in did in 1963. > According to the site at . . . > > http://skyhawk.cessna.com/pricelist.chtml > > a Garmin GA Equipped Skyhawk 172R will set you back $219,500. > Take out all the avionics and I'll bet it's still about $180,000. > That's $30,000 in 1963 dollars! > > I'm sad to report that we do less engineering and more > certification in the process of bringing new products to > aviation. Needless to say, all the extra labor adds to > out-the-door costs for the airplane while adding nothing > to its value. > > A fair amount of blame can be trowled on to school systems more interested > in training children to take meaningless tests than in actual learning, > too. > > An interesting point . . . but consider the bureaucrat's > role in "managing" an educational system. Anybody outside > the classroom except for the janitor is a bureaucrat. > They do not teach, they can only make rules, police rules and > punish transgressors of the rules. Furthermore, they draw > salaries and benefits without adding to the task of > product delivery in the classroom. Sound like government? > Okay, government goes to the bureaucrats in charge of > schools and says, "you ain't cut'n it Jake. Shape up > or we'll punish you (cut off funds)." What tools do > bureaucrats have to guage performance? Of course - > standardized tests. All this posturing, rule making, > policing, test taking and threat of punishment totally > ignores the simple-ideas that govern the educational > process: > > Teachers who possess a command of simple-ideas and > a willingness and talent for explaining how they are > used to do useful things like communicate, calculate, > bring new and beneficial ideas into a free-market > economy and to be responsible and honorable users of > those ideas. And most important - understand how we got > where we are and what duties the honorable citizen takes > on under a democratic republic. > > This is best achieved when consumers (parents) have > absolute responsibility and control over the services > they're paying for (knowledge and talents of teachers). > When I was in grade school, the school board (5 citizens > at zero salary) hired one bureaucrat (a principal at > a salary about 1.5x that of a teacher), and the principal > hired teachers. The parents (through their fellow citizens > on the school board and an exceedingly small bureaucracy > of one) had short-coupled input to ALL the suppliers > of goods and services offered in the classroom. (Medicine > Lodge, KS circa 1949-1953.) Anyone from the state of Kansas > or Washington, DC who decided to dictate anything would have > been told to "take a hike." Our teachers goals were to > EXCEED what were then suggested 'standards' for education. > I suspect they met their own goals. It's a sad state of > affairs when schools today are struggling to even meet perfectly > reasonable minimums. > > It was a certainty that I received a higher quality > of education then than anyone gets today where the > focus shifts from teaching to raising test scores > to forestall loss of funding (got to keep all those > bureaucrats employed and their pension fund contributions > flowing). I suspect that most school systems could get > along nicely without funds from Washington if they > operated with a truly utilitarian bureaucratic staff. > But there are other systems that would need to be tossed > out as well. > > A study of the big picture reveals that it's not a > "breakdown of schools" but no-value added growth in > several systems that have been allowed to take over schools. > Systems where the consumer/supplier relationship has been > corrupted to benefit the systems and forsake a > responsibility to good teachers, willing students > and those parents who view schools as having duties > beyond that of keeping their kids off the streets a few > hours a day. > > Flying takes hard work and a dedication to continued learning. Our school > boards seem to be more interested in finding out how many angels can dance > on the head of a pin, than in giving kids a good grounding in science. > I've done presentations at elementary and high schools to kids who have > never heard much of anything about aviation except that it is used by > vacationers and terrorists. > And as for my wanting to save the stupid from themselves, I believe the > adage that aviation is like a self cleaning oven. When my oven is cleaned, > the nightly news doesn't find much interest, unlike the Cessna 150 hanging > upside down from the power lines. > > Your cynicism is well stroked by anecdotal observations > but I think the underlying cause for increases in the > price of airplanes AND the perceived reduction in > numbers of responsible and capable folks to use them > has roots that go right down to public perceptions > of the proper function of government. For every responsibility > we turn over to someone else, a bit of freedom > is lost. Further, a constant companion to loss of personal > freedom is loss of efficiency coupled with loss > of the consumer's choice to refuse to pay for an inferior > product and force a poor performing producer out of business. > > The short answer is: Everything we allow government > to touch becomes more expensive and offers less value > than products which compete with each other in the > marketplace. Every service supplied by government is > non-competitive and what-you-see-is-what-you-get. In > the few cases where we're allowed to refuse a service, > we are compelled to pay for it anyhow. Therefore, producers > of poor product are not at risk for going under due > to lack of customer acceptance. Aviation, medicine and > schools are great demonstrations of how this phenomenon > works when compared to computers, automobiles, and > most consumer products. > > Plotting present trends in aviation, medicine and > schools out into the future does not paint an attractive > picture in my mind. I'll leave it to you to paint your > own pictures. But if we're going to react to injustices > heaped upon us as a MINORITY of pilots, we'll have to > support those objections as a MAJORITY of honorable > citizens who expect better behavior from their government. > > In the final analysis, if government adhered to the > Constitution, then there would be no special interest > groups prowling the halls of Congress or pitching their > complaint du jour to the world . . . that's because > government would not be making legislation that puts > one citizen or group of citizens above or below another. > > I.e., if the only thing your legislators are chartered > to do is protect liberty, then it matters not who you > send. Further, there will be no troughs to fight over for > a great share of the public purse. Lobbyists would be > out of a job! > > > Bob . . . > > >


    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
    Time: 11:55:38 AM PST US
    From: John Coloccia <john@ballofshame.com>
    Subject: Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held
    Yes, of course you're right Dave. I was just thinking out loud, I guess. -John Dave N6030X wrote: > <N6030X@DaveMorris.com> > > John, I don't think it's as simple as that. > > If you put a 50 ohm resistor at the end of a piece of coax you are > transmitting into, the resistor becomes a "dummy load", and will heat > up to the extent that it is rated near the power level of the > transmitter. You cannot then simply add a T connector to another > device and assume that the dummy load will be invisible to the system. > > If you connect a handheld radio with a 2W output into the receiver > input of a panel mounted radio, you'd better hope that receiver's > input section is capable of handling that level of power. I'm not > sure any of them are. > > Dave Morris > > At 12:19 PM 2/4/2007, you wrote: >> <john@ballofshame.com> >> >> If you short a 50 ohm resistor across the end of a 50 ohm coax, you >> will effectively remove that "leg" of the cable from the circuit so >> far as back reflection is concerned. This is called terminating. >> Basically, the 50ohm resistor acts the same as an infinitely long >> coax, if that makes sense? >> >> So if radio manufacturers where clever, they would setup their >> antenna inputs to short across a 50ohm load when the unit is off, >> effectively terminating their end of the cable. On the panel, you >> use a T with a 50 ohm terminator in the panel side. If you need to >> use a handheld, you can turn off the panel mount and replace the 50 >> ohm terminator with your handheld input. The downside is that you >> will loose range. >> >> Don't take any of this as a suggestion. It was just something that >> flashed into my brain this morning when I thought about how to make >> every compatible. I think this would work but you'd sacrifice >> performance, so it's probably not viable. >> >> -John >> >> Doug Windhorn wrote: >>> <N1DeltaWhiskey@comcast.net> >>> >>> John, >>> >>> Not sure what you are getting at here, but simply measuring the in >>> "resistance" of the antenna input will, I think, tell you little. >>> Or, maybe I am missing what you are suggesting. >>> >>> Did a quick look at "characteristic impedance" on Wikipedia. When >>> one talks about transmission cables (and matching connections), >>> impedance is the "apparent resistance" to AC signals that the line >>> is rated in, not simple resistance. I believe you are talking about >>> measuring the impedance, not solely the resistance, of the input. >>> >>> I could surmise some thing about this, but probably make myself look >>> a little (maybe a lot) unknowledgeable, so will leave further >>> clarification to those with a better understanding of the subject. >>> But a good starting place for discussion is to have an understanding >>> of the relevant terms >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Doug Windhorn. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Coloccia" >>> <john@ballofshame.com> >>> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com> >>> Sent: Sunday, 04 February, 2007 8:52 >>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the >>> hand-held >>> >>> >>>> <john@ballofshame.com> >>>> >>>> Has anyone taken a radio, say an SL-30, and measured the resistance >>>> of the antenna input when the radio is off? If it's anywhere near >>>> 50 ohms, this problem is trivial to solve with a T coax fitting and >>>> a 50 ohm terminator. >>>> >>>> -John >>>> www.ballofshame.com >>>> >>>> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >>>>> <nuckollsr@cox.net> >>>>> >>>>> At 12:09 PM 2/4/2007 +0000, you wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> <trigo@mail.telepac.pt> >>>>>> >>>>>> With so many different opinions about that little ICOM mixer box, >>>>>> and Bob N.'s new bad opinion about his own box, I am glad to have >>>>>> decided to install 2 antennas: one in the upper fuselage skin, >>>>>> exclusively dedicated to my panel mounted COMM, and the other in >>>>>> the belly, exclusively for the hand held. >>>>>> And it's not so obvious that my solution is heavier than the >>>>>> sole-antenna-with-mixer-and-adapters one ... After all, I needed >>>>>> some weight behind the baggage compartment ... >>>>>> OK, there's also the aesthetic and aerodynamics issues of two >>>>>> sticks protruding from the bird ... >>>>> >>>>> A dedicated antenna is ALWAYS the simplest, most reliable >>>>> means for making sure your hand held is not crippled along >>>>> with the panel mount because something common to both radios >>>>> in the antenna system came unhooked. This scenario is exceedingly >>>>> unlikely . . . after all, how many parts are shared and how >>>>> vulnerable are they to failure? >>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure I've read a cogent opinion about the >>>>> ICOM box yet. One individual opined as to the choice of >>>>> connectors but offered nothing about real performance >>>>> losses or longevity in the a/c. >>>>> >>>>> The jury is still out on this folks . . . and even >>>>> if we do craft something perceived to be a cut above >>>>> the present technologies, that doesn't necessarily make >>>>> the current offerings "bad" . . . they're simply >>>>> candidates for improvement. If someone could identify >>>>> a 3.5mm jack that's more robust than the Radio Shack part >>>>> I used in the original article, that would be an attractive >>>>> step up. I've got some ICOM boxes coming. Let's tear one open >>>>> and see what they look like. >>>>> >>>>> Bob . . . >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > >


    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
    Time: 11:57:26 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Cause and effect in a regulated world.
    At 01:22 PM 2/4/2007 -0600, you wrote: ><lhelming@sigecom.net> > >WOW ! ! This exchange is something we could all consider for forwarding >to our congressmen, state representatives, and local school boards. I >for one do not know who Bob is responding to. Larry in Indiana To whomever it makes sense . . . and no, this should not be forwarded to any of YOUR representatives. If you have an understanding of what's been offered and that understanding is now a tool in your personal dealings with your representatives . . . then by all means use these ideas as appropriate. For my words to be forwarded to anyone but my representatives makes them no better than punditry of which there is plenty of that already being ignored by every bureaucrat. The ideas have power only when they're part of any communication between yourself and those who depend on your largess (or apathy) to stay in power . . . Your representative is not interested in the ideas expressed by anyone but YOU. So use these as your understanding allows and continue to build on them. Bob . . .


    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
    Time: 12:01:40 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held
    At 01:12 PM 2/4/2007 -0600, you wrote: > >John, I don't think it's as simple as that. > >If you put a 50 ohm resistor at the end of a piece of coax you are >transmitting into, the resistor becomes a "dummy load", and will heat up >to the extent that it is rated near the power level of the >transmitter. You cannot then simply add a T connector to another device >and assume that the dummy load will be invisible to the system. > >If you connect a handheld radio with a 2W output into the receiver input >of a panel mounted radio, you'd better hope that receiver's input section >is capable of handling that level of power. I'm not sure any of them are. I'm unaware of any aviation equipment manufacturer that rates their products for ability to withstand large doses of energy fed directly into the receiver's input terminals. Unless you know that some radio you've installed is so featured, be VERY CAREFUL how you hook up any antenna changeover feature in your airplane. A simple swap of coax cables on the ICOM hand-held adapter would feed your hand-held's transmitter directly to the antenna input of your panel mounted receiver. All bets are off as to whether this would produce a happy outcome. 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
    Time: 12:11:57 PM PST US
    From: Dave N6030X <N6030X@DaveMorris.com>
    Subject: Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held
    Thinking outside the box is a good thing. At least the FAA allows it in the experimental aviation world. Dave At 01:54 PM 2/4/2007, you wrote: > >Yes, of course you're right Dave. I was just thinking out loud, I guess. > >-John > > >Dave N6030X wrote: >> >>John, I don't think it's as simple as that. >> >>If you put a 50 ohm resistor at the end of a piece of coax you are >>transmitting into, the resistor becomes a "dummy load", and will >>heat up to the extent that it is rated near the power level of the >>transmitter. You cannot then simply add a T connector to another >>device and assume that the dummy load will be invisible to the system. >> >>If you connect a handheld radio with a 2W output into the receiver >>input of a panel mounted radio, you'd better hope that receiver's >>input section is capable of handling that level of power. I'm not >>sure any of them are. >> >>Dave Morris >> >>At 12:19 PM 2/4/2007, you wrote: >>><john@ballofshame.com> >>> >>>If you short a 50 ohm resistor across the end of a 50 ohm coax, >>>you will effectively remove that "leg" of the cable from the >>>circuit so far as back reflection is concerned. This is called terminating. >>>Basically, the 50ohm resistor acts the same as an infinitely long >>>coax, if that makes sense? >>> >>>So if radio manufacturers where clever, they would setup their >>>antenna inputs to short across a 50ohm load when the unit is off, >>>effectively terminating their end of the cable. On the panel, you >>>use a T with a 50 ohm terminator in the panel side. If you need >>>to use a handheld, you can turn off the panel mount and replace >>>the 50 ohm terminator with your handheld input. The downside is >>>that you will loose range. >>> >>>Don't take any of this as a suggestion. It was just something >>>that flashed into my brain this morning when I thought about how >>>to make every compatible. I think this would work but you'd >>>sacrifice performance, so it's probably not viable. >>> >>>-John >>> >>>Doug Windhorn wrote: >>>><N1DeltaWhiskey@comcast.net> >>>> >>>>John, >>>> >>>>Not sure what you are getting at here, but simply measuring the >>>>in "resistance" of the antenna input will, I think, tell you little. >>>>Or, maybe I am missing what you are suggesting. >>>> >>>>Did a quick look at "characteristic impedance" on >>>>Wikipedia. When one talks about transmission cables (and >>>>matching connections), impedance is the "apparent resistance" to >>>>AC signals that the line is rated in, not simple resistance. I >>>>believe you are talking about measuring the impedance, not solely >>>>the resistance, of the input. >>>> >>>>I could surmise some thing about this, but probably make myself >>>>look a little (maybe a lot) unknowledgeable, so will leave >>>>further clarification to those with a better understanding of the subject. >>>>But a good starting place for discussion is to have an >>>>understanding of the relevant terms >>>> >>>>Regards, >>>> >>>>Doug Windhorn. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>----- Original Message ----- From: "John Coloccia" <john@ballofshame.com> >>>>To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com> >>>>Sent: Sunday, 04 February, 2007 8:52 >>>>Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with >>>>the hand-held >>>> >>>> >>>>><john@ballofshame.com> >>>>> >>>>>Has anyone taken a radio, say an SL-30, and measured the >>>>>resistance of the antenna input when the radio is off? If it's >>>>>anywhere near 50 ohms, this problem is trivial to solve with a T >>>>>coax fitting and a 50 ohm terminator. >>>>> >>>>>-John >>>>>www.ballofshame.com >>>>> >>>>>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >>>>>>III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> >>>>>> >>>>>>At 12:09 PM 2/4/2007 +0000, you wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>><trigo@mail.telepac.pt> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>With so many different opinions about that little ICOM mixer >>>>>>>box, and Bob N.'s new bad opinion about his own box, I am glad >>>>>>>to have decided to install 2 antennas: one in the upper >>>>>>>fuselage skin, exclusively dedicated to my panel mounted COMM, >>>>>>>and the other in the belly, exclusively for the hand held. >>>>>>>And it's not so obvious that my solution is heavier than the >>>>>>>sole-antenna-with-mixer-and-adapters one ... After all, I >>>>>>>needed some weight behind the baggage compartment ... >>>>>>>OK, there's also the aesthetic and aerodynamics issues of two >>>>>>>sticks protruding from the bird ... >>>>>> >>>>>> A dedicated antenna is ALWAYS the simplest, most reliable >>>>>> means for making sure your hand held is not crippled along >>>>>> with the panel mount because something common to both radios >>>>>> in the antenna system came unhooked. This scenario is exceedingly >>>>>> unlikely . . . after all, how many parts are shared and how >>>>>> vulnerable are they to failure? >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure I've read a cogent opinion about the >>>>>> ICOM box yet. One individual opined as to the choice of >>>>>> connectors but offered nothing about real performance >>>>>> losses or longevity in the a/c. >>>>>> >>>>>> The jury is still out on this folks . . . and even >>>>>> if we do craft something perceived to be a cut above >>>>>> the present technologies, that doesn't necessarily make >>>>>> the current offerings "bad" . . . they're simply >>>>>> candidates for improvement. If someone could identify >>>>>> a 3.5mm jack that's more robust than the Radio Shack part >>>>>> I used in the original article, that would be an attractive >>>>>> step up. I've got some ICOM boxes coming. Let's tear one open >>>>>> and see what they look like. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bob . . . >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >


    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
    Time: 12:25:18 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Circuit needed
    At 08:59 AM 2/4/2007 -0800, you wrote: >I think the problem here is that I haven't communicated what I want this >circuit to do. > >When I power up the aux fuel pump switch {Off-On-(On)}, I want an LED to >flash, indicating power on and no fluid being pumped. When I switch to >(On) the pump should energize, pump fuel and pressurize the line and >P-switch upstream of the check valve. The P-switch should now take over >the power delivery to the pump, as long as it's closed/open under >pressure, and light a steady ON LED, indicating fluid being pumped. When >the pump exhausts the aux tank fuel, pressure should go to 0psi, P-switch >opens/closes, pump stops, LED flashes indicating no more fuel in line. > >Downstream, of the check valve, is the EFI return line flow, with some >marginal amount of pressure, that I think will add to and be sufficient to >actuate the P-switch. > >Sorry for the confusion. Okay, I think I got it. Here's a cartoon of the concept. http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Schematics/Fuel_Pump_Controller.pdf Moving switch from OFF to ON puts power on a 555 timer arranged to flash an LED but the pump remains un-powered. Holding the switch in the (ON) position applies power to pump and biases the flasher to "stick" in the steady-on state. If pressure comes up sufficiently to close the pressure switch, then the pump will continue to run, the light will stay steady after the switch is released. When pressure drops below set point on switch, power is removed from the pump and the flasher is allowed to resume its transitions between states. This begs for a microcontroller to allow use of either a normally open or normally closed switch. Further, while holding the switch in the (ON) position, the light should not be allowed to stop flashing UNLESS pressure comes up indicating that the system will stay in the fuel transfer mode after the switch is released. Keep in mind that this is a simplified diagram intended to speak to operating concept. It needs to be fleshed out for parts values and system interface details . . . Do I have it right? Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ----------------------------------------


    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
    Time: 12:31:39 PM PST US
    From: "LarryRobertHelming" <lhelming@sigecom.net>
    Subject: Re: Cause and effect in a regulated world.
    ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net> Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 1:56 PM Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Cause and effect in a regulated world. > <nuckollsr@cox.net> > > At 01:22 PM 2/4/2007 -0600, you wrote: > >><lhelming@sigecom.net> >> >>WOW ! ! This exchange is something we could all consider for forwarding >>to our congressmen, state representatives, and local school boards. I >>for one do not know who Bob is responding to. Larry in Indiana > > To whomever it makes sense . . . and no, this should > not be forwarded to any of YOUR representatives. If > you have an understanding of what's been offered and > that understanding is now a tool in your personal > dealings with your representatives . . . then by all > means use these ideas as appropriate. For my words to > be forwarded to anyone but my representatives makes > them no better than punditry of which there is plenty > of that already being ignored by every bureaucrat. > > The ideas have power only when they're part of any > communication between yourself and those who depend > on your largess (or apathy) to stay in power . . . > > Your representative is not interested in the ideas > expressed by anyone but YOU. So use these as your > understanding allows and continue to build on them. > > Bob . . . > Good point. I thought your points on education were especially insightful and would be important to all those holding office that affects the future of our country. Please let me just say I agree with your writing and could not have expressed my feeling any better than you already have. Your wisdom spans far greater than aviation electronics. Thank you Bob. and do not archive


    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
    Time: 01:36:25 PM PST US
    From: BobsV35B@aol.com
    Subject: Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held
    In a message dated 2/4/2007 11:45:56 A.M. Central Standard Time, trigo@mail.telepac.pt writes: By the way, since I am very close with aeronautical competition (I'm involved with to 2 FAI Sports Commissions) I am curious where and when did you compete in glider flying? Good Afternoon Trigo, I was not a competitor. I operated a glider flight school and was a Schweizer dealer. My duties included flight instruction and I was an FAA Designated Pilot Examiner for gliders. I generally served as support crew or as a crew member to a competitor and did, on one occasion, serve as Contest Director when no one else could be conned into doing so. The time frame was from about 1958 to 1975. I still belong to a local glider club, but do not fly there often. Do Not Archive Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503


    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
    Time: 01:42:16 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Cause and effect in a regulated world.
    >Good point. I thought your points on education were especially insightful >and would be important to all those holding office that affects the future >of our country. Please let me just say I agree with your writing and >could not have expressed my feeling any better than you already >have. Your wisdom spans far greater than aviation electronics. Thank you Bob. Everyone can do it. Whether you're cooking with salt, flour, eggs, sugar, etc. or building electro-whizzies with transistors, capacitors and microcontrollers, it all comes down to identifying and understanding simple-ideas, ingredients that go into recipes-for-success. The vision of our founding fathers was deeply rooted in simple-ideas crafted into a recipe having the greatest possible chance for success while holding the protection of a citizen's liberty above all else. And while they would not have predicted our hassles with the FAA over what we can attach to our airplanes, they knew full well the consequences for failure of citizens to exercise a duty to protect and nurture THE recipe for success. But as two of my favorite authors (Paine and Bastiat) have explained, every society is plagued with individuals who do not understand nor do they embrace those ideals. We (United States) are a real-time demonstration of what happens when a recipe that stood us well for the first 150 years begins to get a bit more salt here, some more water there, and oh yeah . . . "that liberty" stuff is not for everybody." Some of my favorite questions of a bureaucrat: Do you embrace the idea of liberty? Is any citizen not entitled to liberty? If not, then who? If some citizens are not, then who should have the power to decide who and by what magnitude their liberty is sacrificed? Then make passing suggestion that they tune into C-span's coverage of either chamber of Congress. THOSE are the folks who have taken it upon themselves to limit the size and scope of anyone and everyone's liberty on a whim. Ask them to cite words from anyone's speech that gives one a warm fuzzy feeling as to motive and outcomes (ESPECIALLY unintended consequences) for having made "adjustments" to anyone's liberty. THOSE are the folks who need to get excited about the FAA slapping our wrists for putting a portable radio on the panel of personal property. Where do you believe this issue falls in their grand scheme of things and how likely is it that we'll get anyone's attention? That sacrifice of liberty thing is a disease. Once it takes root, it spreads. The longer it's around and ignored, the more comfortable we are with its presence in our lives. It's not complicated. The results were predicted by Bastiat 156 years ago. Now we're watching it happen before our very eyes. Smart fellow that Bastiat. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ----------------------------------------


    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
    Time: 02:25:20 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Audio book links
    Found free audio books for both Bastiat and Paine for those interested: http://www.freeaudio.org/fbastiat/thelaw.html http://www.freeaudio.org/tpaine/commonsense.html Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ----------------------------------------


    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
    Time: 02:36:33 PM PST US
    From: Larry Rosen <LarryRosen@comcast.net>
    Subject: Snap Bushing Through Thick Material
    I want to install a snap bushing through a thick piece of aluminum. The metal is too thick for the metal. Do I remove the snaps and glue it in place with E6000? -- Larry Rosen RV-10 #356 http://lrosen.nerv10.com


    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
    Time: 04:15:09 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Snap Bushing Through Thick Material
    At 05:36 PM 2/4/2007 -0500, you wrote: > >I want to install a snap bushing through a thick piece of aluminum. The >metal is too thick for the metal. Do I remove the snaps and glue it in >place with E6000? That works. Anything you do to line the hole with materials more friendly to wire bundles than aluminum is a good thing to do. E6000 is pretty tenacious stuff. Bob . . . ---------------------------------------- ( IF one aspires to be "world class", ) ( what ever you do must be exercised ) ( EVERY day . . . ) ( R. L. Nuckolls III ) ----------------------------------------


    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
    Time: 09:20:50 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the
    hand-held
    From: "Matt Prather" <mprather@spro.net>
    One more comment... If you make a T in a transmission line and each leg is of the same characteristic impedance there will be reflections generated at the T. A device transmitting from one leg of the T will see a section of the characteristic impedance line and then at the T the impedance will appear to be half the characteristic impedance. The (any) change in impedance in the transmission line will cause at least some reflection. At a T each edge coming out of the transmitter will be reflected at half the negative amplitude of the outbound signal. Needless to say, this is likely to cause hi SWR and low transmitted power. Regards, Matt- > <john@ballofshame.com> > > Yes, of course you're right Dave. I was just thinking out loud, I guess. > > -John > > > Dave N6030X wrote: >> <N6030X@DaveMorris.com> >> >> John, I don't think it's as simple as that. >> >> If you put a 50 ohm resistor at the end of a piece of coax you are >> transmitting into, the resistor becomes a "dummy load", and will heat >> up to the extent that it is rated near the power level of the >> transmitter. You cannot then simply add a T connector to another >> device and assume that the dummy load will be invisible to the system. >> >> If you connect a handheld radio with a 2W output into the receiver >> input of a panel mounted radio, you'd better hope that receiver's >> input section is capable of handling that level of power. I'm not >> sure any of them are. >> >> Dave Morris >> >> At 12:19 PM 2/4/2007, you wrote: >>> <john@ballofshame.com> >>> >>> If you short a 50 ohm resistor across the end of a 50 ohm coax, you >>> will effectively remove that "leg" of the cable from the circuit so >>> far as back reflection is concerned. This is called terminating. >>> Basically, the 50ohm resistor acts the same as an infinitely long >>> coax, if that makes sense? >>> >>> So if radio manufacturers where clever, they would setup their >>> antenna inputs to short across a 50ohm load when the unit is off, >>> effectively terminating their end of the cable. On the panel, you >>> use a T with a 50 ohm terminator in the panel side. If you need to >>> use a handheld, you can turn off the panel mount and replace the 50 >>> ohm terminator with your handheld input. The downside is that you >>> will loose range. >>> >>> Don't take any of this as a suggestion. It was just something that >>> flashed into my brain this morning when I thought about how to make >>> every compatible. I think this would work but you'd sacrifice >>> performance, so it's probably not viable. >>> >>> -John >>> >>> Doug Windhorn wrote: >>>> <N1DeltaWhiskey@comcast.net> >>>> >>>> John, >>>> >>>> Not sure what you are getting at here, but simply measuring the in >>>> "resistance" of the antenna input will, I think, tell you little. >>>> Or, maybe I am missing what you are suggesting. >>>> >>>> Did a quick look at "characteristic impedance" on Wikipedia. When >>>> one talks about transmission cables (and matching connections), >>>> impedance is the "apparent resistance" to AC signals that the line >>>> is rated in, not simple resistance. I believe you are talking about >>>> measuring the impedance, not solely the resistance, of the input. >>>> >>>> I could surmise some thing about this, but probably make myself look >>>> a little (maybe a lot) unknowledgeable, so will leave further >>>> clarification to those with a better understanding of the subject. >>>> But a good starting place for discussion is to have an understanding >>>> of the relevant terms >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Doug Windhorn. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Coloccia" >>>> <john@ballofshame.com> >>>> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com> >>>> Sent: Sunday, 04 February, 2007 8:52 >>>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the >>>> hand-held >>>> >>>> >>>>> <john@ballofshame.com> >>>>> >>>>> Has anyone taken a radio, say an SL-30, and measured the resistance >>>>> of the antenna input when the radio is off? If it's anywhere near >>>>> 50 ohms, this problem is trivial to solve with a T coax fitting and >>>>> a 50 ohm terminator. >>>>> >>>>> -John >>>>> www.ballofshame.com >>>>> >>>>> Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >>>>>> <nuckollsr@cox.net> >>>>>> >>>>>> At 12:09 PM 2/4/2007 +0000, you wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> <trigo@mail.telepac.pt> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> With so many different opinions about that little ICOM mixer box, >>>>>>> and Bob N.'s new bad opinion about his own box, I am glad to have >>>>>>> decided to install 2 antennas: one in the upper fuselage skin, >>>>>>> exclusively dedicated to my panel mounted COMM, and the other in >>>>>>> the belly, exclusively for the hand held. >>>>>>> And it's not so obvious that my solution is heavier than the >>>>>>> sole-antenna-with-mixer-and-adapters one ... After all, I needed >>>>>>> some weight behind the baggage compartment ... >>>>>>> OK, there's also the aesthetic and aerodynamics issues of two >>>>>>> sticks protruding from the bird ... >>>>>> >>>>>> A dedicated antenna is ALWAYS the simplest, most reliable >>>>>> means for making sure your hand held is not crippled along >>>>>> with the panel mount because something common to both radios >>>>>> in the antenna system came unhooked. This scenario is exceedingly >>>>>> unlikely . . . after all, how many parts are shared and how >>>>>> vulnerable are they to failure? >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure I've read a cogent opinion about the >>>>>> ICOM box yet. One individual opined as to the choice of >>>>>> connectors but offered nothing about real performance >>>>>> losses or longevity in the a/c. >>>>>> >>>>>> The jury is still out on this folks . . . and even >>>>>> if we do craft something perceived to be a cut above >>>>>> the present technologies, that doesn't necessarily make >>>>>> the current offerings "bad" . . . they're simply >>>>>> candidates for improvement. If someone could identify >>>>>> a 3.5mm jack that's more robust than the Radio Shack part >>>>>> I used in the original article, that would be an attractive >>>>>> step up. I've got some ICOM boxes coming. Let's tear one open >>>>>> and see what they look like. >>>>>> >>>>>> Bob . . . >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >


    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
    Time: 09:55:20 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
    Subject: Re: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the
    hand-held At 10:19 PM 2/4/2007 -0700, you wrote: > > >One more comment... If you make a T in a transmission line and each leg >is of the same characteristic impedance there will be reflections >generated at the T. A device transmitting from one leg of the T will see >a section of the characteristic impedance line and then at the T the >impedance will appear to be half the characteristic impedance. The (any) >change in impedance in the transmission line will cause at least some >reflection. At a T each edge coming out of the transmitter will be >reflected at half the negative amplitude of the outbound signal. Needless >to say, this is likely to cause hi SWR and low transmitted power. T-connectors cannot be used for sharing a single antenna with two transceivers. Under certain conditions, T-connector are used to divide power between multiple antennas in an array but they're also used in conjunction with some form of impedance transformers (usually 1/4-wave chunks of special coax) to keep all the SWR and power transfer gremlins at bay. The biggest problem with T-connectors for two transceivers and one antenna is that transmitter energy from the speaking transmitter is directly coupled to the input of the listening receiver. Not only are there SWR problems but potential for damage to the listening transceiver's front end. There ARE techniques for having two transceivers share a single antenna with a device called a diplexer. These are generally very narrow bandwidth devices. I've built diplexers that allowed a receiver bring in a 0.5 microvolt signal from an antenna that is simultaneously radiating 100 watts of power from a transmitter in the same cabinet. This is how repeaters are built . . . but they're fixed frequency devices. For example, a repeater I built to go up on the 1200-foot platform of KTVH . . .see http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/KTVH.gif used a duplexer (duplexer/diplexer . . . these terms are used interchangeably to describe a variety of devices used to effect some form of sharing for single antennas) that was about as big as the repeater. Example can be seen at: http://www.utm.edu/staff/leeb/duplexer.pdf It's not that two transceivers cannot share a single antenna efficiently . . . but it's done only under special circumstances and in situations where the two transceivers don't get very close to each other in operating frequency. Bob . . .




    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
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse AeroElectric-List 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.

    -- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --