Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:01 AM - Re: Re: PTT buzz ()
2. 06:03 AM - Re: AeroEletctric-List: Starter switch p-lead ground questions ()
3. 06:16 AM - Re: Starter switch p-lead ground questions (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 06:32 AM - Re: PTT buzz (Eric M. Jones)
5. 06:36 AM - Re: Fw: Re: PTT buzz (Charlie England)
6. 06:47 AM - Re: Fw: Re: PTT buzz (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 07:16 AM - Re: Re: PTT buzz (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 07:31 AM - Re: Re: PTT buzz (Dan Billingsley)
9. 09:33 AM - Re: a bit O/T ...AEA Responds (Bubblehead)
10. 10:51 AM - Re: Re: a bit O/T ...AEA Responds (Richard Girard)
11. 10:51 AM - Re: Re: a bit O/T ...AEA Responds (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 11:13 AM - Re: Re: PTT buzz (Richard Girard)
13. 01:05 PM - Under control . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
14. 01:51 PM - ADBS-B Out (Bruce)
15. 02:05 PM - Re: Under control . . . (Mike Parker)
16. 02:17 PM - Re: ADBS-B Out (Bob Leffler)
17. 03:02 PM - Re: ADBS-B Out (Bruce)
18. 03:11 PM - Reliability of Un-certified Flight Instruments - Survey (Peter Pengilly)
19. 06:09 PM - Re: ADBS-B Out ()
20. 06:15 PM - Re: ADBS-B Out (Robert Taylor)
21. 06:20 PM - Re: Re: PTT buzz (Dan Billingsley)
22. 07:08 PM - Re: Re: PTT buzz (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
23. 07:32 PM - Re: ADBS-B Out (Matt Dralle)
24. 07:41 PM - Re: ADBS-B Out (Matt Dralle)
25. 09:11 PM - Re: Under control . . . (Richard Girard)
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 |
|
Dan,
Maybe a silly question, but have you tried another radio in its place? Had it bench
tested lately?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Billingsley
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 9:19 PM
Subject: Fw: Re: AeroElectric-List: PTT buzz
Well, my ghost is still in the plane. I was able to roll the plane completely out
of the garage last weekend and it still had the nasty oscillating buzz as the
PTT button was pressed to operate my Garmin SL40. Again, this is without the
engine running and just operating on my 12V battery. The TX light comes on (on
the radio), the transmit light turns red on the intercom, and when someone
else calls I can hear loud and clear.
In trying to troubleshoot I was doing searches on other blogs and found a possible
reason I'd like to bounce off of this list. One other person had a buzz happening
similar to mine (using the same radio) and found after great deliberation
that the connection to his antenna was poor. He said he bought a "cheapo"
antenna (yes I did this) and did a poor-man's termination using a ring terminal
on the threaded antenna bottom and then running the outer coax wire to ground.
He had an EE stop by and quickly found this as being a problem. he purchased
a "quality" antenna with a BNC connector, hooked it up, and said problem solved.
My question is this...before I go and lay down over $100 for an antenna, does anyone
concur with this as a possible problem? I would also like to know if there
is a BNC connector (or proper terminator)designed to hook up to an antenna
with just the threads on the bottom. Thanks
Dan B
--- On Tue, 6/21/11, Dan Billingsley <dan@azshowersolutions.com> wrote:
> From: Dan Billingsley <dan@azshowersolutions.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: PTT buzz
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2011, 6:29 PM
> I didn't turn the lights off but I
> was able to roll the plane out from under the lights a ways.
> When I did that, the noise became less prominent. I will
> need to wait until I have an extra hand to roll the plane
> all the way out of the garage (The slope + gravity= plane in
> street). One of the guys I talked to today had a good point
> about when I key the mic inside the closed space I have
> quite a bit RF dancing back and forth in there. Would it be
> reasonable to say it could be some feedback interference as
> well?
> Dan
>
> --- On Tue, 6/21/11, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
> wrote:
>
> > From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: PTT buzz
> > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> > Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2011, 2:45 PM
> > --> AeroElectric-List message
> > posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
> >
> > At 04:18 PM 6/21/2011, you wrote:
> > Billingsley <dan@azshowersolutions.com>
> > >
> > > I think I found the ghost...When I first heard it
> it
> > sounded like AC cycling (the noise was very
> consistant).
> > AFter going thru this symptom with a few
> folks...Garmin
> > techs saying they never heard of it b-4...
> > > I was scratching my head and looked up. The
> antenna
> > was hovering between two floursent lights in the
> > garage...it WAS AC!
> > > Dan
> >
> > Hmmmm . . . good hypothesis. If you turn
> > off the lights
> > does the buzz go away?
> >
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
> > AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
> browse
> Un/Subscription,
> Chat,
> > FAQ,
> >
> > - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> Forums!
> >
> > List Contribution Web Site -
> > -Matt
> > Dralle, List Admin.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
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: AeroEletctric-List: Starter switch p-lead ground |
questions
John,
If I remember correctly we were bantering this topic around during the winter.
Do a search on the website posts for p-lead and so on. Like the battery topic,
there are several schools of thought on this one. In my mind, if the P-Lead is
grounded the engine won't start. Last time I checked, that was the objective.
The thread was fairly complete an should answer your question as desired.
Glenn
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of jvolkober
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 1:08 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Starter switch p-lead ground questions
I am installing a five position starter switch. Question, do I ground th p-lead
shields at the switch and the magneto or only the magneto?
John
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=345219#345219
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: Starter switch p-lead ground questions |
At 12:08 AM 7/7/2011, you wrote:
>
>I am installing a five position starter switch. Question, do I
>ground th p-lead shields at the switch and the magneto or only the magneto?
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/MagnetoSwitchOptions.pdf
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 |
|
Dan,
Of course, I concur. Here's why:
Coaxial cables are classed as high frequency waveguides because the energy transmitted
in them is almost entirely within the insulation. An amazing demonstration
of this is that the group wave velocity is exactly equal to the speed of
the electromagnetic wave in the particular material out of which the insulation
is made. The importance of this is directly proportional to frequency. For audio
purposes it matters little. Above a Megahertz it becomes critical.
"Pigtails" where the coax shield is twisted into a lead and both the inner conductor
and twisted-up-shield lead are treated as separate wires is deadly to signals
above a Megahertz. The shield should be terminated by any method that does
not increase the impedance of the shield or the inner conductor. There are
many ways to do this, but they all use some collar arrangement to terminate the
messy coax shield. Any coax catalog has lots of solutions--use them.
--------
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=345252#345252
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 |
|
Hi Dan,
Any chance that someone in your area could just loan you a BNC type
antenna & coax for it? If so, you could just substitute. On 2nd thought,
how about a 'rubber ducky' off a handheld? You'd still need a BNC to BNC
cable, and a Male-Male BNC adapter to hook up the antenna, but that
should be easier & cheaper than a $100 antenna.
If you can't come up with a local solution, I might have one and a cable
in my collection I could ship to you for testing.
Another (long shot) idea is, are you running off a bench power supply,
or the plane's battery? If a bench supply, I wonder if RF could be
getting into the supply. Bob might be better able to address that
possibility.
Charlie
On 07/06/2011 08:19 PM, Dan Billingsley wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dan Billingsley<dan@azshowersolutions.com>
>
> Well, my ghost is still in the plane. I was able to roll the plane completely
out of the garage last weekend and it still had the nasty oscillating buzz as
the PTT button was pressed to operate my Garmin SL40. Again, this is without
the engine running and just operating on my 12V battery. The TX light comes on
(on the radio), the transmit light turns red on the intercom, and when someone
else calls I can hear loud and clear.
> In trying to troubleshoot I was doing searches on other blogs and found a possible
reason I'd like to bounce off of this list. One other person had a buzz
happening similar to mine (using the same radio) and found after great deliberation
that the connection to his antenna was poor. He said he bought a "cheapo"
antenna (yes I did this) and did a poor-man's termination using a ring terminal
on the threaded antenna bottom and then running the outer coax wire to ground.
He had an EE stop by and quickly found this as being a problem. he purchased
a "quality" antenna with a BNC connector, hooked it up, and said problem solved.
>
> My question is this...before I go and lay down over $100 for an antenna, does
anyone concur with this as a possible problem? I would also like to know if there
is a BNC connector (or proper terminator)designed to hook up to an antenna
with just the threads on the bottom. Thanks
> Dan B
>
> --- On Tue, 6/21/11, Dan Billingsley<dan@azshowersolutions.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Dan Billingsley<dan@azshowersolutions.com>
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: PTT buzz
>> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>> Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2011, 6:29 PM
>> I didn't turn the lights off but I
>> was able to roll the plane out from under the lights a ways.
>> When I did that, the noise became less prominent. I will
>> need to wait until I have an extra hand to roll the plane
>> all the way out of the garage (The slope + gravity= plane in
>> street). One of the guys I talked to today had a good point
>> about when I key the mic inside the closed space I have
>> quite a bit RF dancing back and forth in there. Would it be
>> reasonable to say it could be some feedback interference as
>> well?
>> Dan
>>
>> --- On Tue, 6/21/11, Robert L. Nuckolls, III<nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III<nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: PTT buzz
>>> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
>>> Date: Tuesday, June 21, 2011, 2:45 PM
>>> --> AeroElectric-List message
>>> posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"<nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>>>
>>> At 04:18 PM 6/21/2011, you wrote:
>>>> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Dan
>>> Billingsley<dan@azshowersolutions.com>
>>>> I think I found the ghost...When I first heard it
>> it
>>> sounded like AC cycling (the noise was very
>> consistant).
>>> AFter going thru this symptom with a few
>> folks...Garmin
>>> techs saying they never heard of it b-4...
>>>> I was scratching my head and looked up. The
>> antenna
>>> was hovering between two floursent lights in the
>>> garage...it WAS AC!
>>>> Dan
>>> Hmmmm . . . good hypothesis. If you turn
>>> off the lights
>>> does the buzz go away?
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 |
|
At 08:19 PM 7/6/2011, you wrote:
<dan@azshowersolutions.com>
Well, my ghost is still in the plane. I was able to roll the plane
completely out of the garage last weekend and it still had the nasty
oscillating buzz as the PTT button was pressed to operate my Garmin
SL40. Again, this is without the engine running and just operating on
my 12V battery. The TX light comes on (on the radio), the transmit
light turns red on the intercom, and when someone else calls I can
hear loud and clear.
In trying to troubleshoot I was doing searches on other blogs and
found a possible reason I'd like to bounce off of this list. One
other person had a buzz happening similar to mine (using the same
radio) and found after great deliberation that the connection to his
antenna was poor. He said he bought a "cheapo" antenna (yes I did
this) and did a poor-man's termination using a ring terminal on the
threaded antenna bottom and then running the outer coax wire to
ground. He had an EE stop by and quickly found this as being a
problem. he purchased a "quality" antenna with a BNC connector,
hooked it up, and said problem solved.
My question is this...before I go and lay down over $100 for an
antenna, does anyone concur with this as a possible problem? I would
also like to know if there is a BNC connector (or proper
terminator)designed to hook up to an antenna with just the threads on
the bottom. Thanks
DIY antennas have been successfully installed
on lots of OBAM aircraft. Back in the early days
of VHF comm radios in airplanes, virtually all
the antennas were built at the airframe factory,
not purchased.
Build one of these from RadioShack parts:
Emacs!
Stick it on the back of your comm transceiver in place
of the antenna coax. See if the 'buzz' goes away. Keep
the test transmissions short . . . a few seconds. This
load is only good for 2W continuous so your transceiver's
output represents an potential 'overload' condition but
short test transmissions wont hurt it.
If the noise goes away, then quality of the feedline
and antenna system is suspect. It could be a poorly
installed connector at the transceiver end, at some
intermediate joint, or the antenna end. The fact that
you have a DIY antenna is not an automatic recipe for
failure but it does put some extra-ordinary requirements
on the fabricator for quality of the made-up joints.
You could fabricate an antenna using one of these
coax-connector-to-rod adapters that are common to
the CB radio accessories market. One such article is
Radio Shack 219-0961
Emacs!
This product is designed to accept the PL-259
"UHF" style connector and an antenna rod fitted
with a 3/8-24 threaded end. Note that this product
comes with an internal tooth star washer to
effect good electrical connection between coax
shield and the aircraft skin. This washer needs
to be exactly centered in the final make up of
the joint.
Emacs!
You can install this style connector directly on the
end of your coax but it's a bit of a chore
http://tinyurl.com/2lwyc
You'll also need a step-down adapter
Emacs!
to mate the smaller RG-400 style coax with the
larger connector.
Alternatively, you can install a BNC connector
on the end of your coax and use a BNC-UHF
adapter on the antenna mount.
Emacs!
Steer clear of any coax connector that is
not crimped or soldered. "Twist on" or other
"solderless" connectors are to be avoided.
Many folks have discovered that $100 for a pre-assembled
antenna is not too bad a deal. You can spend a goodly
chunk of $time$ fabricating your own antenna. It's
not difficult but it's not a trivial exercise either.
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 |
|
Above a Megahertz it becomes critical.
"Pigtails" where the coax shield is twisted into a lead and both the
inner conductor and twisted-up-shield lead are treated as separate
wires is deadly to signals above a Megahertz. The shield should be
terminated by any method that does not increase the impedance of the
shield or the inner conductor.
I think the terms 'deadly' and 'critical' are not
appropriate here. Yes, as soon as you break out a
shield and center conductor from a coax cable,
the resulting conductors are no longer 'coax' and
they become part of the antenna.
No, they are not 'ideal' connections between
the coax and antenna elements. But their effects
on overall performance is impossible to simply
observe and can only be measured with pretty
sophisticated equipment.
There was some discussion a few years back
about the value of adding the ferrite beads
over feed line attached to an embedded foil
VOR antenna. See the "foil antenna" series
photos at:
http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna
I did some work in the RF lab and found
that it took a couple dozen beads to
drive the 'deleterious effects' of antenna-to-
feedline mismatch to immeasurable levels. At the
same time, having NO beads installed produced
no observable value.
The observable effects for DIY departures from
idea are likely to be the result of poor
connection, i.e. loss of gas tight connection
between two components . . . not for having violated
the sanctity of a coaxial feedline.
The exposed center conductor and shield pigtails
simply become part of the antenna's complex
impedance. Careful measurements would show that
the trimmed antenna length will be a tad shorter
because of exposed feedline pigtails . . . but
the time it takes to "trim for perfection" will
not make the radio perform batter in any way
you can observe.
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 |
|
Thank You all for your thoughtful inputs...I think a good place to start will be
building that dummy load Bob. Thank you and I will keep the list informed of
my progress.
Dan
--- On Thu, 7/7/11, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: PTT buzz
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Date: Thursday, July 7, 2011, 8:12 AM
> --> AeroElectric-List message
> posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>
> Above a Megahertz it becomes critical.
>
> "Pigtails" where the coax shield is twisted into a lead and
> both the inner conductor and twisted-up-shield lead are
> treated as separate wires is deadly to signals above a
> Megahertz. The shield should be terminated by any method
> that does not increase the impedance of the shield or the
> inner conductor.
>
> I think the terms 'deadly' and 'critical' are not
> appropriate here. Yes, as soon as you break out a
> shield and center conductor from a coax cable,
> the resulting conductors are no longer 'coax' and
> they become part of the antenna.
>
> No, they are not 'ideal' connections between
> the coax and antenna elements. But their effects
> on overall performance is impossible to simply
> observe and can only be measured with pretty
> sophisticated equipment.
>
> There was some discussion a few years back
> about the value of adding the ferrite beads
> over feed line attached to an embedded foil
> VOR antenna. See the "foil antenna" series
> photos at:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna
>
>
> I did some work in the RF lab and found
> that it took a couple dozen beads to
> drive the 'deleterious effects' of antenna-to-
> feedline mismatch to immeasurable levels. At the
> same time, having NO beads installed produced
> no observable value.
>
> The observable effects for DIY departures from
> idea are likely to be the result of poor
> connection, i.e. loss of gas tight connection
> between two components . . . not for having
> violated
> the sanctity of a coaxial feedline.
>
> The exposed center conductor and shield pigtails
> simply become part of the antenna's complex
> impedance. Careful measurements would show that
> the trimmed antenna length will be a tad shorter
> because of exposed feedline pigtails . . . but
> the time it takes to "trim for perfection" will
> not make the radio perform batter in any way
> you can observe.
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
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: a bit O/T ...AEA Responds |
I'm with Mike and Bob on this one 100%.
The government uses laws, especially tax laws and now health care legislation to
pick winners and losers. If our President really believed his health care plan
was good for America and Americans his administration would not be granting
100's of waivers to friends of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Nobody would get
waivers and all would be held to the law equally.
As far as income (or wealth) distribution - not the same thing, BTW - it is none
of the government's business how it's distributed and it is confiscation when
they take from one to give to another in the name of "fairness."
On income distribution, I have attached a spreadsheet that approaches this from
a strictly mathematical model. I assume income is distributed in equal increments
from 10,000 to 1,000,000 over 100 people. I then add up each block of 20
people to see what the distribution is. For a simple straight line distribution
the top 20% of wage earners get 35.8% of the income. The bottom 20% of wage
earners get 4.2% of total income.
It's mathematics that does it, not any basic unfairness in the system!
Unfairness is getting something for nothing or because of political contributions
or favors. Unfairness is working 60 or 70 or 80 hours per week and putting
yourself through school and seeing 50% (total tax rate in most states when payroll,
income tax, property and sales taxes are included) taken AND IT IS STILL
NOT ENOUGH!
Read "The Law" and "Atlas Shrugged."
Lastly, our esteemed President said while campaigning he would met with Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad any time and without precondition. That is a privilege he will give
a dictator and abuser of human rights but will not give to the opposition
party when the future of our country is at stake? What in the world is he thinking?
Reelection and political power is more important than the financial health
of our country?
--------
John
Keller, TX
RV-8 N247TD
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=345279#345279
Attachments:
http://forums.matronics.com//files/income_distribution_2010_0627_180.xlsx
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: a bit O/T ...AEA Responds |
How long is this inappropriate use of the Aeroelectric Connection forum
going to go on? We all signed up to this forum pledging to use it for its
intended purpose. THIS AIN'T IT. There are literally thousands of site
devoted to political BS. There is only one AEC. How about it guys and gals,
can we just talk electrons here?
Rick Girard
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Bubblehead <jdalmansr@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
>
> I'm with Mike and Bob on this one 100%.
>
> The government uses laws, especially tax laws and now health care
> legislation to pick winners and losers. If our President really believed
> his health care plan was good for America and Americans his administration
> would not be granting 100's of waivers to friends of Harry Reid and Nancy
> Pelosi. Nobody would get waivers and all would be held to the law equally.
>
> As far as income (or wealth) distribution - not the same thing, BTW - it is
> none of the government's business how it's distributed and it is
> confiscation when they take from one to give to another in the name of
> "fairness."
>
> On income distribution, I have attached a spreadsheet that approaches this
> from a strictly mathematical model. I assume income is distributed in equal
> increments from 10,000 to 1,000,000 over 100 people. I then add up each
> block of 20 people to see what the distribution is. For a simple straight
> line distribution the top 20% of wage earners get 35.8% of the income. The
> bottom 20% of wage earners get 4.2% of total income.
>
> It's mathematics that does it, not any basic unfairness in the system!
>
> Unfairness is getting something for nothing or because of political
> contributions or favors. Unfairness is working 60 or 70 or 80 hours per
> week and putting yourself through school and seeing 50% (total tax rate in
> most states when payroll, income tax, property and sales taxes are included)
> taken AND IT IS STILL NOT ENOUGH!
>
> Read "The Law" and "Atlas Shrugged."
>
> Lastly, our esteemed President said while campaigning he would met with
> Mahmoud Ahmadinejad any time and without precondition. That is a privilege
> he will give a dictator and abuser of human rights but will not give to the
> opposition party when the future of our country is at stake? What in the
> world is he thinking? Reelection and political power is more important than
> the financial health of our country?
>
> --------
> John
> Keller, TX
> RV-8 N247TD
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=345279#345279
>
>
> Attachments:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com//files/income_distribution_2010_0627_180.xlsx
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
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: a bit O/T ...AEA Responds |
At 11:29 AM 7/7/2011, you wrote:
As I mentioned early last week, I have another list-server engine
on Matronics that I can dedicate to this and similar discussions.
Matt got it de-bugged over the weekend.
The membership list for this server has to be maintained manually.
Further, there will be no automatic archiving function. Individuals
who would like to have their email address added to (or removed from)
the SimpleIdeas-List can do so by emailing their wishes to me directly at
bob.nuckolls(at)aeroelectric.com
I have about 20 participants on the list already. I'm looking forward
to the sharing of ideas with any of you who wish to give it a try.
In the mean time, let's respect the wishes of attendees on the
AeroElectric-List not to be distracted with off-topic discussions.
Let's move it to the Simple-Ideas list.
Thanks!
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 |
|
Dan, If you have a 121.5 ELT use the portable antenna from it.
Rick Girard
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Dan Billingsley
<dan@azshowersolutions.com>wrote:
> dan@azshowersolutions.com>
>
> Thank You all for your thoughtful inputs...I think a good place to start
> will be building that dummy load Bob. Thank you and I will keep the list
> informed of my progress.
> Dan
>
> --- On Thu, 7/7/11, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
> wrote:
>
> > From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: PTT buzz
> > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> > Date: Thursday, July 7, 2011, 8:12 AM
> > --> AeroElectric-List message
> > posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
> >
> > Above a Megahertz it becomes critical.
> >
> > "Pigtails" where the coax shield is twisted into a lead and
> > both the inner conductor and twisted-up-shield lead are
> > treated as separate wires is deadly to signals above a
> > Megahertz. The shield should be terminated by any method
> > that does not increase the impedance of the shield or the
> > inner conductor.
> >
> > I think the terms 'deadly' and 'critical' are not
> > appropriate here. Yes, as soon as you break out a
> > shield and center conductor from a coax cable,
> > the resulting conductors are no longer 'coax' and
> > they become part of the antenna.
> >
> > No, they are not 'ideal' connections between
> > the coax and antenna elements. But their effects
> > on overall performance is impossible to simply
> > observe and can only be measured with pretty
> > sophisticated equipment.
> >
> > There was some discussion a few years back
> > about the value of adding the ferrite beads
> > over feed line attached to an embedded foil
> > VOR antenna. See the "foil antenna" series
> > photos at:
> >
> > http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna
> >
> >
> > I did some work in the RF lab and found
> > that it took a couple dozen beads to
> > drive the 'deleterious effects' of antenna-to-
> > feedline mismatch to immeasurable levels. At the
> > same time, having NO beads installed produced
> > no observable value.
> >
> > The observable effects for DIY departures from
> > idea are likely to be the result of poor
> > connection, i.e. loss of gas tight connection
> > between two components . . . not for having
> > violated
> > the sanctity of a coaxial feedline.
> >
> > The exposed center conductor and shield pigtails
> > simply become part of the antenna's complex
> > impedance. Careful measurements would show that
> > the trimmed antenna length will be a tad shorter
> > because of exposed feedline pigtails . . . but
> > the time it takes to "trim for perfection" will
> > not make the radio perform batter in any way
> > you can observe.
> >
> >
> >
> > Bob . . .
> >
> > AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
> > FAQ,
> > - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> > List Contribution Web Site -
> > -Matt
> > Dralle, List Admin.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Under control . . . |
At 12:46 PM 7/7/2011, you wrote:
>How long is this inappropriate use of the Aeroelectric Connection
>forum going to go on? We all signed up to this forum pledging to use
>it for its intended purpose. THIS AIN'T IT. There are literally
>thousands of site devoted to political BS. There is only one AEC.
>How about it guys and gals, can we just talk electrons here?
Gently my friend . . . at least the subject
line didn't creep. Just hit the delete key
until we can get it squared away. The
AEC list is not in danger of getting away
from us!
You up for some 'cross country' in that
airplane of yours? Ya outta come down for
for some BBQ-n-Beer some weekend. We'll
put you up.
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 |
|
I posted this to the RV list and no one had any answers. How about you
guys?
***************************
Hi Guys,
I already have all the equipment I need for ADS-B Out for my Glasair
III. But it seems that in its rush to get the regulation out to the
public, the FAA did not provide any path for Experimental aircraft to
install/approve ADBS-B.
The FAA has published an advisory circular on the subject (AC 20-165)
that states ALL ADBS-B installations must be approved before use. It
then goes on to state that approval requires an STC. It also broadly
hints that all equipment must be TSO'ed. You all must know that STC's do
not apply to us. To add further confusion, I was told by my local FSDO
that all STC's for approval were not being accepted and that the only
way to get approval was from the original aircraft manufacturer. I asked
the FSDO if we (the home builder) were considered the manufacturer and
was told the FAA felt that it was the kit manufacturer. I called the
EAA, they were clueless.
So, it seems that you (or we) can't get there from here. Any one have
any ideas?
Here's the link to the AC,
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GUIDANCE_LIBRARY/RGADVISORYCIRC
ULAR.NSF/0/4D934250FE568A79862577310060CF03?OpenDocument
Bruce
WWW.Glasair.org
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Under control . . . |
FIREDOG
Mike Parker
On Jul 7, 2011, at 4:00 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
wrote:
>
> At 12:46 PM 7/7/2011, you wrote:
>> How long is this inappropriate use of the Aeroelectric Connection forum going
to go on? We all signed up to this forum pledging to use it for its intended
purpose. THIS AIN'T IT. There are literally thousands of site devoted to political
BS. There is only one AEC. How about it guys and gals, can we just talk
electrons here?
>
> Gently my friend . . . at least the subject
> line didn't creep. Just hit the delete key
> until we can get it squared away. The
> AEC list is not in danger of getting away
> from us!
>
> You up for some 'cross country' in that
> airplane of yours? Ya outta come down for
> for some BBQ-n-Beer some weekend. We'll
> put you up.
>
>
>
> 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 |
|
Work with your ADS-B vendor to assist you to work through the issues. It's
in their best interest as well as yours.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bruce
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 4:48 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out
I posted this to the RV list and no one had any answers. How about you guys?
***************************
Hi Guys,
I already have all the equipment I need for ADS-B Out for my Glasair III.
But it seems that in its rush to get the regulation out to the public, the
FAA did not provide any path for Experimental aircraft to install/approve
ADBS-B.
The FAA has published an advisory circular on the subject (AC 20-165) that
states ALL ADBS-B installations must be approved before use. It then goes on
to state that approval requires an STC. It also broadly hints that all
equipment must be TSO'ed. You all must know that STC's do not apply to us.
To add further confusion, I was told by my local FSDO that all STC's for
approval were not being accepted and that the only way to get approval was
from the original aircraft manufacturer. I asked the FSDO if we (the home
builder) were considered the manufacturer and was told the FAA felt that it
was the kit manufacturer. I called the EAA, they were clueless.
So, it seems that you (or we) can't get there from here. Any one have any
ideas?
Here's the link to the AC,
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GUIDANCE_LIBRARY/RGADVISORYCIRC
ULAR.NSF/0/4D934250FE568A79862577310060CF03?OpenDocument
Bruce
WWW.Glasair.org
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 |
|
I wish it were that easy.
Garmin 530W TSO'ed
Garmin 330ES TSO'ed
RMI Microencoder Air Data Non-TSO'ed.
Garmin shrugged it's shoulders.
The stumbling block is going to be the air data system.
Unlike encoder certification by successfully completing a ground test,
there is NO ground/air testing protocol yet published for ADBS-B Out
approval.
Remember back in the early days of RNAV? You had to fly over known
landmarks and log the results to verify accuracy. That's what we need
here. But that would require ATC coordination.
Bruce
WWW.Glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob
Leffler
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 5:10 PM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out
<rv@thelefflers.com>
Work with your ADS-B vendor to assist you to work through the issues.
It's
in their best interest as well as yours.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Reliability of Un-certified Flight Instruments - Survey |
Dear All,
Some of you may be aware that in the UK homebuilts are restricted to Day
VMC operation only. A discussion has started with the regulator (the UK
CAA) about extending the clearance for suitable airplanes to Night and
IFR operations. One area where there is little data, and significant CAA
interest, is the reliability of uncertified flight instruments.
It is proving difficult to obtain any data on this subject. I would like
to ask listers to help by providing some information based on your own
experiences. The UK homebuilders' association - The Light Aircraft
Association - has initiated a simple web based survey
<http://kwiksurveys.com?u=laa_survey_World> to collect data. I would be
very grateful if you could spare the few minutes it will take to
complete. Thanks very much for your support.
Any UK pilots reading this are invited to use this version
<http://kwiksurveys.com?u=laa_survey_UK> of the survey.
Best Regards,
Peter
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 |
|
Based on this paragraph I don't think the AC applies to experimental, I could be
wrong though.
1-2. Who This AC Applies to. This AC is for anyone who is applying for an initial
type certificate (TC), supplemental type certificate (STC), an amended TC,
or an amended STC for the installation and continued airworthiness of ADS-B Out
equipment.
Since the TC STC area doesn't apply I think we are left without any guidance at
this point.
Rodney
---- Bruce <BGray@glasair.org> wrote:
>
> I posted this to the RV list and no one had any answers. How about you
> guys?
>
> ***************************
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> I already have all the equipment I need for ADS-B Out for my Glasair
> III. But it seems that in its rush to get the regulation out to the
> public, the FAA did not provide any path for Experimental aircraft to
> install/approve ADBS-B.
>
> The FAA has published an advisory circular on the subject (AC 20-165)
> that states ALL ADBS-B installations must be approved before use. It
> then goes on to state that approval requires an STC. It also broadly
> hints that all equipment must be TSO'ed. You all must know that STC's do
> not apply to us. To add further confusion, I was told by my local FSDO
> that all STC's for approval were not being accepted and that the only
> way to get approval was from the original aircraft manufacturer. I asked
> the FSDO if we (the home builder) were considered the manufacturer and
> was told the FAA felt that it was the kit manufacturer. I called the
> EAA, they were clueless.
>
> So, it seems that you (or we) can't get there from here. Any one have
> any ideas?
>
> Here's the link to the AC,
>
> http://www.airweb.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GUIDANCE_LIBRARY/RGADVISORYCIRC
> ULAR.NSF/0/4D934250FE568A79862577310060CF03?OpenDocument
>
>
> Bruce
> WWW.Glasair.org
>
>
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 |
|
I know I'm the manufacturer of my homebuilt experimental. It says so on my
airworthiness certificate and the data plate. You can put anything you want
in an E-AB. Don't know why ADS-B stuff would be any different. Just like a
transponder, no?
Bob Taylor
TigerCub N657RT
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Bruce" <BGray@glasair.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 4:47 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: ADBS-B Out
>
> I posted this to the RV list and no one had any answers. How about you
> guys?
>
> ***************************
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> I already have all the equipment I need for ADS-B Out for my Glasair
> III. But it seems that in its rush to get the regulation out to the
> public, the FAA did not provide any path for Experimental aircraft to
> install/approve ADBS-B.
>
> The FAA has published an advisory circular on the subject (AC 20-165)
> that states ALL ADBS-B installations must be approved before use. It
> then goes on to state that approval requires an STC. It also broadly
> hints that all equipment must be TSO'ed. You all must know that STC's do
> not apply to us. To add further confusion, I was told by my local FSDO
> that all STC's for approval were not being accepted and that the only
> way to get approval was from the original aircraft manufacturer. I asked
> the FSDO if we (the home builder) were considered the manufacturer and
> was told the FAA felt that it was the kit manufacturer. I called the
> EAA, they were clueless.
>
> So, it seems that you (or we) can't get there from here. Any one have
> any ideas?
>
> Here's the link to the AC,
>
> http://www.airweb.faa.gov/REGULATORY_AND_GUIDANCE_LIBRARY/RGADVISORYCIRC
> ULAR.NSF/0/4D934250FE568A79862577310060CF03?OpenDocument
>
>
> Bruce
> WWW.Glasair.org
>
>
>
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 |
|
ok...the saga continues. AFter getting home today I disconnected the coax from
behind the SL40 and attached the rubber anntenna off of my HT. The sound is different...it
is no longer a buzz but it sounds as if it is turning itself on and
off when the PTT is depressed...a pulse of sorts approx two cycles per second.
Some have e-mailed and said to try turning the squelch down...check. I was
also told to turn the side tone to zero...check. no luck so far. So it seems
to possibly be either in the radio or a mis-guided wire going to the intercom.
Double checking wires tomorrow. Throw out the ideas if you get one.
Thanks, Dan
--- On Thu, 7/7/11, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: PTT buzz
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Date: Thursday, July 7, 2011, 8:12 AM
> --> AeroElectric-List message
> posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
>
> Above a Megahertz it becomes critical.
>
> "Pigtails" where the coax shield is twisted into a lead and
> both the inner conductor and twisted-up-shield lead are
> treated as separate wires is deadly to signals above a
> Megahertz. The shield should be terminated by any method
> that does not increase the impedance of the shield or the
> inner conductor.
>
> I think the terms 'deadly' and 'critical' are not
> appropriate here. Yes, as soon as you break out a
> shield and center conductor from a coax cable,
> the resulting conductors are no longer 'coax' and
> they become part of the antenna.
>
> No, they are not 'ideal' connections between
> the coax and antenna elements. But their effects
> on overall performance is impossible to simply
> observe and can only be measured with pretty
> sophisticated equipment.
>
> There was some discussion a few years back
> about the value of adding the ferrite beads
> over feed line attached to an embedded foil
> VOR antenna. See the "foil antenna" series
> photos at:
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Antenna
>
>
> I did some work in the RF lab and found
> that it took a couple dozen beads to
> drive the 'deleterious effects' of antenna-to-
> feedline mismatch to immeasurable levels. At the
> same time, having NO beads installed produced
> no observable value.
>
> The observable effects for DIY departures from
> idea are likely to be the result of poor
> connection, i.e. loss of gas tight connection
> between two components . . . not for having
> violated
> the sanctity of a coaxial feedline.
>
> The exposed center conductor and shield pigtails
> simply become part of the antenna's complex
> impedance. Careful measurements would show that
> the trimmed antenna length will be a tad shorter
> because of exposed feedline pigtails . . . but
> the time it takes to "trim for perfection" will
> not make the radio perform batter in any way
> you can observe.
>
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
> AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
> FAQ,
> - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> List Contribution Web Site -
> -Matt
> Dralle, List Admin.
>
>
>
>
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 |
|
At 08:16 PM 7/7/2011, you wrote:
><dan@azshowersolutions.com>
>
>ok...the saga continues. AFter getting home today I disconnected the
>coax from behind the SL40 and attached the rubber anntenna off of my
>HT. The sound is different...it is no longer a buzz but it sounds as
>if it is turning itself on and off when the PTT is depressed...a
>pulse of sorts approx two cycles per second. Some have e-mailed and
>said to try turning the squelch down...check. I was also told to
>turn the side tone to zero...check. no luck so far. So it seems to
>possibly be either in the radio or a mis-guided wire going to the
>intercom. Double checking wires tomorrow. Throw out the ideas if you get one.
>Thanks, Dan
This is not a meaningful test. A rubber duck is a RADIATING
device that floods the wiring behind the panel with RF
energy. If the feedline is radiating due to bad termination,
then the symptoms you're seeing may well be indiciative of
a cockpit flooded with RF. Changing the radiator from a bad
coax to an antenna mounted right to the back of the radio
is not likely to yield useful information.
You need to do the dummy load thing first.
Bob . . .
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 |
|
That's a good point. NavWorx, for example, ONLY sells non-TSO'd equipment so their
only market is Experimental, right? Seems like they wouldn't have a business
model if you couldn't install their ADS-B transceivers in your homebuilt...
Matt
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen"
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 170+ Hours TTSN - Rebuilding Fuselage After Landing Mishap...
At 02:09 PM 7/7/2011 Thursday, you wrote:
>
>Work with your ADS-B vendor to assist you to work through the issues. It's
>in their best interest as well as yours.
>
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 |
|
At 01:47 PM 7/7/2011 Thursday, you wrote:
>I asked
>the FSDO if we (the home builder) were considered the manufacturer and
>was told the FAA felt that it was the kit manufacturer.
This seems blatantly wrong. If I built an Experimental airplane of my own design
from scratch, there is no question I am the manufacture of the aircraft.
To that end, on my RV-8, when I registered it, under "Model" I put "RV-8", under
"Manufacture" I put "Matt Dralle (Van's Aircraft)".
Only the "Builder" (i.e. manufacture) of the aircraft can hold the Mechanics cert
for my RV-8. Last time I did an inspection on it, *I* signed the log book
off, not Van's Aircraft...
$.02
Matt
-
Matt Dralle
RV-8 #82880 N998RV "Ruby Vixen"
http://www.mattsrv8.com - Matt's Complete RV-8 Construction Log
http://www.mattsrv8.com/Mishap - Landing Mishap Rebuild Log
http://www.youtube.com/MattsRV8 - Matt's RV-8 HDTV YouTube Channel
Status: 170+ Hours TTSN - Rebuilding Fuselage After Landing Mishap...
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Under control . . . |
Bob, I had a bad day last Sunday, at least for my plane. Engine started to
sputter at about 300' on take off. I made the impossible turn, but as
Maxwell Smart used to say, "Missed it by that much". If the runway had only
been 2 feet lower.......I walked away without a scratch or bruise, but now I
have a little rework to do.
Maybe I can come over in the trike once the summer heat subsides a bit.
Rick
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <
nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote:
> nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com**>
>
> At 12:46 PM 7/7/2011, you wrote:
>
>> How long is this inappropriate use of the Aeroelectric Connection forum
>> going to go on? We all signed up to this forum pledging to use it for its
>> intended purpose. THIS AIN'T IT. There are literally thousands of site
>> devoted to political BS. There is only one AEC. How about it guys and gals,
>> can we just talk electrons here?
>>
>
> Gently my friend . . . at least the subject
> line didn't creep. Just hit the delete key
> until we can get it squared away. The
> AEC list is not in danger of getting away
> from us!
>
> You up for some 'cross country' in that
> airplane of yours? Ya outta come down for
> for some BBQ-n-Beer some weekend. We'll
> put you up.
>
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
--
Zulu Delta
Mk IIIC
Thanks, Homer GBYM
It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.
- Groucho Marx
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! --
|