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 |
|
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Fuses instead of breakers |
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Subject: | Re: Sign of the times |
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 |
|
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 |
|
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
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! --
|