Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:03 AM - Re: Nuclear Energy (Bubblehead)
2. 06:34 AM - Re: The Ethanol Fantasy (Kelly Patterson)
3. 07:14 AM - Re: RV-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 03/14/08 (Al Grajek)
4. 07:54 AM - Re: Compressor size for compression testing (David Cudney)
5. 08:33 AM - Re: Registration Display (Mike Robertson)
6. 08:51 AM - RV related posts (Ralph Hoover)
7. 09:14 AM - Garmin 296 (Jerry Springer)
8. 09:28 AM - Re: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) (William Dean)
9. 09:31 AM - Re: Re: Nuclear Energy (Michael D. Cencula)
10. 10:50 AM - Re: Garmin 296 (darnpilot@aol.com)
11. 11:03 AM - Re: Garmin 296 (=?utf-8?B?R3JlZyBZb3VuZw==?=)
12. 12:09 PM - Re: Re: Nuclear Energy (Chuck Jensen)
13. 12:32 PM - Re: Re: Nuclear Energy (Vanremog@aol.com)
14. 01:30 PM - Re: Re: Nuclear Energy (Michael D. Cencula)
15. 02:17 PM - Re: Liquid cooling-alternative engines (William Dean)
16. 02:53 PM - Procedures - Clean text before reply and do not archive (Dale Walter)
17. 03:08 PM - Re: Liquid cooling-alternative engines (Kevin Horton)
18. 04:34 PM - Re: Liquid cooling-alternative engines (Ed Anderson)
19. 06:40 PM - Das Fed contributions (N67BT@aol.com)
20. 07:03 PM - Re: Re: RV-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 03/14/08 (Ken Stribling)
21. 07:15 PM - Wiring Conduit (Doug Fischer)
22. 10:22 PM - Re: Wiring Conduit (mike humphrey)
23. 11:22 PM - FUEL LEAK FIX (RICHARD MILLER)
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: Nuclear Energy |
Nice bunch of guys here. I politely ask that you take non-RV stuff else where and
get flamed.
Someone responded, although I cannot find his post, only a quote from his post,
"Ah, so you already know all about it..."
What's with that? I did not claim to be any kind of an expert, only to let people
know I have some experience in it and did not ask for the discussion to end
because I am anti-nuclear.
I come to forums like this to read/hear/learn about RV's. I get the postings in
an email daily that I used to look forward to. Now I have to wade through postings
on nuclear power, ethanol et al. They're all great subjects but I deal with
great subjects all day long and at night school. When I get online to read
about RVs I want to leave most or all that other stuff behind. A little extraneous
discussion is fine, but it dominates the postings.
So that's my rant. I will now take the advice offered by several people and "hit
the delete key."
Enjoy!
--------
John Dalman
Elburn, IL
RV-8 N247TD
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169972#169972
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: The Ethanol Fantasy |
Something else to keep in mind when running ethanol blend in our cars &
trucks...
Our pollution control systems are not tuned for ethanol. The exhaust
monitoring oxygen sensor is affected. It senses the cumbustion byproducts
have more oxygen in them (found in the ethanol) and computer says 'hey, I
need more fuel, we are not getting complete combustion'. The fuel injection
system gets on it and dumps more fuel in. You are now running ROP, not LOP.
The only bonus - you do make a little more HP, kind of like a poor mans
nitrous oxide system.
Kelly Patterson
RV-6A N716K ~200 hrs
PHX, AZ relocating to Denver soon
do not archive
>
> Then there is the energy balance question, which seems to have research
> supporting both sides. However, not included in any of the research is
> the loss of gas mileage you get when your burn ethanol. Theory suggests
> that since ethanol has 70% as much energy per gallon as gasoline you wo
> uld have a 3% loss of mileage with a 10% ethanol fuel. Experience says
> this is not the case.
>
>
> I had seen about a 6% loss of mileage in both our vehicles when burning
> ethanol, but some had claimed as much as a 15% loss. I was skeptical, b
> ut now I am not. I recently drove to Colorado to pick up a Lycoming for
> my RV. With ethanol in Oregon's gas and 65 mph speed limits, I got 15.
> 9 mpg. Outside Oregon, with 75 mph speed limits, I got 18.4 mpg. The h
> igher speeds should have produced a lower mpg. Others have reported sim
> ilar results but different in magnitude, some higher, some lower mpg los
> s. I have not seen anyone claim higher mileage with ethanol. These gas
> mileage losses have not been included in energy balance studies. One e
> xpert suggested that ethanol might change the burning characteristics of
> the blend and might cool things down, giving less power.
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: RV-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 03/14/08 |
THIS IS AN RV FORUM. NOT GENERAL DISCUSSION of your OPINIONS!!> Date: Fri,
14 Mar 2008 23:57:46 -0700> From: rv-list@matronics.com> To: rv-list-digest
@matronics.com> Subject: RV-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 03/14/08> > *> > ==
=======================> Onli
ne Versions of Today's List Digest Archive> ==========
===============> > Today's complete RV-List D
igest can also be found in either of the > two Web Links listed below. The
.html file includes the Digest formatted > in HTML for viewing with a web b
rowser and features Hyperlinked Indexes > and Message Navigation. The .txt
file includes the plain ASCII version > of the RV-List Digest and can be vi
ewed with a generic text editor > such as Notepad or with a web browser. >
> HTML Version:> > http://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=8
2701&View=html&Chapter 08-03-14&Archive=RV> > Text Version:> > http
://www.matronics.com/digest/digestview.php?Style=82701&View=txt&Chapter
08-03-14&Archive=RV> > > ==============
=========> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive>
=======================> > >
----------------------------------------------------------> RV-List Digest
Archive> ---> Total Messages Posted Fri 03/14/08: 15> ---------------------
-------------------------------------> > > Today's Message Index:> --------
--------------> > 1. 04:50 AM - Re: Nuclear Energy (Bubblehead)> 2. 06:40 A
M - Registration Display (Dave Reel)> 3. 06:55 AM - Re: RV-List Digest: 15
Msgs - 03/13/08 (glen matejcek)> 4. 07:34 AM - Re: Re: Nuclear Energy (linn
Walters)> 5. 07:57 AM - Re: Registration Display (Bob)> 6. 08:13 AM - Re:
Re: Nuclear Energy (Bob)> 7. 08:41 AM - Re: Registration Display (Bob Leffl
er)> 8. 08:42 AM - Re: Re: Nuclear Energy (Steven Reynard)> 9. 09:25 AM - R
e: Registration Display (Greg Young)> 10. 09:28 AM - Re: Re: Nuclear Energy
(Terry Watson)> 11. 11:53 AM - Re: Re: RV-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 03/13/08
(Chuck Jensen)> 12. 01:21 PM - Re: Re: Re: RV-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 03/13/
08 (ptrotter@optonline.net)> 13. 03:22 PM - Re: Aircraft Sale (RV-8A) (Tim
Lewis)> 14. 06:08 PM - The Ethanol Fantasy (RScott)> 15. 07:32 PM - Re: The
Ethanol Fantasy (n801bh@netzero.com)> > > > ______________________________
__ Message 1 _____________________________________> > > Time: 04:50:38 AM P
ST US> Subject: RV-List: Re: Nuclear Energy> From: "Bubblehead" <jdalman200
0@yahoo.com>> > > Hey guys - please take this discussion off-line and off t
his forum. I get enough> conflict and argument in my day job! Neither of yo
ur opinions is going to change> as a result of the discussion, and I subscr
ibe to this forum to learn about> and read about RVs!> > This is the RV lis
t, not the nuclear power list.> > Thanks,> > John> > former USN "Nuke"> > -
-------> John Dalman> Elburn, IL> RV-8 N247TD> > > Read this topic online h
ere:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169777#169777> > > __
______________________________ Message 2 __________________________________
___> > > Time: 06:40:31 AM PST US> From: "Dave Reel" <dreel@cox.net>> Subje
ct: RV-List: Registration Display> > Does my RV-8A need it's FAA registrati
on or other paper work displayed > in the cockpit or can I keep it in an en
velope inside one of my panel > storage boxes? I do have the EXPERIMENTAL a
nd the warning blurb text > attached so the passenger can read it from thei
r aft seat & it passed > FAA inspection.> > Tim flew and I rode passenger y
esterday. Exciting. Tim can really land > smoothly & keep the nose up for r
oll out. Unfortunately, I'm now ready > to show everything to possible buye
rs because I got cancer & have to > sell a plane in great condition with on
ly 50hr flight time.> > Dave Reel> > ________________________________ Messa
ge 3 _____________________________________> > > Time: 06:55:51 AM PST US> F
rom: "glen matejcek" <aerobubba@earthlink.net>> Subject: RV-List: RE: RV-Li
st Digest: 15 Msgs - 03/13/08> > > Hi Chuck-> > Indeed, the embrittlement o
f SS doesn't seem to be much of a concern> anymore, although it still does
seem to be one for the fuel rods. Clearly,> that represents a lot less wast
e in a much more manageable form than if the> whole primary apparatus has t
o be scrapped periodically.> > However, WRT the tritium issue:> > You wrote
"> As Jerry Isler pointed out...don't confuse commercial nuclear> power wi
th Government> > weapons programs."> > In response to what I wrote: "Not a
direct correlation to the civil> power industry, " > > You also wrote "Howe
ver, to call tritium> > permanent and highly toxic is mistaken on all accou
nts. > > In response to "but an example of a permanent, highly toxic waste
leak that> wasn't supposed to happen, and won't get better by itself"> > Ok
ay, I could have phrased that more carefully. The comment was about the> le
ak in general. If tritium is leaking from the buried reactors and> getting
into the ground water, you can bet other, highly toxic things are> as well.
> > Also: >With a half-life of> > 12 years, tritium decays away rapidly wh
ich is the reason the Government> keeps> > wanting to replenish its supply
for warheads.> > Okay, in geologic terms it has an excruciatingly short lif
e span. To> someone drinking water laced with tritium on a daily basis, it
lasts long> enough.> > > As to it being highly toxic, this is simply not so
. The beta radiation> given off> > by tritium will not penetrate a piece of
paper or your skin. It is only> of> > interest when ingested. > > Like fro
m the city water supply.> > >Even then, being water based, it is rapidly ex
creted> > from the body...especially if you help it along with a six-pack.>
> >From the Hazardous Substances Data Bank:> > Human Toxicity Excerpts: >
...Tritium in water form is readily retained in the body and remains with a
> biological half-life of approximately 10 days. Due to the body's ready> a
dsorption of tritium in the form of tritiated water, exposure to tritiated>
water in air is on the order of 15,000 to 25,000 times more hazardous than
> exposure to gaseous tritium (HT, DT, and T2). > [USDOE; DOE Handbook Trit
ium Handling and Safe Storage> DOE-HDBK-11290YrXXXX-YR p. 5 (December 1991)
. Available from> http://www.eh.doe.gov/techstds/tsdrafts/doe-hdbk-1129-yr.
pdf as of July 29,> 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED**> > Okay, with a biological half
life of 10 days, and drinking water repeatedly> each day, continuos exposu
re seems to be a given. And IIRC, the Pacific> northwest is rather fond and
proud of it's local breweries, so I'm guessing> the six-pack will only hur
t, not help.> > > So, reactor embrittlement, like tritium, sound pretty omi
nous, but> neither are> > of consequence to the safety of the plant or publ
ic. Now, if you would> like to> > discuss the environmental safety of the D
OE sites (Oak Ridge, Hanford,> Savannah> > River, et al), that's an altoget
her different animal, but has nothing to> do> > with commercial nuclear pow
er used to produce electricity, so please> don't confuse> > the two.> > I s
ay again, "Not a direct correlation to the civil> power industry, " > > > I
f given the choice to live 10 miles down wind of a coal fired plant or a> n
uclear> > plant, the nuclear plant is the choice by a landslide. The coal f
ired> plant> > actually emits more radiation than a nuclear plant because o
f the natural> radioisotopes> > in coal that are continuously emitted into
the air, along with sulfur,> > particulates and a potpourri of other chemic
als. Nuclear is represented> > to be clean for a reason!> > Clearly, that b
it of marketing hasn't worked too well. > > glen matejcek> aerobubba@earthl
ink.ne> > > ________________________________ Message 4 ____________________
_________________> > > Time: 07:34:00 AM PST US> From: linn Walters <pitts_
pilot@bellsouth.net>> Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Nuclear Energy> > > Bubbleh
ead wrote:> > >> >Hey guys - please take this discussion off-line and off t
his forum.> >> PLEASE NOT YET!!! I'm learning a lot here! My knowledge is r
eally > dated and this data dump is kinda reinforcing my position on nuke p
ower.> > > I get enough conflict and argument in my day job!> >> Ah, but I
haven't seen any argument ...... just a difference of opinion > ......> > >
Neither of your opinions is going to change as a result of the discussion,
> >> Maybe yes, maybe no, but if factual data gets floated we all benefit >
from the education.> > > and I subscribe to this forum to learn about and
read about RVs!> >> Yeah, me too. However, the nuke thread can be dealt wit
h with by the > delete key, as any other thread.> > >This is the RV list, n
ot the nuclear power list.> >> I agree, but in addition to the nuclear powe
r list info has been > presented that belongs on the 'alternative engine' l
ist, and > 'environmental disaster list' ....... etc. ..... and I don't bel
ong to > those. My primary interest is in aviation ...... and at present I
decry > the increasingly high cost of energy ..... that could be offset by
nuke > power, thereby allowing me to transfer money from my 'energy account
' to > my 'avgas account'.> > >Thanks,> >> >John> >> >former USN "Nuke"> >>
Ah, so you already know all about the subject of this thread. No wonder >
you'd like to see it disappear. Well, it will, sooner or later. Until > the
n, if you decide not to add knowledge to the thread ..... whap that > delet
e key.> > This isn't meant to flame John, nor encourage off-topic threads,
but as > long as it's here, I'll put up with it.> > Some suggestions though
..... filters do work, and so do 'reply to all' > in an off list discussio
n.> Linn ..... always looking to be educated ..... :-)> > >> >--------> >Jo
hn Dalman> >Elburn, IL> >RV-8 N247TD> >> >> >Read this topic online here:>
>> >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=169777#169777> >> >> > >
>> > > ________________________________ Message 5 _________________________
____________> > > Time: 07:57:56 AM PST US> From: Bob <panamared5@brier.net
>> Subject: Re: RV-List: Registration Display> > > The Reg says it must be
displayed. However, I keep mine in the glove > compartment. When the aircra
ft was signed off by the FAA, I asked > the inspector this question and did
not get a response, more of a > shrug of the shoulders.> > But, If an FAA
guy is looking for a reason to write up a violation, > then this would be o
ne.> > Bob> RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West"> > > At 07:36 AM 3/14/08, you wr
ote:> >Does my RV-8A need it's FAA registration or other paper work > >disp
layed in the cockpit or can I keep it in an envelope inside one > >of my pa
nel storage boxes? I do have the EXPERIMENTAL and the > >warning blurb text
attached so the passenger can read it from their > >aft seat & it passed F
AA inspection.> > > ________________________________ Message 6 ____________
_________________________> > > Time: 08:13:45 AM PST US> From: Bob <panamar
ed5@brier.net>> Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Nuclear Energy> > > At 09:31 AM 3
/14/08, you wrote:> >>Hey guys - please take this discussion off-line and o
ff this forum.> >> >PLEASE NOT YET!!! I'm learning a lot here! My knowledge
is really > >dated and this data dump is kinda reinforcing my position on
nuke power.> > I too am learning a lot. Over the last 15 years on this list
, I can > not believe some of the things I have learned that are not direct
ly > RV related. I am on other building lists and we may have 2-3 > message
s a week (all building related)! The other lists are no fun at all.> > One
of the interesting things about this list is the diversity of > opinion, th
ought and experience and I for one enjoy the input. Yes, > some of the deba
te can get tiresome, but where else could you take > some of these issues a
nd get the response that comes from an RV > builder/flyer/fanatic?> > Bob>
RV6 "Wicked Witch of the West" > > > ________________________________ Messa
ge 7 _____________________________________> > > Time: 08:41:59 AM PST US> F
rom: "Bob Leffler" <rv@thelefflers.com>> Subject: RE: RV-List: Registration
Display> > > We were ramp checked during a Young Eagles event awhile ago.
They wanted to> see it someplace visible in the cockpit. Mine was in my fli
ght bag at the> time on the back seat of my Cherokee. But since I wasn't fi
rst to get> checked, I had an opportunity to put it back in the plastic pou
ch.> Ironically, it's by my left ankle, so there is no practical way anyone
else> in the aircraft could see it.> > -----Original Message-----> From: o
wner-rv-list-server@matronics.com> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.c
om] On Behalf Of Bob> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 12:51 PM> Subject: Re: R
V-List: Registration Display> > > The Reg says it must be displayed. Howeve
r, I keep mine in the glove > compartment. When the aircraft was signed off
by the FAA, I asked > the inspector this question and did not get a respon
se, more of a > shrug of the shoulders.> > But, If an FAA guy is looking fo
r a reason to write up a violation, > then this would be one.> > Bob> RV6 "
Wicked Witch of the West"> > > At 07:36 AM 3/14/08, you wrote:> >Does my RV
-8A need it's FAA registration or other paper work > >displayed in the cock
pit or can I keep it in an envelope inside one > >of my panel storage boxes
? I do have the EXPERIMENTAL and the > >warning blurb text attached so the
passenger can read it from their > >aft seat & it passed FAA inspection.> >
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signa
ture> database 2947 (20080314) __________> > The message was checked by ESE
T NOD32 Antivirus.> > > __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, v
ersion of virus signature> database 2947 (20080314) __________> > The messa
ge was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.> > > ______________________________
__ Message 8 _____________________________________> > > Time: 08:42:44 AM P
ST US> From: "Steven Reynard" <sreynard13@gmail.com>> Subject: Re: RV-List:
Re: Nuclear Energy> > I agree Bob. it isn't every day you get to hear from
a specialist that> actually works in the nuke industry. Of course, if I di
dn't find it> interesting, I would have deleted them from my email unread.
. . .> > It seems pretty clear that avgas is going to keep going up with ot
her energy> costs. Our current crop of politicians have made it perfectly c
lear that> they aren't going to do anything about it. There doesn't look to
be much> hope from the next crop either. I had better really enjoy buildin
g because> at the current pace, I'm not sure how long I'll be able to affor
d to fly the> thing.> > If they could ever design really efficient, high po
wer density, quick-charge> batteries I would love to see electric planes ch
arged by practically free> nuclear power. Hm, reminds me of old SF novels I
read as a kid.> > > Steve> do not archive> > _____________________________
___ Message 9 _____________________________________> > > Time: 09:25:06 AM
PST US> From: "Greg Young" <gyoung@cs-sol.com>> Subject: RE: RV-List: Regis
tration Display> > Short answer is that the Airworthiness Certificate (not
the > Registration)> must be displayed. The rest of the ARROW stuff must be
carried but > doesn't> need to be displayed. See following for the long an
swer from an EAA > Question> of the Week...> > Q & A: Question of the Week>
Question for EAA Aviation Information Services:> I have purchased a homebu
ilt aircraft from the original builder. It was> issued a Special Airworthin
ess Certificate. Am I required to carry this> certificate in the aircraft a
fter the initial test phase of flying has > been> completed?> > Answer:> Ye
s, you are always required to carry (and display) the airworthiness> certif
icate in a US aircraft, regardless of what type of certificate has> been is
sued. This is called out in the following regulations:> > 14 CFR 91.203, wh
ich states in part:> =93(a) Except as provided in =A791.715, no person
may operate a civil > aircraft> unless it has within it the following:> (1)
An appropriate and current airworthiness certificate. Each U.S.> airworthi
ness certificate used to comply with this subparagraph (except > a> special
flight permit**, a copy of the applicable operations > specifications> iss
ued under =A7 21.197(c) of this chapter, appropriate sections of the > ai
r> carrier manual required by parts 121 and 135 of this chapter containing
> that> portion of the operations specifications issued under =A7 21.197(
c), or > an> authorization under =A791.611) must have on it the registrat
ion number> assigned to the aircraft under part 47 of this chapter. However
, the> airworthiness certificate need not have on it an assigned special> i
dentification number before 10 days after that number is first affixed > to
> the aircraft. A revised airworthiness certificate having on it an > assig
ned> special identification number, that has been affixed to an aircraft, m
ay> only be obtained upon application to an FAA Flight Standards district>
office.=94> > **Information on =93Special Flight Permits=94 issued by
the FAA can be > reviewed> in FAA Order 8300.10, Chapter 89. > Note that t
he airworthiness certificate be displayed in the aircraft, as> required by
91.203(b):> =93(b) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless the airw
orthiness> certificate required by paragraph (a) of this section or a speci
al > flight> authorization issued under =A791.715 is displayed at the cab
in or > cockpit> entrance so that it is legible to passengers or crew.=94
> > Also be aware that your aircraft=92s special airworthiness certificat
e > was> issued with an attached set of operating limitations. These operat
ing> limitations are considered to be a part of the airworthiness > certifi
cate,> and as such must be carried in the aircraft at all times.> > > Regar
ds,> Greg Young> > > _____ > > From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com> [m
ailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Reel> Sent: Fri
day, March 14, 2008 8:36 AM> Subject: RV-List: Registration Display> > > Do
es my RV-8A need it's FAA registration or other paper work displayed > in>
the cockpit or can I keep it in an envelope inside one of my panel > storag
e> boxes? I do have the EXPERIMENTAL and the warning blurb text attached >
so> the passenger can read it from their aft seat & it passed FAA > inspect
ion.> > Tim flew and I rode passenger yesterday. Exciting. Tim can really l
and> smoothly & keep the nose up for roll out. Unfortunately, I'm now ready
> to> show everything to possible buyers because I got cancer & have to se
ll a> plane in great condition with only 50hr flight time.> > Dave Reel> >
> ________________________________ Message 10 _____________________________
_______> > > Time: 09:28:14 AM PST US> From: "Terry Watson" <terry@tcwatson
.com>> Subject: RE: RV-List: Re: Nuclear Energy> > > Use the delete key. Yo
u don't have to read what you aren't interested in.> Others might be intere
sted. Let them pursue the thread.> > Terry> > > -----Original Message----->
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@mat
ronics.com] On Behalf Of Bubblehead> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 4:47 AM>
Subject: RV-List: Re: Nuclear Energy> > > Hey guys - please take this discu
ssion off-line and off this forum. I get> enough conflict and argument in m
y day job! Neither of your opinions is> going to change as a result of the
discussion, and I subscribe to this forum> to learn about and read about RV
s!> > This is the RV list, not the nuclear power list.> > Thanks,> > John>
> former USN "Nuke"> > --------> John Dalman> Elburn, IL> RV-8 N247TD> > >
Read this topic online here:> > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p
=169777#169777> > > ________________________________ Message 11 _________
___________________________> > > Time: 11:53:12 AM PST US> Subject: RE: RV-
List: RE: RV-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 03/13/08> From: "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen
@dts9000.com>> > > Well, I wasn't going to post a reply, since nuclear powe
r is certainly off topic,> but intellectual curiousity rarely knows bounds
nor can it be easily pidgeon-holed> to just building an RV. Personnally, I
enjoy education whereever I bump> into it but some are advised to avail the
mselves of the delete key if they> are not similarly stricken.> > Hi, Glen,
> > Good comments all. Hanford particularly has some scary environmental st
uff out> there...and certainly not as well contained as it should be. Billi
ons have been> spent and many billions more are in line to be spent to miti
gate, not solve> the problems. For instance, they have several, million-gal
lon single walled> tanks of suspect integrity containing a witches' brew th
at will actually boil> from the heat generated by the decaying cesium. I th
ink most of this material> has been transferred to new double-walled tanks,
but there are always residual> problems.> > Hanford has had multiple plume
s reach the Columbia River. There's no pretty face> that can be put on it.
However, the fact that tritium has migrated off of> the reservation shouldn
't be used as a marker for other, even more hazardous materials.> Tritium,
because it will not ion exchange with the soil and can not> be filtered, is
by far the worst migrator and toughest to contain.> > Even in this circums
tance, you would have to drink massive quantities of water> from the Columb
ia everyday, and not excrete any liquids, for a long period of> time to eve
n begin to register a potential health threat. Yes, liquid tritium> is 10,0
00 times more of a threat than gaseous tritium, but then, 10,000 times> not
hing is still not much. If you want to be scared, watch the trucks going> d
own the highway loaded with chemicals or the trains running through backyar
ds> that contain massive quantities of toxic, hazardous, flammable and expl
osive> materials. THAT is a clear and present danger.> > I happen to have b
eed appointed to the Oak Ridge Site Specific Advisory Board.> Our responsib
ility is to oversee (some would say, second guess) the cleanup activities>
of the Oak Ridge Reservation. To say we subject them to rigorous, even> adv
ersarial, review ins an understatement. While Oak Ridge doesn't have the> d
egree of problem that Hanford does, its still significant. Even then, in th
e> worst case, a person that drank all of his water from the most polluted
stream,> ate one deer and two turkey's from the reservation, ate 3 fish per
week from> the stream and breathed the air in the worst part of the reserv
ation 24x7,> he would receive a total exposure of 6 milliRem per year. To p
ut that in perspective,> the average person in the U.S. receives approx. 35
0 milliRem exposure> from the food we eat, living in a brick house, radon,
radium watches, medical> procedures, commercial airline flights, et al. Whi
le the unknown is often scary,> the facts are not.> > The chemical contamin
ation of our drinking water, including pharmaceuticals, is> something to be
far more alarmed about than the isolated incident of a small> leak of trit
ium or other radioisotope (though even a small one is inexcusable).> Just m
y thoughts.> > Thanks,> Chuck Jensen> > Diversified Technologies> 2680 West
cott Blvd> Knoxville, TN 37931> Phn: 865-539-9000 x100> Cell: 865-406-9001>
Fax: 865-539-9001> cjensen@dts9000.com> > > -----Original Message-----> Fr
om: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matron
ics.com]On Behalf Of glen matejcek> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 8:52 AM> S
ubject: RV-List: RE: RV-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 03/13/08> > > > Hi Chuck-> >
Indeed, the embrittlement of SS doesn't seem to be much of a concern> anym
ore, although it still does seem to be one for the fuel rods. Clearly,> tha
t represents a lot less waste in a much more manageable form than if the> w
hole primary apparatus has to be scrapped periodically.> > However, WRT the
tritium issue:> > You wrote "> As Jerry Isler pointed out...don't confuse
commercial nuclear> power with Government> > weapons programs."> > In respo
nse to what I wrote: "Not a direct correlation to the civil> power industry
, " > > You also wrote "However, to call tritium> > permanent and highly to
xic is mistaken on all accounts. > > In response to "but an example of a pe
rmanent, highly toxic waste leak that> wasn't supposed to happen, and won't
get better by itself"> > Okay, I could have phrased that more carefully. T
he comment was about the> leak in general. If tritium is leaking from the b
uried reactors and> getting into the ground water, you can bet other, highl
y toxic things are> as well. > > Also: >With a half-life of> > 12 years, tr
itium decays away rapidly which is the reason the Government> keeps> > want
ing to replenish its supply for warheads.> > Okay, in geologic terms it has
an excruciatingly short life span. To> someone drinking water laced with t
ritium on a daily basis, it lasts long> enough.> > > As to it being highly
toxic, this is simply not so. The beta radiation> given off> > by tritium w
ill not penetrate a piece of paper or your skin. It is only> of> > interest
when ingested. > > Like from the city water supply.> > >Even then, being w
ater based, it is rapidly excreted> > from the body...especially if you hel
p it along with a six-pack.> > >From the Hazardous Substances Data Bank:> >
Human Toxicity Excerpts: > ...Tritium in water form is readily retained in
the body and remains with a> biological half-life of approximately 10 days
. Due to the body's ready> adsorption of tritium in the form of tritiated w
ater, exposure to tritiated> water in air is on the order of 15,000 to 25,0
00 times more hazardous than> exposure to gaseous tritium (HT, DT, and T2).
> [USDOE; DOE Handbook Tritium Handling and Safe Storage> DOE-HDBK-11290Yr
XXXX-YR p. 5 (December 1991). Available from> http://www.eh.doe.gov/techstd
s/tsdrafts/doe-hdbk-1129-yr.pdf as of July 29,> 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED**> >
Okay, with a biological half life of 10 days, and drinking water repeatedly
> each day, continuos exposure seems to be a given. And IIRC, the Pacific>
northwest is rather fond and proud of it's local breweries, so I'm guessing
> the six-pack will only hurt, not help.> > > So, reactor embrittlement, li
ke tritium, sound pretty ominous, but> neither are> > of consequence to the
safety of the plant or public. Now, if you would> like to> > discuss the e
nvironmental safety of the DOE sites (Oak Ridge, Hanford,> Savannah> > Rive
r, et al), that's an altogether different animal, but has nothing to> do> >
with commercial nuclear power used to produce electricity, so please> don'
t confuse> > the two.> > I say again, "Not a direct correlation to the civi
l> power industry, " > > > If given the choice to live 10 miles down wind o
f a coal fired plant or a> nuclear> > plant, the nuclear plant is the choic
e by a landslide. The coal fired> plant> > actually emits more radiation th
an a nuclear plant because of the natural> radioisotopes> > in coal that ar
e continuously emitted into the air, along with sulfur,> > particulates and
a potpourri of other chemicals. Nuclear is represented> > to be clean for
a reason!> > Clearly, that bit of marketing hasn't worked too well. > > gle
n matejcek> aerobubba@earthlink.ne> > > ________________________________ Me
ssage 12 ____________________________________> > > Time: 01:21:16 PM PST US
> From: ptrotter@optonline.net> Subject: Re: RE: RV-List: RE: RV-List Diges
t: 15 Msgs - 03/13/08> > Personally, I have enjoyed reading these posts. It
is particularly interesting> when someone like Chuck, who is very knowledg
able on the subject, can give us> real information. > > Paul> > ----- Origi
nal Message -----> From: Chuck Jensen > Subject: RE: RV-List: RE: RV-List D
igest: 15 Msgs - 03/13/08> > > > > Well, I wasn't going to post a reply, si
nce nuclear power is > > certainly off topic, but intellectual curiousity r
arely knows > > bounds nor can it be easily pidgeon-holed to just building
an > > RV. Personnally, I enjoy education whereever I bump into it but > >
some are advised to avail themselves of the delete key if they > > are not
similarly stricken.> > > > Hi, Glen,> > > > Good comments all. Hanford part
icularly has some scary > > environmental stuff out there...and certainly n
ot as well > > contained as it should be. Billions have been spent and many
> > billions more are in line to be spent to mitigate, not solve the > > p
roblems. For instance, they have several, million-gallon > > single walled
tanks of suspect integrity containing a witches' > > brew that will actuall
y boil from the heat generated by the > > decaying cesium. I think most of
this material has been > > transferred to new double-walled tanks, but ther
e are always > > residual problems.> > > > Hanford has had multiple plumes
reach the Columbia River. > > There's no pretty face that can be put on it.
However, the fact > > that tritium has migrated off of the reservation sho
uldn't be > > used as a marker for other, even more hazardous materials. >
> Tritium, because it will not ion exchange with the soil and can > > not b
e filtered, is by far the worst migrator and toughest to contain.> > > > Ev
en in this circumstance, you would have to drink massive > > quantities of
water from the Columbia everyday, and not excrete > > any liquids, for a lo
ng period of time to even begin to register > > a potential health threat.
Yes, liquid tritium is 10,000 times > > more of a threat than gaseous triti
um, but then, 10,000 times > > nothing is still not much. If you want to be
scared, watch the > > trucks going down the highway loaded with chemicals
or the > > trains running through backyards that contain massive quantities
> > of toxic, hazardous, flammable and explosive materials. THAT is > > a
clear and present danger.> > > > I happen to have beed appointed to the Oak
Ridge Site Specific > > Advisory Board. Our responsibility is to oversee (
some would > > say, second guess) the cleanup activities of the Oak Ridge >
> Reservation. To say we subject them to rigorous, even > > adversarial, r
eview ins an understatement. While Oak Ridge > > doesn't have the degree of
problem that Hanford does, its still > > significant. Even then, in the wo
rst case, a person that drank > > all of his water from the most polluted s
tream, ate one deer and > > two turkey's from the reservation, ate 3 fish p
er week from the > > stream and breathed the air in the worst part of the r
eservation > > 24x7, he would receive a total exposure of 6 milliRem per ye
ar. > > To put that in perspective, the average person in the U.S. > > rece
ives approx. 350 milliRem exposure from the food we eat, > > living in a br
ick house, radon, radium watches, medical > > procedures, commercial airlin
e flights, et al. While the > > unknown is often scary, the facts are not.>
> > > The chemical contamination of our drinking water, including > > phar
maceuticals, is something to be far more alarmed about than > > the isolate
d incident of a small leak of tritium or other > > radioisotope (though eve
n a small one is inexcusable). Just my > > thoughts.> > Thanks,> > Chuck Je
nsen> > > > Diversified Technologies> > 2680 Westcott Blvd> > Knoxville, TN
37931> > Phn: 865-539-9000 x100> > Cell: 865-406-9001> > Fax: 865-539-9001
> > cjensen@dts9000.com> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----> > From:
owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com> > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronic
s.com]On Behalf Of glen matejcek> > Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 8:52 AM> >
To: RV-List Digest Server> > Subject: RV-List: RE: RV-List Digest: 15 Msgs
- 03/13/08> > > > > > > > Hi Chuck-> > > > Indeed, the embrittlement of SS
doesn't seem to be much of a concern> > anymore, although it still does se
em to be one for the fuel > > rods. Clearly,> > that represents a lot less
waste in a much more manageable form > > than if the> > whole primary appar
atus has to be scrapped periodically.> > > > However, WRT the tritium issue
:> > > > You wrote "> As Jerry Isler pointed out...don't confuse > > commer
cial nuclear> > power with Government> > > weapons programs."> > > > In res
ponse to what I wrote: "Not a direct correlation to the civil> > power indu
stry, " > > > > You also wrote "However, to call tritium> > > permanent and
highly toxic is mistaken on all accounts. > > > > In response to "but an e
xample of a permanent, highly toxic > > waste leak that> > wasn't supposed
to happen, and won't get better by itself"> > > > Okay, I could have phrase
d that more carefully. The comment was > > about the> > leak in general. If
tritium is leaking from the buried reactors and> > getting into the ground
water, you can bet other, highly toxic > > things are> > as well. > > > >
Also: >With a half-life of> > > 12 years, tritium decays away rapidly which
is the reason the > > Governmentkeeps> > > wanting to replenish its supply
for warheads.> > > > Okay, in geologic terms it has an excruciatingly shor
t life > > span. To> > someone drinking water laced with tritium on a daily
basis, it > > lasts long> > enough.> > > > > As to it being highly toxic,
this is simply not so. The beta > > radiationgiven off> > > by tritium will
not penetrate a piece of paper or your skin. > > It is only> > of> > > int
erest when ingested. > > > > Like from the city water supply.> > > > >Even
then, being water based, it is rapidly excreted> > > from the body...especi
ally if you help it along with a six-pack.> > > > >From the Hazardous Subst
ances Data Bank:> > > > Human Toxicity Excerpts: > > ...Tritium in water fo
rm is readily retained in the body and > > remains with a> > biological hal
f-life of approximately 10 days. Due to the body's ready> > adsorption of t
ritium in the form of tritiated water, exposure > > to tritiated> > water i
n air is on the order of 15,000 to 25,000 times more > > hazardous than> >
exposure to gaseous tritium (HT, DT, and T2). > > [USDOE; DOE Handbook Trit
ium Handling and Safe Storage> > DOE-HDBK-11290YrXXXX-YR p. 5 (December 199
1). Available from> > http://www.eh.doe.gov/techstds/tsdrafts/doe-hdbk-1129
-yr.pdf as > > of July 29,> > 2006 ]**PEER REVIEWED**> > > > Okay, with a b
iological half life of 10 days, and drinking water > > repeatedlyeach day,
continuos exposure seems to be a given. And > > IIRC, the Pacific> > northw
est is rather fond and proud of it's local breweries, so > > I'm guessing>
> the six-pack will only hurt, not help.> > > > > So, reactor embrittlement
, like tritium, sound pretty ominous, but> > neither are> > > of consequenc
e to the safety of the plant or public. Now, if > > you would> > like to> >
> discuss the environmental safety of the DOE sites (Oak Ridge, > > Hanfor
d,Savannah> > > River, et al), that's an altogether different animal, but h
as > > nothing to> > do> > > with commercial nuclear power used to produce
electricity, so please> > don't confuse> > > the two.> > > > I say again, "
Not a direct correlation to the civil> > power industry, " > > > > > If giv
en the choice to live 10 miles down wind of a coal fired > > plant or a> >
nuclear> > > plant, the nuclear plant is the choice by a landslide. The > >
coal fired> > plant> > > actually emits more radiation than a nuclear plan
t because of > > the natural> > radioisotopes> > > in coal that are continu
ously emitted into the air, along with > > sulfur,> particulates and a potp
ourri of other chemicals. > > Nuclear is represented> > > to be clean for a
reason!> > > > Clearly, that bit of marketing hasn't worked too well. > >
> > glen matejcek> > aerobubba@earthlink.ne> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 13 _______________
_____________________> > > Time: 03:22:25 PM PST US> From: Tim Lewis <timrv
ator@comcast.net>> Subject: Re: RV-List: Aircraft Sale (RV-8A)> > I flew Da
ve's RV-8A yesterday for the first time (also my first time > flying an RV-
8A). It's a very well built, well maintained, attractive, > simple, light,
fast, day/night VFR airplane. Workmanship, speed, and > rate of climb are i
mpressive.> > Tim> > -- > Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA)> RV-6A N47TD -- 1
000 hrs> RV-10 #40059 under construction> 1.4 hrs in RV-8A N4032Q> > > Dave
Reel wrote:> >> > 2006 RV8A 50hr. Has O-360-A1A, Hartzell c/s prop, Dynon
D10 EFIS, > > Garmin transponder and GPS, Grand Rapids engine information s
ystem. > > High reliability, VFR, all new parts. Illness forcing sale. Base
d > > at HEF, Manassas VA. Call 703-385-9811 or email dreel@cox.net > > <ma
ilto:dreel@cox.net> for pictures & questions.> >> > > >> > Sorry to have to
start this event but please let anyone you know that > > might be interest
ed in buying a nice RV8A.> >> > > >> > Dave Reel> >> > *> >> >> > *> > ____
____________________________ Message 14 ___________________________________
_> > > Time: 06:08:37 PM PST US> From: RScott <rscott@cascadeaccess.com>> S
ubject: RV-List: The Ethanol Fantasy> > There is so much wrong with ethanol
that it is disgusting that the state > of Oregon has bent over backwards t
o impose the stuff on the populace.> > We all know about the food impacts.
There is also the fertilizer > problem--corn requires more fertilizer than
almost any other crop. > Fertilizer goes down the Mississippi and contribut
es to a massive dead > zone in the Gulf of Mexico. And natural gas is used
to make fertilizer; > natural gas is not renewable. Ethanol can't go throug
h the petroleum > pipelines, so it is trucked to the pipeline terminals whe
re it is mixed > as it is put into the truck. > > Then there is the energy
balance question, which seems to have research > supporting both sides. How
ever, not included in any of the research is > the loss of gas mileage you
get when your burn ethanol. Theory suggests > that since ethanol has 70% as
much energy per gallon as gasoline you > would have a 3% loss of mileage w
ith a 10% ethanol fuel. Experience > says this is not the case. > > I had s
een about a 6% loss of mileage in both our vehicles when burning > ethanol,
but some had claimed as much as a 15% loss. I was skeptical, > but now I a
m not. I recently drove to Colorado to pick up a Lycoming > for my RV. With
ethanol in Oregon's gas and 65 mph speed limits, I got > 15.9 mpg. Outside
Oregon, with 75 mph speed limits, I got 18.4 mpg. > The higher speeds shou
ld have produced a lower mpg. Others have > reported similar results but di
fferent in magnitude, some higher, some > lower mpg loss. I have not seen a
nyone claim higher mileage with > ethanol. These gas mileage losses have no
t been included in energy > balance studies. One expert suggested that etha
nol might change the > burning characteristics of the blend and might cool
things down, giving > less power. > > Suppose we average a 5% loss of milea
ge. Then we only get a 5% > reduction in oil imports, not the 10% that advo
cates claim. Are all the > impacts worth it?> > Watch your legislatures and
stop this virus before your state gets > suckered into the ethanol fad.> >
Richard Scott> > > ________________________________ Message 15 ___________
_________________________> > > Time: 07:32:32 PM PST US> From: "n801bh@netz
ero.com" <n801bh@netzero.com>> Subject: Re: RV-List: The Ethanol Fantasy> >
The BTU content in alcohol is less then gas per given unit. Ethanol is a>
bout 71% of gas and Methanol is about 56%. During my racing days I ran d> i
rt track sprint cars both with a gas motor and an alky motor. Gas motor> wa
s 10-15 % less powerful then the Methanol motors, The Alky motors nee> ded
just under twice as much fuel to run the same length race. 40 laps o> n a 1
/3 mile track burned 25 or so gallons of methanol including all the> yellow
flag laps. This same race could have been run on 14 gallons of r> acing ga
s... Pick your poison...> do not archive> > > Ben Haas> N801BH> www.haaspow
erair.com> > -- RScott <rscott@cascadeaccess.com> wrote:> There is so much
wrong with ethanol that it is disgusting that the state> of Oregon has bent
over backwards to impose the stuff on the populace.> > We all know about t
he food impacts. There is also the fertilizer probl> em--corn requires more
fertilizer than almost any other crop. Fertilize> r goes down the Mississi
ppi and contributes to a massive dead zone in th> e Gulf of Mexico. And nat
ural gas is used to make fertilizer; natural ga> s is not renewable. Ethano
l can't go through the petroleum pipelines, s> o it is trucked to the pipel
ine terminals where it is mixed as it is put> into the truck. > > > Then th
ere is the energy balance question, which seems to have research > supporti
ng both sides. However, not included in any of the research is > the loss o
f gas mileage you get when your burn ethanol. Theory suggests> that since e
thanol has 70% as much energy per gallon as gasoline you wo> uld have a 3%
loss of mileage with a 10% ethanol fuel. Experience says > this is not the
case. > > > I had seen about a 6% loss of mileage in both our vehicles when
burning > ethanol, but some had claimed as much as a 15% loss. I was skept
ical, b> ut now I am not. I recently drove to Colorado to pick up a Lycomin
g for> my RV. With ethanol in Oregon's gas and 65 mph speed limits, I got 1
5.> 9 mpg. Outside Oregon, with 75 mph speed limits, I got 18.4 mpg. The h>
igher speeds should have produced a lower mpg. Others have reported sim> i
lar results but different in magnitude, some higher, some lower mpg los> s.
I have not seen anyone claim higher mileage with ethanol. These gas> milea
ge losses have not been included in energy balance studies. One e> xpert su
ggested that ethanol might change the burning characteristics of> the blend
and might cool things down, giving less power. > > > Suppose we average a
5% loss of mileage. Then we only get a 5% reductio> n in oil imports, not t
he 10% that advocates claim. Are all the impacts> worth it?> > Watch your l
egislatures and stop this virus before your state gets sucke> red into the
ethanol fad.> > Richard Scott> > > =============
===========> =============
===========> =============
===========> =============
===========> =============
===========> =============
===========> > ______________________________________
_______________________> Largest network of startups. Find new startup oppo
rtunities. Click here.> > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2221/fc/Io
===================> > > >
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: Compressor size for compression testing |
Doug :
I had a similar compressor at my hangar that I bought at an auto parts
store for $49.95. It worked, but not too well. The problem was that
with the small tank I would have to wait for it to pump back up to 95
lbs or so-- some times having to re check a single cylinder several
times to make sure it was right. In other words the pump could not
keep up with the leak test by itself and maintain 80+ lbs. I had to
use the small compressor because the circuits to our hangars would not
support a larger power drain. When I moved to a different hangar
with more power and got a larger compressor (Harbor Freight $150) I've
had no problems with compression tests but wish I had more capacity
for things like die grinders.
good luck
dave
On Mar 12, 2008, at 9:17 AM, Tim Bryan wrote:
> Doug,
>
> It doesn=92t really take much for a compression test. If you can
> provide about 80 psi with hopefully no real volume it is
> sufficient. If you have a big leak and need the volume, then you
> have a problem anyway. The volume you are filling is the top of
> your cylinder.
> Tim
>
> From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> ] On Behalf Of Doug Medema
> Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 8:58 AM
> To: RV-List@matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List: Compressor size for compression testing
>
> I am planning to buy a small compressor to leave at the airport.
> I'm looking for something to inflate the tires, but will also allow
> me to do a compression test. Anyone know the requirements for the
> compression testers out there? Harbor Freight has a little 3 gallon
> 100psi oilless unit for $50. I know this won't be the highest
> quality tool out there, but I'm just looking for something that will
> get very occasional use.
>
> I checked at the various aircraft vendors, but don't see any
> compressor requirements for the compression tester. Anybody have
> any info?
>
> Thanks,
> Doug Medema
> RV-6A N276DM
>
>
> Checked by AVG.
> 3/11/2008 1:41 PM
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
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: | Registration Display |
The special airworthiness certificate is the only doucument that MUST be di
splayed in the cabin where it can be seen while operating the aircraft. No
rmally most folks keep the registration with the a/w certificate and the op
erating limitations in the glove box or pouch. They just need to be kept i
n a spot that is accessible to the pilot.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
From: dreel@cox.netTo: rv-list@matronics.comSubject: RV-List: Registration
DisplayDate: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 09:36:20 -0400
Does my RV-8A need it's FAA registration or other paper work displayed in t
he cockpit or can I keep it in an envelope inside one of my panel storage b
oxes? I do have the EXPERIMENTAL and the warning blurb text attached so th
e passenger can read it from their aft seat & it passed FAA inspection.
Tim flew and I rode passenger yesterday. Exciting. Tim can really land sm
oothly & keep the nose up for roll out. Unfortunately, I'm now ready to sh
ow everything to possible buyers because I got cancer & have to sell a plan
e in great condition with only 50hr flight time.
Dave Reel
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail is giving away Zunes. Enter for your chance to win.
http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/ZuneADay/?locale=en-US&ocid=TXT_TAGL
M_Mobile_Zune_V3
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: | RV related posts |
Just my 2 cents.
Occasionally a thread drifts from RV specific topics. I personally enjoy
the discussion, we have a diverse group and the diversity of knowledge
and opinion adds to the experience. We build for the educational
experience. A thinly related tangent now and again is OK by me.
The delete key works Try it now :)
--
Ralph C. Hoover
RV7A
hooverra at verizon dot net
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 |
|
Hi all,
Been a while since I have been here, but I see things are still going
along pretty much the same :-)
I have been looking through the archives seeing if anyone has had the
same problem
and come up with a solutions to Garmins not locking onto Sats. I have
read all the threads about
dead internal batteries and selecting the options etc. I cannot believe
that the internal
memory battery is dead as this unit is not that old. It is very
frustrating to go fly and
not get a GPS lock on.
My 296 use to lock on almost immediately but now takes a long time to
find the satellites,
Some flight it well not lock on at all if it sits more than a few days
Has anyone that I read about having this problem come up with a real
solution?
It seems like everyone's problem started around the same time, could
this have been the result
of a version of upgrade? I always upgrade when Garmin notifies me one is
available.
My old Flybuddy GPS memory battery went dead after about 10 years, I
took it apart and
replaced it with one I found online. has anyone took a Garmin 296 apart?
Thanks
Jerry
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: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines) |
Yes sir! But what are you going to do with that ever-increasing spent radioactive
fuel? Put it on our gardens for fertilizer? Solve that problem and you do indeed
have an excellent power source.
----- Original Message ----
From: Jerry Isler <jlisler@alltel.net>
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 8:42:13 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: Corn Ethanol (was Alternative engines)
cknauf wrote: Go nuclear!
Right on brother! We make 1800 MW of electricity from clean nuclear power
every day, 24 hours per day, seven days per week. We refuel after operating
about 500 days at 100 % power. Think how much coal, natural gas, or oil we
don't burn because of this.
Jerry Isler
Control Room Supervisor and
Licensed Senior Reactor Operator
Do Not Archive
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
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: RE: Nuclear Energy |
I don't understand why we're not doing more to pursue IEC (inertial
electrostatic confinement) fusion. It's got the potential to be free of
neutron radiation (or any other radioactive byproduct for that matter),
relatively inexpensive (the leader in the research area believed a
prototype powerplant could be built for $125M...unfortunately he's
passed away), produce electricity directly from reaction byproducts
making it >90% efficient, and could be used for space travel. Let's
divert some of the DOE money to this research.
Do some google searches on Robert Bussard, IEC fusion, and Farnsworth
Fusor to see for yourself.
do not archive
Mike Cencula
Chuck Jensen wrote:
>
> Hi, Glen,
>
> As Jerry Isler pointed out...don't confuse commercial nuclear power with Government
weapons programs. The weapons programs (DOE/DOD) have been a mess and
environmental-pig virtually since day one, though they are doing much better recently.
>
> In contrast, the Commercial Nuclear program is run to an altogether different
standard. Though every industrial process is subject to environmental mishaps,
they are few and far between for the commercial nuclear industry. Nuclear
power plants, particularly pressurized water reactors (PWR) all produce tritium
(hydrogen atom with extra proton) that you mentioned. However, to call tritium
permanent and highly toxic is mistaken on all accounts. With a half-life
of 12 years, tritium decays away rapidly which is the reason the Government keeps
wanting to replenish its supply for warheads.
>
> As to it being highly toxic, this is simply not so. The beta radiation given
off by tritium will not penetrate a piece of paper or your skin. It is only
of interest when ingested. Even then, being water based, it is rapidly excreted
from the body...especially if you help it along with a six-pack.
>
> As far as hydrogen embrittlement, it was thought to be a problem but turned out
to be only a "theoretical" problem. A plant in the U.S. and two in Wales (Trawsfynydd)
were shut down and the reactor vessel side walls in the vicinity
of the highest flux area of the reactor, was cored and the stainless steel tested.
There was no embrittlement, at least none that affected the integrity of
reactor vessel. The piping in a nuclear plant will not become embrittled from
neutron bombardment because there are no neutrons anywhere but in the reactor
vessel.
>
> So, reactor embrittlement, like tritium, sound pretty ominous, but neither are
of consequence to the safety of the plant or public. Now, if you would like
to discuss the environmental safety of the DOE sites (Oak Ridge, Hanford, Savannah
River, et al), that's an altogether different animal, but has nothing to
do with commercial nuclear power used to produce electricity, so please don't
confuse the two.
>
> If given the choice to live 10 miles down wind of a coal fired plant or a nuclear
plant, the nuclear plant is the choice by a landslide. The coal fired plant
actually emits more radiation than a nuclear plant because of the natural
radioisotopes in coal that are continuously emitted into the air, along with sulfur,
particulates and a potpourri of other chemicals. Nuclear is represented
to be clean for a reason!
>
> Chuck Jensen
>
>
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 |
|
I have the same issues with my 496.? I concur in that it seems to have started
suddenly for quite a few of us.? Mine started this past July.? Has anyone contacted
Garmin and gotten a reasonable answer?? I plan to visit with them when I
attend SNF next month.
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Jerry Springer <jsflyrv@verizon.net>
Sent: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 12:10 pm
Subject: RV-List: Garmin 296
?
Hi all,?
Been a while since I have been here, but I see things are still going along pretty
much the same :-)?
?
I have been looking through the archives seeing if anyone has had the same problem?
and come up with a solutions to Garmins not locking onto Sats. I have read all
the threads about?
dead internal batteries and selecting the options etc. I cannot believe that the
internal?
memory battery is dead as this unit is not that old. It is very frustrating to
go fly and?
not get a GPS lock on.?
?
My 296 use to lock on almost immediately but now takes a long time to find the
satellites,?
Some flight it well not lock on at all if it sits more than a few days?
Has anyone that I read about having this problem come up with a real solution??
It seems like everyone's problem started around the same time, could this have
been the result?
of a version of upgrade? I always upgrade when Garmin notifies me one is available.?
?
My old Flybuddy GPS memory battery went dead after about 10 years, I took it apart
and?
replaced it with one I found online. has anyone took a Garmin 296 apart??
?
Thanks?
Jerry?
?
?
?
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 |
|
I just got my 396 back from Garmin after they confirmed my real time clock battery
was the problem. They wound up giving me an exchange unit. One of the hoops
I had to jump thru was a master reset. In reading about that procedure it appears
there are cases of memory corruption that mimic the battery problem and
are fixed by th reset.
The master reset procedure is complex and will flush all your user waypoints and
routes so you should do a backup using Mapsource or other. I Googled for the
proc b ut someone may have it handy. It may differ slightly for the 296 vs 396.
Garmin complained that these lists make it sound like the batt is a huge problem
when it is really rare. They'll take care of it if it is but can walk you
thru other steps to fix or confirm it.
Regards,
Greg
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RE: Nuclear Energy |
Mike,
I assume you were quoting the late Bussard when you noted that the prototype power
plant could be built for $125M? If I recall correctly (LOL), he was the brother
of the guy that said, and I quote, "nuclear power will be so cheap that
it won't be worth metering." :-)
If I recollect correctly, about 30 years and 10 billion dollars ago, nuclear fusion
was just 10 years away. Interestingly, the more work we do the further the
payday is pushed off into the future. There are technical and materials problems
that are perhaps not insurmountable forever (which is a very long time),
but the science and materials do not exist to make fusion a reality in the near
future--that being the next 20-30 years. Saying that fusion is >20 years
in the future is another way of saying that we don't have a clue how to do it,
but if we keep throwing money at it and the nuclear-fairy is kind to us, who
knows?
The only fusion we've been able to effect, other than for brief seconds in a laboratory
setting, such as the Tomahawk facility (which absorbs more energy than
it emits before it destroys the plasma necessary to keep the reaction going)
is in nuclear weapons. Obviously, the means of harvesting the heat/energy from
a nuclear weapons is problematic.
In sum, as attractive as fusion is on paper, the reality is daunting and discourage.
Unfortunately, we'll be flying electric planes with a range of 1000 miles
and there'll be peace in the Middle East before we get the first electron of
energy from nuclear fusion.
William Dean,
What to do with spent nuclear fuel? This is a novel idea and not politically popular....put
it Yucca Mountain where it belongs. At some point in the not too
distant future, the spent fuel can be processed in the U.S. to recover the unspent
Uranium (this is already done in Europe). While this process is effective
at greatly reducing the volume of spent fuel, like every good deed, it has
collateral consequences, such as a large facility, cost and secondary waste of
its own, even if small compared to the volume of spent fuel presently generated.
In short, spent fuel disposal is a political problem, not a technical one.
Chuck Jensen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Michael D.
Cencula
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: RE: Nuclear Energy
I don't understand why we're not doing more to pursue IEC (inertial
electrostatic confinement) fusion. It's got the potential to be free of
neutron radiation (or any other radioactive byproduct for that matter),
relatively inexpensive (the leader in the research area believed a
prototype powerplant could be built for $125M...unfortunately he's
passed away), produce electricity directly from reaction byproducts
making it >90% efficient, and could be used for space travel. Let's
divert some of the DOE money to this research.
Do some google searches on Robert Bussard, IEC fusion, and Farnsworth
Fusor to see for yourself.
do not archive
Mike Cencula
Chuck Jensen wrote:
>
> Hi, Glen,
>
> As Jerry Isler pointed out...don't confuse commercial nuclear power with Government
weapons programs. The weapons programs (DOE/DOD) have been a mess and
environmental-pig virtually since day one, though they are doing much better recently.
>
> In contrast, the Commercial Nuclear program is run to an altogether different
standard. Though every industrial process is subject to environmental mishaps,
they are few and far between for the commercial nuclear industry. Nuclear
power plants, particularly pressurized water reactors (PWR) all produce tritium
(hydrogen atom with extra proton) that you mentioned. However, to call tritium
permanent and highly toxic is mistaken on all accounts. With a half-life
of 12 years, tritium decays away rapidly which is the reason the Government keeps
wanting to replenish its supply for warheads.
>
> As to it being highly toxic, this is simply not so. The beta radiation given
off by tritium will not penetrate a piece of paper or your skin. It is only
of interest when ingested. Even then, being water based, it is rapidly excreted
from the body...especially if you help it along with a six-pack.
>
> As far as hydrogen embrittlement, it was thought to be a problem but turned out
to be only a "theoretical" problem. A plant in the U.S. and two in Wales (Trawsfynydd)
were shut down and the reactor vessel side walls in the vicinity
of the highest flux area of the reactor, was cored and the stainless steel tested.
There was no embrittlement, at least none that affected the integrity of
reactor vessel. The piping in a nuclear plant will not become embrittled from
neutron bombardment because there are no neutrons anywhere but in the reactor
vessel.
>
> So, reactor embrittlement, like tritium, sound pretty ominous, but neither are
of consequence to the safety of the plant or public. Now, if you would like
to discuss the environmental safety of the DOE sites (Oak Ridge, Hanford, Savannah
River, et al), that's an altogether different animal, but has nothing to
do with commercial nuclear power used to produce electricity, so please don't
confuse the two.
>
> If given the choice to live 10 miles down wind of a coal fired plant or a nuclear
plant, the nuclear plant is the choice by a landslide. The coal fired plant
actually emits more radiation than a nuclear plant because of the natural
radioisotopes in coal that are continuously emitted into the air, along with sulfur,
particulates and a potpourri of other chemicals. Nuclear is represented
to be clean for a reason!
>
> Chuck Jensen
>
>
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: | Re: RE: Nuclear Energy |
In a message dated 3/15/2008 12:10:52 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
cjensen@dts9000.com writes:
Saying that fusion is >20 years in the future is another way of saying that
we don't have a clue how to do it, but if we keep throwing money at it and
the nuclear-fairy is kind to us, who knows?
=============================================
But just imagine if Julius Frontinius Sextus had played more on the beach he
might have invented the semiconductor.
-GV
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: Nuclear Energy |
IEC fusion is fundamentally different than the tokamak concept:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_electrostatic_confinement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak
There are people building IEC reactors in their basement. Seriously.
Of course they're no where near break even, but only since Bussard's
research was completed a couple years ago was the physics knowledge
available to design an IEC reactor that didn't have a central grid.
Even if his estimate is off by a factor of 100, it'd still be a good
investment to spend $12 billion to develop a model of a working power plant.
I'm just suggesting that we divert some of the money that's being spent
on tokamak development towards IEC development. After all, the results
couldn't possibly be any worse than they've gotten to date. :-)
Yet again, do not archive.
Mike
Chuck Jensen wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> I assume you were quoting the late Bussard when you noted that the prototype
power plant could be built for $125M? If I recall correctly (LOL), he was the
brother of the guy that said, and I quote, "nuclear power will be so cheap that
it won't be worth metering." :-)
>
> If I recollect correctly, about 30 years and 10 billion dollars ago, nuclear
fusion was just 10 years away. Interestingly, the more work we do the further
the payday is pushed off into the future. There are technical and materials
problems that are perhaps not insurmountable forever (which is a very long time),
but the science and materials do not exist to make fusion a reality in the
near future--that being the next 20-30 years. Saying that fusion is >20 years
in the future is another way of saying that we don't have a clue how to do it,
but if we keep throwing money at it and the nuclear-fairy is kind to us, who
knows?
>
> The only fusion we've been able to effect, other than for brief seconds in a
laboratory setting, such as the Tomahawk facility (which absorbs more energy than
it emits before it destroys the plasma necessary to keep the reaction going)
is in nuclear weapons. Obviously, the means of harvesting the heat/energy
from a nuclear weapons is problematic.
>
> In sum, as attractive as fusion is on paper, the reality is daunting and discourage.
Unfortunately, we'll be flying electric planes with a range of 1000 miles
and there'll be peace in the Middle East before we get the first electron
of energy from nuclear fusion.
>
> William Dean,
>
> What to do with spent nuclear fuel? This is a novel idea and not politically
popular....put it Yucca Mountain where it belongs. At some point in the not
too distant future, the spent fuel can be processed in the U.S. to recover the
unspent Uranium (this is already done in Europe). While this process is effective
at greatly reducing the volume of spent fuel, like every good deed, it has
collateral consequences, such as a large facility, cost and secondary waste
of its own, even if small compared to the volume of spent fuel presently generated.
In short, spent fuel disposal is a political problem, not a technical
one.
>
> Chuck Jensen
>
>
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: Liquid cooling-alternative engines |
There seems to be one alternative engine that merits a closer look. It doesn't
have the problems of trying to adapt liquid cooling to your craft. Corvair. William
Waynne seems to have engineered this engine to the extent that it is a reliable
100 hp power plant.Horizontally opposed 6 cyl on the cheap! See it on
the flycorvair site.
----- Original Message ----
From: Gordon or Marge <gcomfo@tc3net.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 8:21:57 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Liquid cooling-alternative engines
This is an interesting thread. I have great respect and admiration for the
Tracy Crooks, Jess Meyers and Ed Andersens who have tackled the problems
associated with alternative engines and succeeded. If I were 30 years
younger I might take a shot at it myself. I think it was Bob Nuckolls who
quoted Charles Kettering as saying, and I paraphrase,"You fail, perhaps many
times, until you succeed." The task is solvable but for every success there
are many failures. My comments are meant to call attention to a few of the
large problems to those whose expectations may be unrealistic. In no way do
I mean to put down anyone's efforts in this arena.
Gordon Comfort
N363GC
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
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 |
|
| Subject: | Procedures - Clean text before reply and do not archive |
Hi Al,
While you are in the complaint mood, please be advised that the forum
procedure on replies is to delete the irrelevant text before you hit the
send button. Perhaps the nuclear scientists will help you with this if you
ask them nicely.
BTW, I have no comment on your subject, wait, that was screwed up too.
Dale ;)
And do not archive would be nice, now how many violations can we count?
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Al Grajek
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 10:11 AM
Subject: RV-List: RE: RV-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 03/14/08
THIS IS AN RV FORUM. NOT GENERAL DISCUSSION of your OPINIONS!!
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Liquid cooling-alternative engines |
It seems to be roughly 80 lb heavier than a Rotax 912, so it probably
isn't suitable for an RV-12, and it doesn't have enough power to be
suitable for other RV models.
--
Kevin Horton
On 15 Mar 2008, at 17:13, William Dean wrote:
> There seems to be one alternative engine that merits a closer look.
> It doesn't have the problems of trying to adapt liquid cooling to
> your craft. Corvair. William Waynne seems to have engineered this
> engine to the extent that it is a reliable 100 hp power
> plant.Horizontally opposed 6 cyl on the cheap! See it on the
> flycorvair site.
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Gordon or Marge <gcomfo@tc3net.com>
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 8:21:57 AM
> Subject: RE: RV-List: Liquid cooling-alternative engines
>
>
>
> This is an interesting thread. I have great respect and admiration
> for the
> Tracy Crooks, Jess Meyers and Ed Andersens who have tackled the
> problems
> associated with alternative engines and succeeded. If I were 30 years
> younger I might take a shot at it myself. I think it was Bob
> Nuckolls who
> quoted Charles Kettering as saying, and I paraphrase,"You fail,
> perhaps many
> times, until you succeed." The task is solvable but for every
> success there
> are many
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: | Re: Liquid cooling-alternative engines |
The Corvair is an excellent alternative engine -provided you need 100 HP
or less. Not quite suitable for most RVs, however. While the RV will
fly on 100 HP - the take off run is excessively long {:>)
Ed
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.com
http://www.andersonee.com
http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
----- Original Message -----
From: William Dean
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Liquid cooling-alternative engines
There seems to be one alternative engine that merits a closer look. It
doesn't have the problems of trying to adapt liquid cooling to your
craft. Corvair. William Waynne seems to have engineered this engine to
the extent that it is a reliable 100 hp power plant.Horizontally opposed
6 cyl on the cheap! See it on the flycorvair site.
----- Original Message ----
From: Gordon or Marge <gcomfo@tc3net.com>
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 8:21:57 AM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Liquid cooling-alternative engines
This is an interesting thread. I have great respect and admiration
for the
Tracy Crooks, Jess Meyers and Ed Andersens who have tackled the
problems
associated with alternative engines and succeeded. If I were 30 years
younger I might take a shot at it myself. I think it was Bob Nuckolls
who
quoted Charles Kettering as saying, and I paraphrase,"You fail,
perhaps many
times, until you succeed." The task is solvable but for every success
there
are many
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 |
|
| Subject: | Das Fed contributions |
Das Fed,
I can't tell you how much I appreciate your contributions to this list ---
always good stuff.
Bob Trumpfheller
do not archive
<<The special airworthiness certificate is the only doucument that MUST be
displayed in the cabin where it can be seen while operating the aircraft.
Normally most folks keep the registration with the a/w certificate and the
operating limitations in the glove box or pouch. They just need to be kept in
a
spot that is accessible to the pilot.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed>>
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
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 |
|
| Subject: | RE: RV-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 03/14/08 |
Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed Today:
And you never put do not archive!
Do not archive
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Al Grajek
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 7:11 AM
Subject: RV-List: RE: RV-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 03/14/08
THIS IS AN RV FORUM. NOT GENERAL DISCUSSION of your OPINIONS!!
> Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 23:57:46 -0700
> From: rv-list@matronics.com
> To: rv-list-digest@matronics.com
> Subject: RV-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 03/14/08
>
> *
>
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 |
|
I am running the Van's corrugated plastic conduit for the wiring in my
wings. I plan to cut the tube out in the bay with the bell crank so I
can locally route wiring for the nav and landing lights, heated pitot,
etc. My question is: what are people are doing to protect the wires
from rubbing against the edge of the tubing and cutting them? Not only
will I have that potential in the bell-crank bay, but also at the wing
root and tip. Any suggestions? Thanks in advance for any help!
Doug Fischer
RV-9A Wings
Jenison, MI
do not archive
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wiring Conduit |
The plastic conduit will not cut the wire. For areas where there is no
conduit you can: wrap with vinyl spiral wrap, vinyl/nylon tube, heat
shrink wrap, or an edge
cushion.http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/appages/grommetedging.php
Mike H 9A/8A
----- Original Message -----
From: Doug Fischer
To: RV-9 List ; RV List
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 10:11 PM
Subject: RV-List: Wiring Conduit
I am running the Van's corrugated plastic conduit for the wiring in my
wings. I plan to cut the tube out in the bay with the bell crank so I
can locally route wiring for the nav and landing lights, heated pitot,
etc. My question is: what are people are doing to protect the wires
from rubbing against the edge of the tubing and cutting them? Not only
will I have that potential in the bell-crank bay, but also at the wing
root and tip. Any suggestions? Thanks in advance for any help!
Doug Fischer
RV-9A Wings
Jenison, MI
do not archive
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 |
|
Tank leaks can be a bitch to find and worse to fix. but the nice thing is that
prc 1422 can hide a lot of sins. a scotch bright pad on a die grinder will clean
up any flange. Don't worry about the alclad you will bury it in sealant. call
me i will walk you through the repair. there are several ways to do this based
upon what you have available. the RV tank did not use the right nut plate
for fuel tank, IE. domed.
rick m
a+p/i+a
559-270-7113
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
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! --
|