Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:41 AM - Re: Re: Power Opti-Miser (Chris Stone)
2. 06:41 AM - Explanation was Re: Power Opti-Miser (Ed Anderson)
3. 07:33 AM - Re: Re: Power Opti-Miser (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 08:14 AM - Re: Re: Power Opti-Miser (Ron Quillin)
5. 08:24 AM - Re: Power Opti-Miser (Eric M. Jones)
6. 09:58 AM - Re: Re: Power Opti-Miser (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 09:58 AM - Re: Re: Power Opti-Miser (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 11:41 AM - Re: Re: Lopresti HID claims (Ed Holyoke)
9. 12:46 PM - Re: Lopresti HID claims (Eric M. Jones)
10. 12:55 PM - Re: Lopresti HID claims (XeVision)
11. 05:16 PM - Re: LOOKING FOR RIGHT ANGLE BNC CONNECTOR (Noplugs)
12. 08:35 PM - Re: Re: LOOKING FOR RIGHT ANGLE BNC CONNECTOR (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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Power Opti-Miser |
Hmmmm...
I Googled "power miser nasa" and came up with nothing that had anything to do with
PF correction. Googleing "nasa power factor correction" did get some hits
for power factor correction on spacecraft. What am I missing?
Chris Stone
RV-8
-----Original Message-----
>From: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones@charter.net>
>Sent: Dec 10, 2009 1:55 PM
>To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Power Opti-Miser
>
>
>Yes, indeed it is possible and even money saving to use such a device. I was initially
puzzled how little technical stuff there was, but then I remembered that
NASA worked on, published and licensed everything in the early 1980s. (Patent
+ 20 years...hey!).
>
>Power-Miser technology was a big deal then: Google "Power Miser NASA" and you
will get lots of info. Or search the old NASA archives or patents around 1980.
>
>The way the thing works is er...ah...well...I think it might change the power
factor to match the load. I did a lot of work on power factor correction and I
can assure you saving money is possible. This works only on inductive loads as
far as I remember.
>
>The product is real, and so is the money savings. How long it takes to pay off
the device varies.
>
>--------
>Eric M. Jones
>www.PerihelionDesign.com
>113 Brentwood Drive
>Southbridge, MA 01550
>(508) 764-2072
>emjones@charter.net
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277034#277034
>
>
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: Explanation was Re: Power Opti-Miser |
Ah, Thanks Jay, for the refresher course - it has been a long time since
that bit of knowledge tried to take root in my brain. Excellent
explanation, clear and concise! Yes, I can see where unless there is a
constant load the phase angle would wander making it difficult to "match"
with the right capacitor value.
As usually, there is no "Free Lunch" in the real world and the number of
"bull hockey baffles the brain" promises on the web truly boggles the mind.
Unfortunately, a lot is swallowed by many folks who dish out there money
for the devices. The old saying "... if it sounds too good to be true..."
usually holds true.
By the way, how would like to extend the range of your aircraft by 500%,
I've got this design for a hydrogen catalytic stoichiometric mixer which
will enhance your fuel efficiency by 300% - verified by laboratory test
(conducted in my garage by me) Reasonably priced, cheap to operate and if
dissatisfied, you can return it for a newer, more efficient model for only
an 120% of the cost of the original - I mean how can you pass up a deal like
this{:>)
Thanks again, Jay
Ed
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.com
http://www.andersonee.com
http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
http://www.flyrotary.com/
http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jay Hyde
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 10:47 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Power Opti-Miser
You are on the right track Ed, an inductive load, such as a motor, will
produce a lagging current (the current phase angle lags, or is 'behind', the
voltage phase angle). An ideal inductor will produce a lag angle of 90deg,
and an ideal capacitor will produce a lead angle of 90deg, hence they cancel
one another (should you have an ideal inductor and capacitor of the same
size connected to your system) and the current is thus in phase with the
voltage.
The .... SNIP....
Another power saving device that one wants to steer clear of is something
called the 'Magniwork' generator. It promises substantial power savings and
a search of the web will get many hits that appear to verify the claim. A
colleague of mine paid the $60 for the plans and asked me to evaluate them.
They appeared impressive at first glance but it soon became apparent that it
was absolute nonsense and that the author was working on the 'bullshit
baffles brains' principle.
At least the capacitors are based on real engineering knowledge...
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed
Anderson
Sent: 10 December 2009 11:45 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Re: Power Opti-Miser
<eanderson@carolina.rr.com>
Just a wag, but from long ago, I seem to recall that an electric motor
(inductor) had the voltage lagging the current by 90 deg phase (or perhaps
it was the current lagging the voltage), in any case, you get the maximum
efficiency out of the juice if the voltage and current are in phase. I
can't recall the details, but seems I recall a capacitor was used to shift
the phase of the current to be in phase with the voltage.
Or perhaps something I dreamed as a youth {:>)
Ed
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.com
http://www.andersonee.com
http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
http://www.flyrotary.com/
http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
http://www.rotaryaviation.com/Rotorhead%20Truth.htm
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric M.
Jones
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 1:55 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Power Opti-Miser
<emjones@charter.net>
Yes, indeed it is possible and even money saving to use such a device. I was
initially puzzled how little technical stuff there was, but then I
remembered that NASA worked on, published and licensed everything in the
early 1980s. (Patent + 20 years...hey!).
Power-Miser technology was a big deal then: Google "Power Miser NASA" and
you will get lots of info. Or search the old NASA archives or patents around
1980.
The way the thing works is er...ah...well...I think it might change the
power factor to match the load. I did a lot of work on power factor
correction and I can assure you saving money is possible. This works only on
inductive loads as far as I remember.
The product is real, and so is the money savings. How long it takes to pay
off the device varies.
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones@charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277034#277034
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 3267 (20080714) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
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: Power Opti-Miser |
At 08:35 AM 12/11/2009, you wrote:
>
>Hmmmm...
>
>I Googled "power miser nasa" and came up with nothing that had
>anything to do with PF correction. Googleing "nasa power factor
>correction" did get some hits for power factor correction on
>spacecraft. What am I missing?
I'm not sure the NASA based commercial off the shelf
products were ever touted as "power factor" correction devices.
WAaaaayyyy back when, NASA used to publish what they
called "Tech Briefs". I used to read them as a young
buck tech writer at Cessna about 1964. These were
"ideas for design" offered into public domain when
the idea was not critical to national security or
some such. One could get a low or zero cost license
to use the idea by petitioning NASA . . . a sort of
back-door patent that only the government could pull
off so slickly.
I don't recall reading any briefs on "power saving"
devices for AC motors but some guy name Nola at NASA
probably published a very technical, properly
disclosed and accurately described idea on some means
of improving power distribution efficiency. See page 67
from this 1980 issue of Popular Science:
http://tinyurl.com/y8hfqla
Once you dump such ideas into the public domain,
all manner of entrepreneur is free to exploit that
information in the free market. Unfortunately,
the human condition all but guarantees that some
individuals will cherry pick, distort or even
grossly mis-represent both source for and effectiveness
of an idea.
The corollary factor of the human condition is that
the imagination of the ignorant and unwary consumer is
tweaked by phrases like: "developed by NASA", "proven in
independent laboratory tests", or even "Tiger Woods
wouldn't be without one."
The first flag to go up on any claim of power savings
is to check the numbers . . . 20, 25 or even 30% savings?
If a system that consumes say 10A at 120 VAC (1200 VAR)
is LOOSING 30% of its consumed power, then 300 watts
of LOST energy has to be coming off as heat. We know
that the only way an electro-mechanical device can
squander energy is by the diversion from useful output
to heat (friction) + I(squared)*R. We know further that
copper wire used to wind the motor has losses that cannot
be "corrected for".
So the nameplate efficiency ratings for any motor
(Eff% = power-out/power-in) takes those losses into
account AT THE NAMEPLATE current draw of the motor.
An endeavor to reduce losses from outside the motor
can only exploit our ability to correct power factor
thus reducing the I(squared)*R losses for the same
power output. While the efficiency of the motor may
go up (you now need to use more gas to heat the shop)
the effect on your power factor corrected light meter
is minimal. To gain 30% savings in I(squared)*R losses,
the current reduction for same power output has
to be reduced by 16% (.84 x .84 = .7). This means
PERFECT tuning of power factor (hard to do). Now,
apply these savings to a device like a table
saw, drill press or even your air compressor.
Assume you can wipe out ALL power factor induced
losses for a device with a 1% duty cycle over
a month's period of time. What "savings" are there
to be realized?
The TV hucksters are fond of showing you before/
after meter readings on an unloaded motor. The
REAL test is to put a 1 h.p. dynamometer load
on the motor for say, 10 hours. Then do a before/after
reading on your light-meter at the back of the house!
This is why I asked for a test report from the
promoter of the Opti-Miser. Any well crafted,
properly conducted, honestly reported cost study
of this product's effectivity would tell us exactly
how the claims are justified.
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Power Opti-Miser |
At 07:31 12/11/2009, you wrote:
> WAaaaayyyy back when, NASA used to publish what they
> called "Tech Briefs".
And they still publish the Tech Briefs today...
http://www.techbriefs.com/
Ron Q.
Message 5
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Power Opti-Miser |
I half suspect the problem is figuring out what to search. Miser is spelled a bunch
of different ways.
This will make it easier:
Check: energyexperts.org/EnergySolutionsDatabase/ResourceDetail.aspx?id=992
Also see attached for the original Nola NASA patent. You DO believe the government
don't you????
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones@charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277176#277176
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/alternatiff_printout_504.pdf
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: Power Opti-Miser |
At 10:22 AM 12/11/2009, you wrote:
>
>I half suspect the problem is figuring out what to search. Miser is
>spelled a bunch of different ways.
>
>This will make it easier:
>
>Check: energyexperts.org/EnergySolutionsDatabase/ResourceDetail.aspx?id=992
. . . and how does this article argue with anything
I've written?
>Also see attached for the original Nola NASA patent. You DO believe
>the government don't you????
What's NOT to believe? In the abstract for the patent
(all pages posted here: http://tinyurl.com/yeq6pvr )
the operational description cites a REDUCTION of power
to an unloaded motor. Okay, this is exactly how the
Opti-Miser was demonstrated in the YouTube video.
Now, we know that the thing was designed to work with
induction motors. We know that it improves on efficiencies
that manifest during an excursion from max operating load
to some lower load (like between cuts of lumber on
your table saw). We read further in the Popular
Science article that wattage reductions (translated
into realized savings) were most evident during
no load conditions . . . but still manifest during
high load situations. The article ends with the a
caveat: "Power savers work but you have to use them
wisely." Gee, do you suppose using them on a table
saw, drill press or air compressor is not especially
wise? Okay how about the compressor motor on your
air conditioner? That's a higher duty cycle, higher
energy load. But does it not run pretty much constant
load? And do you suppose that the capacitors already
bolted to the side of the machine have been selected
for pretty good operation out of the box?
Further, an examination of the circuitry in the patent
suggests why Mr. Nola called it a "controller"
as opposed to a "corrector". The classic approach to
power factor correction in an LCR network calls for
incorporation of good guy reactions (capacitors)
complimentary to bad guy reactions (inductors) so that
wasteful losses (in resistors) can be mitigated. Mr.
Nola's patent offers no complimentary reaction. It
simply watches for situations of light loading and
reduces applied power (with duty cycle switching) to
some lower but still useful value that keeps the motor
spinning. It is indeed a controller . . . not a
corrector.
I have yet to read ANY article wherein the author
compares real-watts-out (horsepower of a motor)
with real-watts-in and demonstrates a positive
return on investment as recorded on your light meter.
If you're aware of any such study, I'd be pleased to
read it. Do you have access to the reports cited
in the footnotes of the energyexperts.org article?
This isn't about what I believe. It's
about what I or anyone else can demonstrate.
Bob . . .
Message 7
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Power Opti-Miser |
At 10:07 AM 12/11/2009, you wrote:
>At 07:31 12/11/2009, you wrote:
>> WAaaaayyyy back when, NASA used to publish what they
>> called "Tech Briefs".
>
>And they still publish the Tech Briefs today...
>
>http://www.techbriefs.com/
cool. thanks!
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
Message 8
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Lopresti HID claims |
HIDs and LEDs are obviously better in lumens/watt than halogen. How
about lumens/$ ?
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
XeVision wrote:
>
>
> Eric M. Jones wrote:
>
>> Thanks,
>> Photometric units contain plenty of traps for the unwary.
>>
>> BTW: "Cree Achieves 186 Lumens per Watt from a High-Power LED
>> High-performance chip and R&D package combine for record-setting efficacy"
>>
>> Amazing.
>>
>
>
> Yes, I agree with your first comment.
>
> The 2nd is likely at lower drive levels, they (LED's) "droop" typically at higher
drive levels.
>
> We are watching the LED technology very closely. We work with Cree high powered
LED's in our flashlight offerings. LED can make a very good taxi light now,
but to collimate it for a landing light is still a big hurdle.
>
> It still has a way to go to compete with HID for landing lights. Especially 50
watt or 75 watt HID as we now have, 5300 and 8300 Lumens output each respectively.
35 watt HID produces about 3200 lumens compared to ~1600 lumens from a
100 watt incandescent such as the well known GE4509, very common in light single
and twins. Also the 24/28 volt version of the same 100 watt lamp, the same
1600 lumens.
> The 250 watt sealed beam incandescent aircraft lamps produce almost the same
lumens as a 35 watt HID.
>
> --------
> LED still has a long way to go to compete with HID as a landing light. This is
true in terms of total lumens and reach (distance).
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=276789#276789
>
>
>
Message 9
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Lopresti HID claims |
> HIDs and LEDs are obviously better in lumens/watt than halogen. How about lumens/$
?
>
> Pax,
>
> Ed Holyoke
Ed,
Lumens per dollar is probably not an interesting number. The battery cost and power
supply cost and replacement costs are more important. A magnesium flare excels
in lumens per dollar.
Light bulbs are usually classed in lumen-hours per dollar. For the pilot this is
less important than factors such as lumens per pound (all other things being
equal) lifetime, etc.
What is best, is a matter of accounting.
One more issue...the matter of "Throw". This is not a contemporary photometric
unit, and is expressed in "Peak Beam Candlepower". It is the brightest spot on
a far-field light beam. It is a function of the optics, not the lamp (or whatever
you want to call the thing that makes light in an LED.
To achieve the highest "throw" for given lumens, you need the tiniest source and
the biggest reflector (or short-focus huge lens). It is also true that the lumens
put out decrease on the sides if you send them to the middle, since lumens
are what the lamp puts out, regardless of how they are steered.
--------
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones@charter.net
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277211#277211
Message 10
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: Lopresti HID claims |
Ed,
Great question and glad you asked it.
A better way to compare them (than cost per lumen) is cost per hour (actual usage).
In the cost per lumen approach as you suggest, the INSTALLED cost for Halogen
is about $0.05 per lumen, for HID INSTALLED cost it is about $0.15 per lumen
so about triple the cost per lumen of the Incandescent option. Using $850
installed on HID (50 watt) ~5500 lumens and $80 installed on a 4509 with 1600
~lumens.
The incandescent lamps are good for 20-100 hours. Being liberal (optimistic) we
will use 50 hours for this calculation as a safe avg. For a very common usage
100 watt GE4509 delivered (shipping) you can expect to pay at least $20 / 50
hours = $0.40 per hour. This does not consider down time costs or labor costs
to install the GE4509 replacement, which likely raises this cost by a very significant
factor. It might cost $60 for a mechanic to install the replacement 4509.
This would now push the cost per usage hour to $1.60
For a 35 watt HID installed $500 HID + $300 (High estimated install cost) = $800
/ 3000 (3000 warranty) = $0.27 per hour. (27 cents per hour).
In all fairness, since the max warranty is 5 years, if you only fly 100 hours per
year X 5 = 500 hours. $800/500 hrs = $1.60 per hour. That is assuming it fails
at 5 years and 500 hours which is NOT very likely.
The 100 watt unit only produces about 1600 lumens of light while the HID about
3200 lumens, about double plus it is a much whiter more useful light. Better contrast
etc.
Since LED in our opinion is not yet suitable as a landing light except for possibly
VERY slow landing aircraft, I will not bother to compare them. They can be
a very good taxi light at this time.
When comparing these 2 technologies (HID & Incandescent) on a cost per hour basis,
HID is a clear winner by a very large margin. And the performance comparison,
there is "NO comparison". The 100 watt GE4509 is a "candle" compared to even
a 35w HID.
Dan
[quote="bicyclop(at)pacbell.net"]HIDs and LEDs are obviously better in lumens/watt
than halogen. How about lumens/$ ?
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
XeVision wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Eric M. Jones wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Photometric units contain plenty of traps for the unwary.
> > >
> > > BTW: "Cree Achieves 186 Lumens per Watt from a High-Power LED
> > > High-performance chip and R&D package combine for record-setting efficacy"
> > >
> > > Amazing.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Yes, I agree with your first comment.
> >
> > The 2nd is likely at lower drive levels, they (LED's) "droop" typically at
higher drive levels.
> >
> > We are watching the LED technology very closely. We work with Cree high powered
LED's in our flashlight offerings. LED can make a very good taxi light now,
but to collimate it for a landing light is still a big hurdle.
> >
> > It still has a way to go to compete with HID for landing lights. Especially
50 watt or 75 watt HID as we now have, 5300 and 8300 Lumens output each respectively.
35 watt HID produces about 3200 lumens compared to ~1600 lumens from
a 100 watt incandescent such as the well known GE4509, very common in light single
and twins. Also the 24/28 volt version of the same 100 watt lamp, the same
1600 lumens.
> > The 250 watt sealed beam incandescent aircraft lamps produce almost the same
lumens as a 35 watt HID.
> >
> > --------
> > LED still has a long way to go to compete with HID as a landing light. This
is true in terms of total lumens and reach (distance).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 76789#276789 (http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 76789#276789)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> [b]
--------
LED still has a long way to go to compete with HID as a landing light. This is
true in terms of total lumens and reach (distance).
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277214#277214
Message 11
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: LOOKING FOR RIGHT ANGLE BNC CONNECTOR |
I found a 90deg replacement it's a little expensive at $25 ea. Nice thing there
is no soldering required. I also found a few sites that have it in stock.
http://www.keenzo.com/showproduct.asp?ID=1274376
http://www.texomajet.com/ProductDisplay.aspx?CatID=148&SubCatID=869&CatName=RF%20CONNECTORS&SubCatName=ALL%20TRAY%20MOUNT
http://www.allaeroparts.com/ProductDisplay.aspx?CatID=148&SubCatID=869&CatName=RF%20CONNECTORS&SubCatName=ALL%20TRAY%20MOUNT
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=277253#277253
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/dba_600percent20brochure_381.pdf
Message 12
INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Subject: | Re: LOOKING FOR RIGHT ANGLE BNC CONNECTOR |
At 07:14 PM 12/11/2009, you wrote:
>
>I found a 90deg replacement it's a little expensive at $25 ea. Nice
>thing there is no soldering required. I also found a few sites that
>have it in stock.
Yeah, they've really jumped up compared to their
straight cousins. That's what prompted this article
some years ago.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/BNC_Rt_Angle/BNC_Rt_Angle.html
Bob . . .
////
(o o)
===========o00o=(_)=o00o========
< Go ahead, make my day . . . >
< show me where I'm wrong. >
================================
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! --
|