AeroElectric-List Digest Archive

Sat 01/28/12


Total Messages Posted: 10



Today's Message Index:
----------------------
 
     1. 05:53 AM - Re: Re: Fuses instead of breakers (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
     2. 07:39 AM - Re: Fuses instead of breakers (bcondrey)
     3. 07:53 AM - Re: Re: Fuses instead of breakers (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     4. 08:05 AM - Re: Re: Fuses instead of breakers (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     5. 10:27 AM - Re: Fuses instead of breakers (Jeff Page)
     6. 12:12 PM - Re: Re: Fuses instead of breakers (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     7. 06:06 PM - Sign of the times (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
     8. 07:16 PM - Re: Sign of the times (Paul Kuntz)
     9. 07:17 PM - Re: Sign of the times (Chris Barber)
    10. 10:45 PM - Re: Sign of the times (David)
 
 
 


Message 1


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 05:53:46 AM PST US
    From: "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net>
    Subject: Re: Fuses instead of breakers
    Back when this came up a couple years ago, and Bob C and I discussed possible solutions to this, I did some testing with a 10amp breaker and a 7.5 amp breaker switch. Klaus calls out for power to always be hot from the battery which is not something I am fond of so I figured a switch breaker would be a better choice than two breakers and a switch. In running these two devices in series with the approx length of wire needed, I was able to repeatedly get the breaker switch to "blow" without tripping the 10amp. I know this is a bit of a given but I wanted to see it for myself. I have a dual LSE3 config and I'm now considering simplifying this by having one off of my vp200 and the other direct to the battery with just a 7.5 amp fuse or breaker. This way if there is a nuisance trip, I can reset via the vp200 and run off a single lse if needed until I land. Of course that still does leave a potential failure mode should both trip and the vp200 connected one not come back online. Michael On Jan 26, 2012, at 2:21 PM, "bcondrey" <bob.condrey@baesystems.com> wrote: > > FWIW, this subject has been discussed before on the AeroElectric list. Use the search function for the words "Klaus" and "crowbar" and you'll find a couple threads from early 2009. Turns out that it's not just over-voltage events that will cause them to crowbar but apparently over-temp. This was posted on Feb 1, 2009: > > "I have had to do one inflight reset on the Plasma III on one system > once. The reset was successful and power was restored to the unit. I > removed the unit and sent it back to Klaus for inspection. The fault > was determined to be an overheat situation. That unit was located in > an area without any real ventilation and without an form of cooling > while operation in Arizona during the summer. the compartment temp > was estimated to have exceeded 200 deg. F. The unit was modified to > the latest version (lower heat output components and a ventilation > port. The aircraft was modified to provide air circulation in that > compartment. After 300+ hours on that unit no faults noted. The > point, when the unit faulted it tripped the CB and was then reset and > provided service throughout the remainder of that flight. " > > Without getting into the discussion of whether the design should or shouldn't be modified, my purpose on posting (now and back in early 2009) is simply to make those with dual LSE ignition setups aware that fuses can't be arbitrarily substituted for CBs in this case. > > Bob C > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=364895#364895 > > > > > > > > > >


    Message 2


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 07:39:58 AM PST US
    Subject: Re: Fuses instead of breakers
    From: "bcondrey" <bob.condrey@baesystems.com>
    In the spirit of trying to move the ball forward I'll suggest that fusible links to protect the battery feeders are probably the best way to go in a cost/weight/reliability trade. They provide protection of the feeder wires, have a slow time constant so a panel CB will trip first, are inexpensive and lightweight. A larger CB would does the job also but with more weight and cost. If you've only got a single LSE then maybe no issue since you'll always have a mag to fall back on. If you're running a pair of them however, you need to fully understand failure modes and mitigate the risks. This thread started with the question of whether a fuse would be an adequate substitute for a CB in this application. Given what I believe to be true about the ignitions, the answer is a qualified NO. Qualified because it's only a REAL issue if you don't have a mag to fall back on. Installing as recommended by the manufacturer using a panel mounted CB gives you a solid install. Just make sure you don't do something that compromises that by putting a fuse upstream or substituting a fuse for the panel CB. If you want to protect the feeder use a slightly larger CB or fusible link. You can do a very simple experiment as Michael did to validate the fuse issue (when upstream of a CB). Bob C Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=365024#365024


    Message 3


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 07:53:44 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    Subject: Re: Fuses instead of breakers
    At 07:49 AM 1/28/2012, you wrote: Sausen)" <rvbuilder@sausen.net> Back when this came up a couple years ago, and Bob C and I discussed possible solutions to this, I did some testing with a 10amp breaker and a 7.5 amp breaker switch. Klaus calls out for power to always be hot from the battery which is not something I am fond of so I figured a switch breaker would be a better choice than two breakers and a switch. In running these two devices in series with the approx length of wire needed, I was able to repeatedly get the breaker switch to "blow" without tripping the 10amp. I know this is a bit of a given but I wanted to see it for myself. It's not always a 'given'. Thermally operated feeder protection have what is called and I(squared)*T constant. Meaning that if you plot trip times versus fault current, you find that doubling the fault current produces a trip in 1/4th the time. Combine this knowledge with the manufacturer's specs for I(squared)*T for any given device and you can deduce the probability that one device will trip before the other. But understand too that thermally activated circuit protection are not "calibrated devices". Look at the response curves for an exemplar miniature breaker . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Curves/Exemplar_Circuit-Breaker_Trip_Response.pdf For any given fault current combined with ambient temperature the trip times can vary widely. On top of that variation you can add "preheat" influences and manufacturing tolerances. Bottom line is that one should be very cautious about putting two protective devices in series with any notions about one tripping before the other. Your power company has done these studies. As you travel up the energy-chain from a hair dryer plugged into the wall to the alternator that provides watt-seconds to dry your hair, each protective device upstream of any other protective device is many times more robust. You don't want the protective device in hair dryer being over stressed but the whole neighborhood goes dark instead. Let's talk design goals: (1) It's a GOOD thing to be able to cut all power to every other accessory in the airplane and NOT have the engine stop. Solution - electronic ignitions and fuel pumps should power from an always hot battery bus. (2) It's a GOOD thing to have always hot wires in the airplane limited in their ability to produce fault currents likely to ignite post crash fires. Solution - protect such feeders at the battery bus with I(squared)*T constants that reduce such risk to acceptable levels. Question - what's an acceptable level? Answer - Don't know from first hand knowledge. However, folks-who-claim-to-know-more-about-airplanes- than-we-do have declared that 5A circuit protection is the golden number. Exceptions - They did not specify an I(squared)*T constant for that protection. What's the prudent system integrator to do? Well, for starters we can deduce that the exemplar 5A breaker common to GA, AT, and Military aircraft is "blessed" so we are on reasonably sound foundation using that performance for a baseline. What's good for 100,000 airplanes is good for my RV. Okay, it's easily demonstrated that a miniature 5A breaker in series with a 10A ATC fuse will not open before the fuse does. But what are the risks for raising the always hot feeder protection to say 15 or 20A ATC fuse? Who knows? It's a certainty that some agency would love to have a $million$ budget to research an answer and then write rules about it. So what's a reasonable approach for standing off the worries amongst those in our numbers who do worry about it a lot? I suggest that it is quite simple: But a bigger fuse in at the battery bus. I don't care if you go to 20A. 20A wire too? No. We already KNOW that a 20A steady state current will not burn a 22AWG wire. http://aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wire/22AWG_20A.pdf So wire with 20AWG or even 18AWG. Remember, we're talking about crash safety. What is the likelihood that your 20A/18AWG, always-hot feeder will be placed in a potential position for setting you on fire? Very low. Further, keep in mind that an always hot wire in a wreck may not get hard-faulted in a way that would open even the 5A breaker. A soft-fault on a 12 volt battery feeder protected at 5A is VERY capable of starting fires. So that 5A number goes more to setting rules and stopping arguments than it does to any scientific hedge against conflagration. The rational solution: (1) I suggest that agonizing over fuse sizes is a waste of intellectual and emotional capital. Make the fuse BIG in comparison to system DEMAND. Make the wire mechanically robust which makes it QUITE capable of meeting system demands but not necessarily capable of meeting AC43-13 temperature rise recommendations - you're never going to load the wire that hard. This is a special case that does not fit the legacy design goals for wire/breaker/fuse sizing. (2) Don't get wrapped around the axle of crash safety. That problem has been painted with a VERY broad brush. Better that you crash for reasons beyond your control than because ignition or fuel pump supply feeders protection were too light and the engine quit. I have a dual LSE3 config and I'm now considering simplifying this by having one off of my vp200 and the other direct to the battery with just a 7.5 amp fuse or breaker. This way if there is a nuisance trip, I can reset via the vp200 and run off a single lse if needed until I land. Of course that still does leave a potential failure mode should both trip and the vp200 connected one not come back online. It's my considered recommendation that the LSE system not depend on ANY other features in your power distribution beyond a fuse at the battery bus (not a breaker . . . we want it to be FAST) and a switch on the panel. You want to be able to shut the MASTER off without having the engine quit. Same thing for your fuel pumps if you have them. Remove the term NUISANCE TRIP from the lexicon of talking about your airplane's electrical systems. The only circuits that EVER nuisance trip are those not properly crafted to design goals . . . like those stated above. ANY time you hear a hangar-tale or ramp-rumor about somebody's system tripping but the day was saved by pushing a breaker back in, then thank your stars for the fact that you participate on the AeroElectric-List and folks have helped you design for robustness. YOUR airplane is not going to suffer nuisance trips. If it EVER does, you'll find out why and make appropriate changes to see that it never happens again. Then you'll share that event with the rest of us on the List just in case you've discovered some new condition that others need to be aware of. Further, if we do find that an LSE product is fitted with any sort of CROWBAR ov protection (which I doubt) then I think it is prudent to ask that your devices be delivered with that feature disabled. There is no good reason to build such a feature into any accessory. Even LSE says it's mandatory that your SHIP'S SYSTEM be fitted with ov protection. Finally, if the foregoing does not give you sufficient confidence based upon understanding the potential effects of departing from the manufacturer's recipe for success, then please follow the manufacture's recommendations TO THE LETTER. Keeping the engine running should be the LEAST of your worries. Bob . . .


    Message 4


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 08:05:21 AM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    Subject: Re: Fuses instead of breakers
    At 09:36 AM 1/28/2012, you wrote: <bob.condrey@baesystems.com> In the spirit of trying to move the ball forward I'll suggest that fusible links to protect the battery feeders are probably the best way to go in a cost/weight/reliability trade. They provide protection of the feeder wires, have a slow time constant so a panel CB will trip first, are inexpensive and lightweight. A larger CB would does the job also but with more weight and cost. Except that they are overly robust and do not even come close to addressing concerns for crash safety. A 20A ATC fuse is an excellent middle ground that offers approximately 10X operational robustness factor and still reacts quickly to crash induced hard faults. There is no good reason to "double up" with breakers on the panel. Fuses/breaker/limiters/links are to protect wires. Only ONE is needed between the ignition system's power source and the electronics. So the up-sized fuse makes the most sense. If you've only got a single LSE then maybe no issue since you'll always have a mag to fall back on. If you're running a pair of them however, you need to fully understand failure modes and mitigate the risks. That's what the List is all about . . . This thread started with the question of whether a fuse would be an adequate substitute for a CB in this application. Given what I believe to be true about the ignitions, the answer is a qualified NO. Qualified because it's only a REAL issue if you don't have a mag to fall back on. Are you offered a dual failure hypothesis? Installing as recommended by the manufacturer using a panel mounted CB gives you a solid install. Operationally correct but no consideration for crash-safety. Just make sure you don't do something that compromises that by putting a fuse upstream or substituting a fuse for the panel CB. If you want to protect the feeder use a slightly larger CB or fusible link. You can do a very simple experiment as Michael did to validate the fuse issue (when upstream of a CB). Don't over-simply such experiments. The devil is in the details. Better you have ONE protective device crafted for robustness while not seriously disregarding crash safety. Bob . . .


    Message 5


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 10:27:27 AM PST US
    From: Jeff Page <jpx@qenesis.com>
    Subject: Re: Fuses instead of breakers
    > I thought we were talking about a much larger > hydraulic system. The amount of snort needed to > operate the gear in floats is much smaller than > that used on a GlasAir or Lancair. I think these > relays will be fine and since you have a backup > hand pump, your risks are quite low. So perhaps 10AWG wire is not required ? The installation instructions show 12AWG with a 25A pullable breaker. Many builders are happily flying with this installation. The hydralic pump motor is a Parker-Oildyne series 108 12VDC permanent magnet motor code AE 0.327". The pressure switches are 500psi. I assume this means that there will be brief spikes above this pressure at the motor when it first starts up, but after the fluid is moving, it must be less than 500psi. Based on the small graph, the current at 500psi is 17A to produce a flow of 51 cubic inches per minute, but I have no method to estimate the inrush current as the motor starts up. The graph stops at 2000psi at 48A continuous (but not for long according to the intermittent use temperature graph). The successful use of small relays would indicate the inrush current is not significant ? I don't know how to estimate the inrush current, nor the amount of voltage sag that would negatively impact the motor at startup. So I can't calculate any possible advantages of heavier wire :-( Jeff Page Dream Aircraft Tundra #10


    Message 6


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 12:12:10 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    Subject: Re: Fuses instead of breakers
    So perhaps 10AWG wire is not required ? The installation instructions show 12AWG with a 25A pullable breaker. Many builders are happily flying with this installation. Well, let's run the numbers and see . . . The hydralic pump motor is a Parker-Oildyne series 108 12VDC permanent magnet motor code AE 0.327". AHA! REAL stick-to-your-grey-matter data. It's amazing what you can discover if given a few numbers. In this case: Emacs! Okay. The critical numbers here are the cubic inch displacement per revolution (0.0321). The current at any two flow points which gives you the slope of the line in PSI/AMP. The point where pressure goes to zero but flow is max. This point establishes the internal energy dissipation in motor and pump. We could develop all the torque and CEMF constants for the motor in numbers . . . but the questions yield nicely to a pencil and straight-edge solution too. I've extended the curves to the point where flow goes to zero (stall) and current goes to zero (which provides the anchor point for zero load RPM of the motor. But to get to THE question of the moment, I deduce that stall current for this motor is on the order of 70 amps. This current is EQUAL to that demanded of a 3200 PSI condition which can never be achieved because of the relief valves. The pressure switches are 500psi. I assume this means that there will be brief spikes above this pressure at the motor when it first starts up, but after the fluid is moving, it must be less than 500psi. Actually no. Pressure induced motor current is dominant only after the motor is stable at some speed. During start up, the flows can be no greater than what the system back pressure allows and is probably quite low. Motor current is high because the armature is accelerating to a stable operating point. If pressure reliefs are set for 500 psi then the maximum operating current for the motor will be 17A and probably achieved only when all cylinders reach their limits causing flow resistance to spike. Only then would we expect the pressure to climb rapidly for the moon . . . and were it NOT for relief valves, the current would approach stall or a hose will blow off. Now, if you started the motor up to FURTHER extend/retract the gear against hard stops, you get the same 70A inrush which would fall only to 17A and stay there as the relief valves cracked. System pressure would never exceed 500 PSI. Based on the small graph, the current at 500psi is 17A to produce a flow of 51 cubic inches per minute, but I have no method to estimate the inrush current as the motor starts up. The graph stops at 2000psi at 48A continuous (but not for long according to the intermittent use temperature graph). Now you know how to do it. The successful use of small relays would indicate the inrush current is not significant ? No, it's always significant. Keep in mind that system wiring can have a profound effect on inrush currents. 70A at 12v implies a motor resistance of 12/70 or 0.17 ohms. 10AWG wire is one millohm per foot. So adding say 10' of 10AWG in the total loop resistance takes your motor + wire up to 180 milliohms for a new inrush of 12/.180 or 66 amps. Of course, this doesn't account for any sag in electrical system voltage during inrush. 12AWG wire is 1.6 milliohms per foot so inrush comes down some more. Since the running current cannot exceed 17A due to action of relief valves, you COULD consider a 14AWG or even 16AWG feeder for the purpose of limiting inrush . . . assuming that becomes a design goal. This would have no effect on available system pressure because that is set by relief valves. It WOULD reduce available flow at that pressure because motor voltage hence RPM is slightly reduced. Wired per the instructions, it seems that your inrush will be on the order of 50-65 amps which is no big deal on a 30A relay. I don't know how to estimate the inrush current, nor the amount of voltage sag that would negatively impact the motor at startup. So I can't calculate any possible advantages of heavier wire :-( The 'advantages' if any are murky. The system you're installing has a successful track record with components specified by the manufacturer. I can see no compelling reason to alter that recipe. Bob . . .


    Message 7


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 06:06:33 PM PST US
    From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com>
    Subject: Sign of the times
    Our credit card processing company of some 15 years has been slowing driving up the fixed fees. I've just received a letter informing me of my mandatory enrollment in a "security validation program" for yet another fixed fee. My gross sales simply won't support such burdens. The fixed fees are but part of the $risk$. Their mandated 'service' might well find that my 'network' (one computer sitting behind two firewalls) is vulnerable and needs more $upgrading$ as well. I'm sorry to have to announce that effective immediately, the AEC website catalog orders will have to be paid through PayPal. I've been thinking about getting a PayPal friendly shopping cart program . . . the problem is the assumption that everything in the catalog is in stock for shipment now . . . or that I'm not out of town. I don't want to ding folks for cash until their order is ready to ship. Easy with the old system. But for the time being, we'll issue PP invoices as the orders come together. All CC orders pending will be shipped by the end of this month under the old system. All remittance for new orders will have to flow through PayPal. Sorry for the inconveniences folks. Bob . . .


    Message 8


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 07:16:40 PM PST US
    Subject: Re: Sign of the times
    From: Paul Kuntz <paul.r.kuntz@gmail.com>
    No problem, Bob. I actually prefer PayPal as a means of sending and receiving payments, and I agree with the PayPal objectives of providing an unburdened means for conducting worldwide commerce. I'm sure most participants on this forum will find PayPal a superior service. Paul Kuntz http://www.pipistrelbuilders.com Sent from my iPad On Jan 28, 2012, at 5:58 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote: > > Our credit card processing company of some 15 years > has been slowing driving up the fixed fees. I've > just received a letter informing me of my mandatory > enrollment in a "security validation program" for > yet another fixed fee. My gross sales simply won't > support such burdens. > > The fixed fees are but part of the $risk$. Their > mandated 'service' might well find that my 'network' > (one computer sitting behind two firewalls) is > vulnerable and needs more $upgrading$ as well. > > I'm sorry to have to announce that effective > immediately, the AEC website catalog orders > will have to be paid through PayPal. > > I've been thinking about getting a PayPal > friendly shopping cart program . . . the > problem is the assumption that everything > in the catalog is in stock for shipment now > . . . or that I'm not out of town. I don't > want to ding folks for cash until their > order is ready to ship. Easy with the old > system. But for the time being, we'll issue PP > invoices as the orders come together. > > All CC orders pending will be shipped by > the end of this month under the old system. > All remittance for new orders will have to > flow through PayPal. > > Sorry for the inconveniences folks. > > > Bob . . . > > > >


    Message 9


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 07:17:01 PM PST US
    From: Chris Barber <cbarber@TexasAttorney.net>
    Subject: Sign of the times
    Bob, If you have a smart phone, there is a product called "Square" that allows you to use an smart phone to take charges. They have a little square dongle that plugs into the phone and you can swipe the card. Yes, that is more for POS sales but IIRC they also allow other charges and the fees are damned near non existence compared to the old line guys. They send you the dongle free and it is free to set up. It may not work, but I think it would be worth your time to take a look by just Googling "Square". Chris Barber Houston ________________________________________ From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com [owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] on behalf of Robert L. Nuckolls, III [nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com] Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 7:58 PM Subject: AeroElectric-List: Sign of the times Our credit card processing company of some 15 years has been slowing driving up the fixed fees. I've just received a letter informing me of my mandatory enrollment in a "security validation program" for yet another fixed fee. My gross sales simply won't support such burdens. The fixed fees are but part of the $risk$. Their mandated 'service' might well find that my 'network' (one computer sitting behind two firewalls) is vulnerable and needs more $upgrading$ as well. I'm sorry to have to announce that effective immediately, the AEC website catalog orders will have to be paid through PayPal. I've been thinking about getting a PayPal friendly shopping cart program . . . the problem is the assumption that everything in the catalog is in stock for shipment now . . . or that I'm not out of town. I don't want to ding folks for cash until their order is ready to ship. Easy with the old system. But for the time being, we'll issue PP invoices as the orders come together. All CC orders pending will be shipped by the end of this month under the old system. All remittance for new orders will have to flow through PayPal. Sorry for the inconveniences folks. Bob . . .


    Message 10


  • INDEX
  • Back to Main INDEX
  • PREVIOUS
  • Skip to PREVIOUS Message
  • NEXT
  • Skip to NEXT Message
  • LIST
  • Reply to LIST Regarding this Message
  • SENDER
  • Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message
    Time: 10:45:47 PM PST US
    From: David <ainut@knology.net>
    Subject: Re: Sign of the times
    That part is true, however, PayPal's fees are usurious. David Paul Kuntz wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Paul Kuntz<paul.r.kuntz@gmail.com> > > No problem, Bob. I actually prefer PayPal as a means of sending and receiving payments, and I agree with the PayPal objectives of providing an unburdened means for conducting worldwide commerce. I'm sure most participants on this forum will find PayPal a superior service. > > Paul Kuntz > http://www.pipistrelbuilders.com > > Sent from my iPad > > On Jan 28, 2012, at 5:58 PM, "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"<nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote: > > >> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"<nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> >> >> Our credit card processing company of some 15 years >> has been slowing driving up the fixed fees. I've >> just received a letter informing me of my mandatory >> enrollment in a "security validation program" for >> yet another fixed fee. My gross sales simply won't >> support such burdens. >> >> The fixed fees are but part of the $risk$. Their >> mandated 'service' might well find that my 'network' >> (one computer sitting behind two firewalls) is >> vulnerable and needs more $upgrading$ as well. >> >> I'm sorry to have to announce that effective >> immediately, the AEC website catalog orders >> will have to be paid through PayPal. >> >> I've been thinking about getting a PayPal >> friendly shopping cart program . . . the >> problem is the assumption that everything >> in the catalog is in stock for shipment now >> . . . or that I'm not out of town. I don't >> want to ding folks for cash until their >> order is ready to ship. Easy with the old >> system. But for the time being, we'll issue PP >> invoices as the orders come together. >> >> All CC orders pending will be shipped by >> the end of this month under the old system. >> All remittance for new orders will have to >> flow through PayPal. >> >> Sorry for the inconveniences folks. >> >> >> Bob . . . >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- Tell the truth. Be honest. Be responsible to and for yourself. I liked America when it was free and it's people were responsible and had morals. Every gram of cocaine you buy from elsewhere contributes to an innocent being murdered in Central and South America. Grow your own or Stop taking it.




    Other Matronics Email List Services

  • Post A New Message
  •   aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
  • UN/SUBSCRIBE
  •   http://www.matronics.com/subscription
  • List FAQ
  •   http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm
  • Web Forum Interface To Lists
  •   http://forums.matronics.com
  • Matronics List Wiki
  •   http://wiki.matronics.com
  • 7-Day List Browse
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse AeroElectric-List Digests
  •   http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list
  • Browse Other Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/browse
  • Live Online Chat!
  •   http://www.matronics.com/chat
  • Archive Downloading
  •   http://www.matronics.com/archives
  • Photo Share
  •   http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
  • Other Email Lists
  •   http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
  • Contributions
  •   http://www.matronics.com/contribution

    These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.

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