Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:17 AM - Re: Avionics Master (to be or not to be) ()
2. 08:51 AM - Re: Re: Avionics Master (to be or not to be) (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 08:53 AM - Re: 5 Volt Dimmer (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 09:06 AM - Re: Panel Update (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 09:48 AM - Re: GS-Air Strobe Current 6 Amps (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 09:34 PM - Re: Re: Avionics Master (to be or not to be) (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 10:10 PM - Re: 5 Volt Dimmer (Don Vs)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Master (to be or not to be) |
Bob, I have learned my lesson not to debate you. I think
you take different opinions, disagreement too personally. I
am just taking the Pro to your Con. There's nothing personal.
You can make very persuasive rhetoric. To balance it out
some times it takes rhetoric and propaganda of my own to
make the counter point. It's not personal. It's only a tribute
to your well worded doctrine that one must make an effort
to present the other views.
You are entitled to your opinion, and again as well thought
and salient as your opinions are, I'm entitled to mine. In fact
I often and mostly agree with you, even here. I have no
disagreement with your points, but.............
My point is simple, when it comes to preference regarding
a non safety issue, where weight, cost and complexity
are not affect appreciably, than preference trumps all
opinion or reasoning. Its like circuit breakers or internal
v. external regulated alternators. To each his own.
***************************************************************
You want an avionics master put one in, done deal.
***************************************************************
I have no comments on your reply below, but some of its
not accurate or consistent with your past comments.
I will make one comment. In the past you have made it
clear that avionics should be made to the DO-160 spec
or they are not worth a darn as designers. Its moot, I
agree with you. However as an active builder Bob I can
tell you not all things going into homebuilt panels are
are as robust as you might think. Also old legacy radios
are still making their way into homebuilt panels, and my
Icom example, a new radio not to DO-160 specs. The
software type products also hate being on during start.
No damage just nuisance distracting reboots.
Other wise you have nit picked words and taken some
things too seriously, I stand by my original post with no
malice or ill will intended. I am just here to help.
It is clear we really don't disagree technically and most all
about words. You should have been a lawyer. You would
have been a good one. That is a compliment.
Cheers, No hard feelings. George ATP/CFI-II-ME/MSME
do not archive
Time: 07:04:38 AM PST US
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Avionics Master (to be or not to
be)
>
>From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
>Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 1:55 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com; gmvouga@hotmail.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Avionics Master (to be or not to be)
>
>Greg if you want a avionic master switch
>by golly PUT ONE IN, and be proud and
>happy, because it will work just like you
>think it will and know you like.
>
>After you plow thru all the required reading
>and "data" which is really an elaborate opinion
>dressed up with a bunch of gobbly-gook,
>bottom line its your choice and yours alone.
"Required"??? What's required of anyone
and who has taken it upon themselves to
levy such requirements? Please define
"gobbly-gook", is that a scientific term?
>Bob has good points, but there not all
>quintessential or relevant. For examples
>some modern avionics, like the very popular
>excellent Icom A200 com radio needs to be
>OFF during start! So does my old Collins
>transponder. You can use the little volume/off
>switch or mode switch and turn them on and
>off individually, but it's a pain. Bob may call
>for Icom's head and berate them for their
>design, but he is not going to buy you a new
>Icom when it fries. If you insist on leaving
>avionics on during start it could happen. By
>the way the ICOM A200 is an awesome
>radio and a super value, recommend.
Who has called for anyone's head? You
mis-represent or have mis-understood what
I've suggested. Are you asserting that
an Icom subjected to the normal, documented
and expected voltage excursions associated
with starting an engine is at risk for a
failure that generates a maintenance event?
Hmmm . . . In keeping with your understanding
of how the Icom is designed, should you also
turn it off if you're getting ready to turn
on an air conditioner compressor drive motor or
perhaps lower gear with a hydraulic pump
driven with a PM motor?
Icom is (or in my personal experience
at least was) the acknowledged leader in
operational quality of their radios. But does
this fact give them license to toss off
a rudimentary operating feature that the
vast majority of suppliers to aviation know
about, understand and embrace in the design
of their products? Are you certain that
Icom has assumed that license and chooses
admonish customers to pamper products that
suffer from rudimentary design deficiencies?
>One big fat beautiful avionics master
>switch is nice. You can of course avoid
>single point failure several ways. I
>think the e-bus will do it, or two
>switches in parallel, even a single
>throw, double pole switch would do it.
>Chance is the master switch will never
>fail, and once you throw that switch on
>its not going to fail, my opinion. Are
>you flying IFR at 18,000 ft or day/night
>vfr. Just use good old common sense.
If one has an E-bus with two feed paths,
the issue does not pivot on the probability
of failure for any single switch.
>I sometimes disagree with Bob and this is
>one of them. This is one of those topics
>Bob has a very strong opinion on, emphasis
>on opinion, but don't let any one tell you what
>to do when it comes down to preference,
>which this is.
I've told nobody to do anything. I've offered
design goals and backed them up with a recitation
of the underlying simple ideas and 46 years
of first hand design experience, customer service
and observation of the marketplace. You sir have
yet to support any assertions with an understanding
of either physics, fact or experience as a professional
>All you have to know is there is NOT a good
>reason for leaving an avionics master switch
>out of your panel. If that is what you want, it's
>very simple, you want it, put it in. It's common
>and useful even today.
And if you'd properly quoted me you would have
acknowledged the many times I've written as follows:
". . . if one wants an "avionics master" it could be
a switch in series with the diode . . . which prevents
problems from inadvertent switch operation. You still
have a backup from the alternate feed path which can
be used for either loss of main path -OR- provides
power when you've shut the main bus down after an
alternator system failure."
>Is opinion & preference not safety, end of story.
>
>Here is another professional opinion:
>
><http://avionicswest.com/articles.htm>http://avionicswest.com/articles.htm
An excellent recitation of dogma supported
by not one citation of fact in the physics
of anyone's design or the willingness of
manufacturer's to sign up to the best we know
how to do. I had lunch with a customer yesterday
to talk about pitch trim and flap actuation
systems for a new airplane. These will be processor
driven and have a lot of new features designed
to increase ride comfort and reduce pilot workload.
Neither of these designs will require operator
intervention to drag it back out of the
weeds or prevent damage due to a brown-out event
whether driven by and engine-start or any other
condition. The addition of these features will be
totally transparent to the pilot and passengers . . .
an expression and production of the best we know
how to do. Achieving this design goal adds less than
1% to cost of bill of materials and about the same to
the software task. I.e, it's easy to do so why not
do it?
>Good Luck, and don't over think it and
>use the KISS principle.
>George ATP/CFI-II-ME/MSME
Gee George, we wouldn't want to think about
it too much would we? I agree that thinking
without striving for understanding is
a waste of one's time. Hundreds of thousands
of airplanes have been built and flown
without burdening the pilots with a suggestion
that they understand how the electrical system
works . . . and the vast majority of those pilots
lived to a ripe old age. But from time to time,
one of those pilots (and the publisher of some
magazine) believes that a certain amount of
thinking would be useful . . . so we get the
dark-n-stormy night story that adds no understanding
but offers something to think about.
There are, no doubt, forums where dogma is
preached and thinking for understanding is not
promoted . . . that just happens not to be
what goes on in this forum.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Master (to be or not to be) |
At 06:16 AM 5/17/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>Bob, I have learned my lesson not to debate you.
You've never debated simple ideas or repeatable
experiments. Therefore, your frustration with the
fruitlessness of your efforts is understandable and
predictable.
>I think
>you take different opinions, disagreement too personally. I
>am just taking the Pro to your Con. There's nothing personal.
>You can make very persuasive rhetoric. To balance it out
>some times it takes rhetoric and propaganda of my own to
>make the counter point. It's not personal. It's only a tribute
>to your well worded doctrine that one must make an effort
>to present the other views.
Yes, I've started to read a variety of works on
philosophy . . . and put most of them down after
discovering that proffered ideas play down individualism,
don't recognize the value of understanding simple ideas.
I've also put the book down when it becomes apparent that
the writer believes it's okay for folks with power to
infringe on the liberties of others with less power.
This isn't about "taking it personally" . . . it's about
common sense and honorable behavior.
>You are entitled to your opinion, and again as well thought
>and salient as your opinions are, I'm entitled to mine. In fact
>I often and mostly agree with you, even here. I have no
>disagreement with your points, but.............
>
>My point is simple, when it comes to preference regarding
>a non safety issue, where weight, cost and complexity
>are not affect appreciably, than preference trumps all
>opinion or reasoning. Its like circuit breakers or internal
>v. external regulated alternators. To each his own.
>
>***************************************************************
>You want an avionics master put one in, done deal.
>***************************************************************
George, you're tossing TV dinners into a microwave
in a gourmet kitchen and calling it "okay, if that's
what you prefer or it makes you feel good."
>
>I have no comments on your reply below, but some of its
>not accurate or consistent with your past comments.
You're not going to be allowed to toss inferential
cabbages in under an aura of honorable debate. If
you have a past comment of mine to cite, do it.
I have every posting I've ever made to this list
in an archive. I'll send them to you a CD
if you need to do a search. All other words I've
written are on my website or in the book. If I've
stated something out of misunderstanding or in error,
nobody would he happier than I to correct it. However,
you're not going to get away with an off-hand inference.
These are the rules of REAL debate George.
>
>I will make one comment. In the past you have made it
>clear that avionics should be made to the DO-160 spec
>or they are not worth a darn as designers. Its moot, I
>agree with you. However as an active builder Bob I can
>tell you not all things going into homebuilt panels are
>are as robust as you might think. Also old legacy radios
>are still making their way into homebuilt panels, and my
>Icom example, a new radio not to DO-160 specs. The
>software type products also hate being on during start.
>No damage just nuisance distracting reboots.
So the avionics master avoids distracting reboots?
Hmmmm . . . power up, BOOT, get clearance, get the ATIS,
wiggle some switches to the checklist, power down,
start the engine, power up, REBOOT. Aside from
worries about brownout damage (which should be designed
out), how does the AVMaster hold "distracting reboots"
at bay? Is there a simple-idea we're missing here?
>
>Other wise you have nit picked words and taken some
>things too seriously, I stand by my original post with no
>malice or ill will intended. I am just here to help.
>
>It is clear we really don't disagree technically and most all
>about words. You should have been a lawyer. You would
>have been a good one. That is a compliment.
Its fortunate that I'm not vulnerable to insult or offense.
I cannot take that as a compliment. This forum is not
about persuasion. Persuasion is a tool of preachers,
politicians, used car salesmen, and trial lawyers. Persuasion
is intensely personal and I don't engage in it. Simple ideas
and understanding cannot be more impersonal. If you're
suggesting that I should compromise, know that I view
compromise as one of the ugliest ideas in human existence.
Compromise means that the best we know how to do always
looses alternative but lesser agendas win an incremental
victory.
An endless string of compromises have eroded and degraded
much of what made this country great. An endless stream
of compromises is wrecking a once great airplane company
I work for. I started this forum to explore and expand
on the best we know how to do based on understanding of
simple ideas and how they fit together into recipes for
success. Exactly how many switches one has on their panel
and what they do is immaterial to me if the designer is
feeling good about his achievements based on his
understanding and not upon the advice of me or anyone
else.
Your suggestion that one should "just do it
'cause you want to" is just another bag of popcorn
going into the microwave. I hope people hang out here
because they hope to achieve some level of understanding
of the specific pieces of equipment they own and a
healthy skepticism for assertions and claims made
in the marketing literature for those products.
>
>Cheers, No hard feelings. George ATP/CFI-II-ME/MSME
No hard feelings here either. Just a sadness that
the time and effort we've wasted here has accomplished
little more than to strengthen my resolve that microwaves
are useful for mediocre popcorn, pretty good rice and
warming a cup of cold coffee. The best we know how
to do is much more difficult to achieve but if it's
too hard, one needs only to un-subscribe. There are other
forums where the alphabet soup after your signature
generates instant respect. I have no "soup" to offer.
Only simple ideas that I'm obligated to explain and
designs I must demonstrate. Know further that useful debate
advances the best we know how to do. Debate is not used
to sell what we've always done based on lousy science.
Any notion that what you've often offered here should
be welcomed in an atmosphere of cooperation and compromise
doesn't fly . . . not in this kitchen.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: 5 Volt Dimmer |
At 08:16 PM 5/16/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>
> Bob,
>How is the testing going on the 5-volt dimmer you designed? Is it close to
>being ready to sell? Thanks in advance. Don
Sorry for the delay. I'm stirring some big pots right now.
The original idea had to be scrapped. Some products intended
for that application don't match their spec sheets. I'd
like to resurrect that project but it's not the fast-turn
program that was possible had the purchased parts made the
grade. Sorry but that item is on indefinite hold.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Panel Update |
At 12:16 PM 5/16/2007 -0400, you wrote:
><edchristian@knology.net>
>
>I would like some input on a Panel Update I am about to embark on.
>
>I have a VFR RV-6 with 0-360 with 2 mags and Vacuum System
>
>Looking to update Aircraft to "modified" Z-13/8 All Electric Plane.
>
>Modifications are as follows:
>
> 1. Keep basic Mags - no pMags
> 2. Basic 35amp automotive alternator plus SD-8 as shown
>
>New electric requirements would be:
>
>Dynon D10A or D-100
>Garmin 300XL GPS/Comm
>King KT-76 Transponder
>FlightCom 403 Intercom
>Ameri-King AK350 Encoder
>
>Keep basic steam gauges as back up - Altimeter, A/S, VVi, and Wing
>Leveler
>
>Flaps
>Land Lights
>Taxi Lights
>Strobe Lights
>Pos Lights
>Cockpit lights
>Instrument lights
>Fuel Guage
>Hobbs
>Trim - elevator only
>
>Keep basic engine instrument or update to Grand Rapids EIS or Rocky
>Mountain 101K
>
>Otherwise, everything done in accordance with Z-13/8
>
>Suggestions?
Not sure what anyone could offer here. Are you proposing to do
something that's out of the ordinary? Keep in mind that to go
flying takes little if anything in the way of electro-whizzies.
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Project_Photos/Jenny_1s.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Project_Photos/J-3.jpg
Any piece of equipment added to your project over and
above what's carried aboard these aircraft is a function
of what you want it to do, how you plan to use it, what
will fit your airplane, and whether or not you can afford
to buy it.
The list you've cited appears quite adequate to task for
the kinds of flying done by 90% or more of us GA pilots.
Without knowing how your plans might depart from what 90%
of us do, I can't think of a useful comment about your list.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | GS-Air Strobe Current 6 Amps |
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dennis
Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 6:55 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: GS-Air Strobe Current 6 Amps
Last week, a reader asked about sizing the fuse and wires for a GS-Air
strobe light power supply. The GS-Air strobe light is part of a wingtip
position and strobe light unit. The position lights are LEDs and the
strobe lights are conventional strobes. The strobes are powered by a
single, remote power supply. For more info:
www.gs-air.com
I replied that I used a 10 amp fuse instead of the 15 amp fuse in the
instruction manual and haven't had a problem in my first 50 hours of
flight. Bob asked me to measure the actual current draw, which I did today.
My GS-Air strobe power supply is model XPAK604X-HR, 60 watt 4 outlet strobe
power supply with half speed flash patterns. It has two selectable output
levels, high and low. I run mine on high. I bought mine a year or so ago
and this power supply was a new model and replaced the previous one. The
older model may consume more or less current than mine.
Using the "bar graph" function on my Fluke 87 meter, the current draw
fluctuated from zero to maybe 10 or so amps (I couldn't really tell), but
spent most of it's time between 5.5 and 6.5 amps. The bar graph function
on the display more or less duplicates an analog meter's response rate.
I had intended to use a cheap ($5 from Harbor Freight) analog meter, but it
could only measure up to 0.5 amp. Lucky for me, I read the meter's
instructions first and didn't blow the meter's fuse!
Dennis,
Thanks for going after this data for us and sharing it.
What you've observed is typical of many accessories
with cyclical power demands. In order to do a realistic
load analysis on some accessories, I've had to take it
to the bench and measure the current waveform for piecemeal
integration of the RMS or real-power current. But the
data that you've gathered confirms the validity of sizing
power to this system at 10A/16AWG.
My software guru is fiddling with one of the PIC
microcontrolers having a multi-channel, 10-bit
a/d converter on it with a USB engine. We're toying
with the idea of offering a low cost, data-acquisition
accessory to run with a lap top that would facilitate
the capture of cyclical data right off customer's
airplanes for remote analysis. Like our old friend
Lord Kelvin suggested, until you can measure something
for discussion by the numbers, you scarcely know anything
about it!
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Master (to be or not to be) |
At 06:16 AM 5/17/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>Bob, I have learned my lesson not to debate you.
George, you've never demonstrated an interest in discussing
simple ideas or repeatable experiments. But then simple
ideas are not debatable and repeatable experiments are
debatable only if they don't repeat. I guess it follows
that frustration with the futility of your efforts is
understandable and predictable.
>I think
>you take different opinions, disagreement too personally. I
>am just taking the Pro to your Con. There's nothing personal.
>You can make very persuasive rhetoric. To balance it out
>some times it takes rhetoric and propaganda of my own to
>make the counter point. It's not personal. It's only a tribute
>to your well worded doctrine that one must make an effort
>to present the other views.
Yes, I've started to read a variety of works on
philosophy . . . and put most of them down after
discovering that ideas proffered play down individualism
or don't recognize the value of understanding simple ideas.
I've also put books down when it becomes apparent that
the writer believes it's okay for folks with power to
infringe on the liberties of others with less power.
This isn't about "taking it personally" . . . it's about
common sense and honorable behavior.
>You are entitled to your opinion, and again as well thought
>and salient as your opinions are, I'm entitled to mine. In fact
>I often and mostly agree with you, even here. I have no
>disagreement with your points, but.............
>
>My point is simple, when it comes to preference regarding
>a non safety issue, where weight, cost and complexity
>are not affect appreciably, than preference trumps all
>opinion or reasoning. Its like circuit breakers or internal
>v. external regulated alternators. To each his own.
>
>***************************************************************
>You want an avionics master put one in, done deal.
>***************************************************************
George, you're tossing TV dinners into the microwave
in a gourmet kitchen and calling it "okay, if that's
what you PREFER or it makes you FEEL better."
>
>I have no comments on your reply below, but some of its
>not accurate or consistent with your past comments.
You're not going to be allowed to toss inferential
cabbages under an aura of honorable debate. If
you have a past comment of mine to cite, do it.
Every posting I've ever made to this list is
archived. I'll send them to you a CD if you need
to do a search. All other words I've written are
on my website or in the book. If I've stated something
out of misunderstanding or in error, nobody would he
more pleased than I to correct it. However, you're
not going to get away with tossing an off-hand inference.
Got a beef with something I've written? Do your homework
and quote the instance. These sir are the rules of REAL
and useful debate.
>
>I will make one comment. In the past you have made it
>clear that avionics should be made to the DO-160 spec
>or they are not worth a darn as designers.
You misquoted me. Deciding to ignore DO-160 is the
designer's privilege. If the designer says it's
for an airplane, then the consumer is entitled to know
the details of that design and then choose whether or
not they will purchase the product based on those
discoveries.
>Its moot, I
>agree with you. However as an active builder Bob I can
>tell you not all things going into homebuilt panels are
>are as robust as you might think. Also old legacy radios
>are still making their way into homebuilt panels . . .
. . . define legacy. DO-160 was predated by DO-138 which
was in turn predated by DO-108 going back well
into the vacuum tube days . . .
>and my Icom example, a new radio not to DO-160 specs.
Fine, if you KNOW of one radio on your bus that
does not sign up to DO-160 . . . exactly what portions
of DO-160 cause it heartburn? Can't you just turn
it OFF as opposed to adding an AVMaster to the entire
bus?
>The software type products also hate being on during start.
>No damage just nuisance distracting reboots.
So the avionics master avoids distracting reboots?
Hmmmm . . . power up, BOOT, get clearance, get the ATIS,
wiggle some switches to the checklist, power down,
start the engine, power up, REBOOT. Aside from
worries about brownout damage (which should be designed
out), how does the AVMaster stand off "distracting reboots"?
Is there a simple-idea we're missing here?
>
>Other wise you have nit picked words and taken some
>things too seriously, I stand by my original post with no
>malice or ill will intended. I am just here to help.
>
>It is clear we really don't disagree technically and most all
>about words. You should have been a lawyer. You would
>have been a good one. That is a compliment.
Its fortunate that I choose not to be vulnerable to insult
or offense for I cannot take that as a compliment. This
forum is not about persuasion. Persuasion is a tool of
preachers, politicians, used car salesmen, and trial lawyers.
Simple ideas and understanding cannot be more impersonal.
Teaching for the purpose of aiding to understanding
is personal but I do not recall a single instance of your
behavior as being that of a teacher.
If you're suggesting that I should compromise, know that
compromise is one of the ugliest ideas in human existence.
Compromise means that the best we know how to do looses
a square inch of hide in an incremental victory by an
alternative but lesser agenda. Compromise never makes things
better, it only makes the less capable go away for awhile
to await their next opportunity to "make a difference".
An endless string of compromises have eroded and degraded
much of what made this country great. An endless stream
of compromises is wrecking a once great airplane company
I work for. I started this forum to explore and expand
on the best we know how to do based on understanding of
simple ideas and how they fit together into recipes for
success. Exactly how many switches one has on their panel
and what they do is immaterial to me if the designer is
feeling good about his achievements based on his
UNDERSTANDING if the ingredients that go into HIS recipe
for success . . . and not upon the advice of me or anyone
else.
Your suggestion that one should "just do it
'cause you want to" is just another bag of popcorn
going into the microwave. I believe people hang out here
because they hope to achieve some level of understanding
of the specific pieces of equipment they own and a
healthy skepticism for assertions and claims made
in the marketing literature for those products.
>
>Cheers, No hard feelings. George ATP/CFI-II-ME/MSME
No hard feelings here either. Just a sadness that
the time and effort we've wasted here has accomplished
little more than to strengthen my resolve that microwaves
are useful for mediocre popcorn, pretty good rice and
warming a cup of cold coffee. I own two of them but I
don't do any real cooking with them.
The best we know how to do is much more difficult to
achieve but if it's too hard, one needs only to
un-subscribe and take advantage of a wealth of "guidance"
offered elsewhere.
There are other forums where the alphabet soup after
your signature generates instant respect. I have no
"soup" to offer . . . only simple ideas that I'm obligated
to explain and designs that must demonstrate their usefulness.
Know further that useful debate advances the best we know how
to do. Selling tradition based on lousy science is not debate,
it's an exercise in persuasion.
Any notion that what you've often offered here should
be welcomed in an atmosphere of cooperation and tolerated
in the spirit of compromise doesn't fly in this kitchen.
'lectric No SouP 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 |
|
OK I understand that. Can you recomend a ready built 5 volt dimmer? I
have the lighting built in to the panel so I can not get around using a 5
volt dimmer. Thanks. Don
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robert
L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: 5 Volt Dimmer
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 08:16 PM 5/16/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>
> Bob,
>How is the testing going on the 5-volt dimmer you designed? Is it close to
>being ready to sell? Thanks in advance. Don
Sorry for the delay. I'm stirring some big pots right now.
The original idea had to be scrapped. Some products intended
for that application don't match their spec sheets. I'd
like to resurrect that project but it's not the fast-turn
program that was possible had the purchased parts made the
grade. Sorry but that item is on indefinite hold.
Bob . . .
----------------------------------------
( "Physics is like sex: sure, it may )
( give some practical results, but )
( that's not why we do it." )
( )
( Richard P. Feynman )
----------------------------------------
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|