Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - The problem with George

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

The problem with George
Goto page 1, 2 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

nuckollsr(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 26, 2007 6:41 am Post subject: The problem with George

George, you've been asked politely before to

    cease your disruptive behaviors in this classroom.

    If we're to interpret your latest rants as an

    unwillingness to comply with a simple-request,

    I'll have to make sure new-comers to the List

    are aware of your track record.



    I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding

    and substance in your last postings. Instead,

    I've published a small excerpt from our past

    conversations at:



http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/gmcjetpilot.html



    I considered posting it at the time you were asked

    to leave some months ago but held off after you

    appeared to honor my request. Since you've chosen

    to resume your old counter productive and disruptive

    habits, it seems prudent to let everyone know what

    you're about and share a snapshot of what we've already

    experienced with your unwelcome activities here on

    the List.



    Do the honorable thing sir.



    Bob . . .

gmcjetpilot

Joined: 04 Nov 2006
Posts: 170

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:44 am Post subject: The problem with George

<?xml:namespace prefix = o />>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net (nuckollsr(at)cox.net)> 

  

    >George, you've been asked politely before to 

    >cease your disruptive behaviors in this classroom. 

    >If we're to interpret your latest rants as an 

    >unwillingness to comply with a simple-request, 

    >l'll have to make sure new-comers to the List 

    >are aware of your track record. 

   

  Bob I think new comers are not aware of you track record. I 

assume this latest attack on me is because I simply stated 

my opinion that OV relays are a poor choice for I-VR  alternators 

  and to quote others, its *Kludgier*. You can disagree but save 

  it. Lesson new-comers, don't disagree with Bob.

   

  

    >I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding 

    >and substance in your last postings. Instead, 

    >I've published a small excerpt from our past 

    >conversations at: 

   

   

  Again with the condescending attitude and talking down. Bob 

you are not going to respond because you don't have a good 

argument or facts. I do. I also understand  adding a big heavy 

relay on a I-VR alternator is not ideal. I-VR's are not designed  

for that kind add-on protection. That is all. I also stated there 

pied piper better approaches. Disagree all you want, but save 

the vitriolic hateful stuff for someone else. Ho humm boring, 

  every one is bored with this little tiff, give it up Bob.

  

 

    >I considered posting it at the time you were asked 

    >to leave some months ago but held off after you 

    >appeared to honor my request. Since you've chosen 

    >to resume your old counter productive and disruptive 

    >habits, it seems prudent to let everyone know what 

    >you're about and share a snapshot of what we've already  

    >experienced with your unwelcome activities here on 

    >the List. 

    > 

    >Do the honorable thing sir. 

    > 

    >Bob . . .

   

   

  Bob I am not going to play your game and address your Ad 

hominem attacks. It is childish. If you have some facts or 

useful info than fine. I think my contribution is useful and I 

have been told so by many off line thanking me for not 

  being afraid of you. 

   

  You have a very sharp tongue and criticize and dismissing 

  many ideas and opinions of others, but when you are criticized 

  you don't back your position up and just go ballistic wacky? 

  I just disagree with you. I really do think the OV relay on an 

ND (I-VR) is NOT great. I do think there are better alternatives:

   

  -Do nothing (no OV relay, risk of damaging OV is very low)

-Plane Power (excellent product w/ good extra OV protection)

-External VR alternator (Plane Power, B&C, Homemade 

modified ND w/ a V1200 regulator)

   

  Bob, as a designer, if you have not seen or used the V1200 

VR so don't comment. It is far superior  than the B&C unit 

  and cost 1/3rd to 1/4th less. I AM SORRY. We can also  

  do better than a 1970's $10 Ford VR, you recommend. 

   

   

  Bob I could make an archive and publish all your 

inconsistencies, hypocrisy and personal attacks, not only  

on me but many others, who are very knowledgeable, but I'm  

not. I'm not out to hurt you like you want to hurt me. I just  

want to add an alternative opinion, one that is well thought  

out and based on experience, education and research, not 

  fear and ignorance. How many planes have you built and 

  flown Bob? 

   

  You turn everything into an argument. Just stop it. I'll not 

be suckered into another mud sling fest. As expected you  

have nothing, so you go to personal attacks & accusations. 

I forgive you. Now lets be civil Bob, please. People are 

  bored with this petty behavior. Just say you disagree and 

  think the OV relay is great and needed. I don't think so. 

   

    BOB, YOU LEAD PEOPLE INTO THINKING THEY MUST  

  HAVE ADD-ON OV PROTECTION ON NIPPON-DENSO  

  INTERNALLY REGULATED ALTERNATOR. YOU MAKE 

  UNSPACIFIC CLAIMS AND GIVE A SENSE OF URGENCY  

  THAT IS NOT NEEDED IN MY OPINION. THAT IS ALL. 

  FACTS PLEASE? 

   

  Disagree but stop trying to slander and defame me.

   



  Cheers George

   

    What is  Bob talking about now? The problem with George.

   

  The problem with George is Bob has a personal animosity  

  against him. (George has engineering degrees and Bob 

  hates engineers. He thinks engineers are stupid). George, 

  disagrees with Bob and calls him on his unsupported claims

  and opinions from time time, mostly about I-VR alternators 

  and OV relays. Bob hates that. Instead of supplying facts,  

  to support his position, Bob personally attacks George, 

  OR he'll talk a bunch flowery words with analogy's & parables 

  till your head explodes & you don't care any more. George  

  is not the only one. There's long list of really good people 

  that Bob has bullied off the list. Even people not on the list, 

  like Van of Van's Aircraft, who Bob called ignorant.  Ironically 

  Bob now agrees with Van, trip an OV relay on a good ND

  alternator, it will damage it. When Van said it, Van was 

  ignorant according to Bob. Van is educated engineer 

  by the way. Bob has expressed frustration that Van's 

  Aircraft had not embrace Bob's offer to teach them the 

  aeroelectric method of wiring. Fact is DC aircraft wiring is 

  basically the same as it has been for +50 years. This is 

  not rocket science. Bob's method incorporates many 

  automotive techniques like hidden fuses, which is not 

  standard for aircraft. Still Van's Aircraft felt after 42 years 

  building planes and 27 years in the kit plane business, 

  they could wire planes and Bob's feeling where hurt. 

  Therefore Van is ignorant. Don't think so.

   

  http://www.vansaircraft.com/public/pers-van.htm  

   

  George thinks there have been many untruths and 

  misunderstandings about I-VR NipponDenso alternators 

  and the dreaded OV condition. Bob  is the purveyor of some  

  unsubstantiated folklore. George is the only one that dares 

  defend internally regulated alternators on the list and at 

  least present facts on the subject or tries to get facts. Bob, 

  has admitted he does not know much about I-VR's, but he's 

  suggesting devices to hang onto their wiring which can 

  damage it.  You decide. Its you choice. George does not 

  need you to agree of follow his suggestions, just likes giving 

  food for thought. You are the final authority on your project.

   

  Typically people new to plane building can be led by 

  system *experts* to add-on all kind of things. At some 

  point you have to say NO to the extras and go fly. Weight, 

  cost, build time, risk v. benefited and type of plane and type 

  of flying you do determines the choice. Listen to Bob and 

  that guy George and others and than make a decision, but 

  don't follow one Pied Piper. Bob blows a good Pipe and the 

  melody sounds  convincing, but in fact it is one OPINION 

  not God's law. Usually Bob is right or has great ideas, just 

  not on the OV relay in George's opinion. So does George 

  deserve to be attacked for speaking his mind? I think not. 

  Bob has a personal problem and should write  George off 

  line so he can call Bob and talk to him man the man and 

  not bother everyone with this petty feud. If Bob just wants 

  to try to embarrass and aggravate George, than he will keep 

  making stupid post that start with, the problem with George. 

  Sadly Bob probably likes to fight and will keep wasting time.

   [url=http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49935/*http://games.yahoo.com]Bored stiff?[/url] Loosen up...

[url=http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=49935/*http://games.yahoo.com]Download and play hundreds of games for free[/url] on Yahoo! Games. [quote][b]

nuckollsr(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 5:13 am Post subject: The problem with George

At 02:42 AM 1/27/2007 -0800, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  <?xml:namespace prefix = o />>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" 

<<mailto:nuckollsr(at)cox.net>nuckollsr(at)cox.net>



     >George, you've been asked politely before to

     >cease your disruptive behaviors in this classroom.

     >If we're to interpret your latest rants as an

     >unwillingness to comply with a simple-request,

     >l'll have to make sure new-comers to the List

     >are aware of your track record.



Bob I think new comers are not aware of you track record. I

assume this latest attack on me is because I simply stated

my opinion that OV relays are a poor choice for I-VR alternators

and to quote others, its *Kludgier*. You can disagree but save

it. Lesson new-comers, don't disagree with Bob.


	


   No, my response was published long before your statement

   about "Kludgier".

 	  Quote: 	
		  



     >I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding

     >and substance in your last postings. Instead,

     >I've published a small excerpt from our past

     >conversations at:

Again with the condescending attitude and talking down. Bob

you are not going to respond because you don't have a good

argument or facts. I do. I also understand adding a big heavy

relay on a I-VR alternator is not ideal. I-VR's are not designed

for that kind add-on protection. That is all. I also stated there

pied piper better approaches. Disagree all you want, but save

the vitriolic hateful stuff for someone else. Ho humm boring,

every one is bored with this little tiff, give it up Bob.


	


     Let's do this little experiment George. Like Paul and

     Greg, I'm betting that you cannot focus on a single issue

     and debate it based on the practice, science, or desires

     of the builder. You have hat-danced around every point

     I've made with respect to your lack of understanding. You

     claim to be a CFI yet you don't teach, you preach. You

     claim to be ATP rated yet you brush off the goals stated

     by myself and my builders to exploit practices and features

     found in the world's safest mode of transportation.



     You cannot differentiate between condescension and the

     unwillingness of a teacher to maintain standards of

     both behavior and technical excellence in his classroom.

     You cannot differentiate between "vitriolic hateful stuff"

     and considered observations of your aberrant, uncooperative

     and sometimes belligerent behavior. I have dozens of your

     writings that call me all kinds of names and cast aspersion

     upon my skills, motives and honor. At the same time,

     I've never cited your behavior for anything except fuzzy

     thinking and actions unbefitting an exchange of ideas

     amongst honorable individuals.



     So here is your pop quiz George. Take the question below

     and share with us the understanding that demonstrates

     any shortfall in the logic I've offered. I'll address

     the latest pails of sand throwing separately or perhaps

     never. Let us concentrated on one issue at a time. Here

     it is:



     Answer one question George. Is it, or is it not

     a valid design goal for the builder to desire any

     time, any conditions, no-risk, ON-OFF control of

     the alternator?  If "no" then please explain your

     rationale for this departure from conventions

     practiced in aviation since the first generator

     was installed on an aircraft. If "yes", then please

     explain and provide schematics of your suggested

     alternatives to the "kludgier" relay . . .



     Bob . . .

jindoguy(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 6:30 am Post subject: The problem with George

I really don't want to get into this, but I'd just like to ask a question.

GMCjetpilot, George, whoever, I believe in what I see. Where's your website? Can I get a copy of your book? Do you ever address anything else but IR alternators or are you just a one trick PITA? 



Thanks,

Rick



On 1/27/07, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckollsr(at)cox.net  (nuckollsr(at)cox.net)> wrote:[quote]--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" < nuckollsr(at)cox.net (nuckollsr(at)cox.net)>



At 02:42 AM 1/27/2007 -0800, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  <?xml:namespace prefix = o />>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"

<<mailto: nuckollsr(at)cox.net (nuckollsr(at)cox.net)>nuckollsr(at)cox.net (nuckollsr(at)cox.net)>



     >George, you've been asked politely before to

     >cease your disruptive behaviors in this classroom. 

     >If we're to interpret your latest rants as an

     >unwillingness to comply with a simple-request,

     >l'll have to make sure new-comers to the List

     >are aware of your track record. 



Bob I think new comers are not aware of you track record. I

assume this latest attack on me is because I simply stated

my opinion that OV relays are a poor choice for I-VR alternators

and to quote others, its *Kludgier*. You can disagree but save 

it. Lesson new-comers, don't disagree with Bob.


	


   No, my response was published long before your statement

   about "Kludgier".

 	  Quote: 	
		  



     >I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding 

     >and substance in your last postings. Instead,

     >I've published a small excerpt from our past

     >conversations at:

Again with the condescending attitude and talking down. Bob 

you are not going to respond because you don't have a good

argument or facts. I do. I also understand adding a big heavy

relay on a I-VR alternator is not ideal. I-VR's are not designed

for that kind add-on protection. That is all. I also stated there 

pied piper better approaches. Disagree all you want, but save

the vitriolic hateful stuff for someone else. Ho humm boring,

every one is bored with this little tiff, give it up Bob.


	


     Let's do this little experiment George. Like Paul and 

     Greg, I'm betting that you cannot focus on a single issue

     and debate it based on the practice, science, or desires

     of the builder. You have hat-danced around every point

     I've made with respect to your lack of understanding. You 

     claim to be a CFI yet you don't teach, you preach. You

     claim to be ATP rated yet you brush off the goals stated

     by myself and my builders to exploit practices and features

     found in the world's safest mode of transportation. 



     You cannot differentiate between condescension and the

     unwillingness of a teacher to maintain standards of

     both behavior and technical excellence in his classroom.

     You cannot differentiate between "vitriolic hateful stuff" 

     and considered observations of your aberrant, uncooperative

     and sometimes belligerent behavior. I have dozens of your

     writings that call me all kinds of names and cast aspersion

     upon my skills, motives and honor. At the same time, 

     I've never cited your behavior for anything except fuzzy

     thinking and actions unbefitting an exchange of ideas

     amongst honorable individuals.



     So here is your pop quiz George. Take the question below 

     and share with us the understanding that demonstrates

     any shortfall in the logic I've offered. I'll address

     the latest pails of sand throwing separately or perhaps

     never. Let us concentrated on one issue at a time. Here 

     it is:



     Answer one question George. Is it, or is it not

     a valid design goal for the builder to desire any

     time, any conditions, no-risk, ON-OFF control of

     the alternator?  If "no" then please explain your 

     rationale for this departure from conventions

     practiced in aviation since the first generator

     was installed on an aircraft. If "yes", then please

     explain and provide schematics of your suggested 

"Ya'll drop on in"

takes on a whole new meaning

when you live at the airport.  [quote][b]

vaughnray(at)bvunet.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 6:52 am Post subject: The problem with George

Since automobiles seem to feel that a malfunction  light will tell you all that you need to know, I thought that my 3 month old  Mercury Cougar was discharging when thae light came on. I drove the rest of the  20 miles home in that condition. When I lifted the hood, my battery was the  shape of a balloon instead of rectangular and the smell of battery acid was  strong. I quickly closed the hood and waited 4 or 5 hours untill things cooled  down before addressing the problem. So much for the theory that IR alternators  aren't subject to the runaway charging problem. Sorry, but my limited experience  won't let me trust them. That's all I will say about that and I don't want to  hear anything in argument. 

  

 Europa912

 [quote]   ---

walter.fellows(at)gmail.c
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:26 am Post subject: The problem with George

Bob



I have been a member of this forum off and on for over 5 years. You are a man that has a deep knowledge of this subject and is dedicated to helping us build robust and cost effective electrical systems. I have disagreed with you on some matters and have found you very open to other views and willing to agree to disagree if there is no fundamental problem with the facts. (Such as 28v electical systems versus 14 volt, etc.) This guy George seems to be selling something and you indicate he is not willing to come clean on his identity and motives. I am sorry to see these interchanges and the amount of time you must have to waste replying to him and trying to get him to go away. I vote for you banning him outright so we can get back to the sort of healthy interchanges for which this forum in known. 



Walter Fellows



On 1/27/07, Gaye and Vaughn <vaughnray(at)bvunet.net (vaughnray(at)bvunet.net)> wrote:[quote]        Since automobiles seem to feel that a malfunction  light will tell you all that you need to know, I thought that my 3 month old  Mercury Cougar was discharging when thae light came on. I drove the rest of the  20 miles home in that condition. When I lifted the hood, my battery was the  shape of a balloon instead of rectangular and the smell of battery acid was  strong. I quickly closed the hood and waited 4 or 5 hours untill things cooled  down before addressing the problem. So much for the theory that IR alternators  aren't subject to the runaway charging problem. Sorry, but my limited experience  won't let me trust them. That's all I will say about that and I don't want to  hear anything in argument. 

  

 Europa912

 [quote]   ---

john(at)ballofshame.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:46 am Post subject: The problem with George

Since I'm the one who introduced the word "kludgier", I'll explain.  The 

solid state crowbar is a very elegant design.  Voltage goes up, trips, 

field to ground (or open on the other side of the 

regulator....whatever), circuit breaker eventually trips to save the 

wiring.  Very simple, very straightforward.



The crowbar on a relay coil IS a kludge.  There's no reason to crowbar 

in this case since regardless of how fast you denergize the coil, you're 

certainly limited by the speed of the spreading contacts.  In the first 

case, the crowbar solves the problem...the CB then pops to save the 

wires.  In this case, the crowbar detects the problem and removes power, 

then the relay opens and actually fixes it.  There are a dozens of 

different ways to accomplish the same thing.



On the other hand, how else do you do it that makes it any better?  Oh 

well.  If you feel you need this sort of control over your alternator 

and are dead set on I-VR, then that's really the only practical solution 

so you go with it.  The crowbar itself (or whatever device you use to 

remove coil power) is not the kludge here...it's the fact you have to go 

through a relay.



Maybe a better way would be to dump an I-VR's output into a dynamic load 

instead of disconnecting it completely.  Weight, complexity, cost.... 

BLECH.  Regardless, it's CERTAINLY less of a kludge than the "adjust 

your engine's RPM" method that I've heard mentioned many times when 

talking about controlling an I-VR runaway.  Apparently, some people fly 

over farms all day long.  Come out to the Mojave dessert some day and 

I'll take you on a flight in 110 degree weather when the DA on the 

ground is 5000FT+ to begin with.  Then we'll try to hop on over the 

mountains.  You'll find that power reduction is not an option.  

Electrical problems should NOT be life threatening by requiring power 

reduction.



The real question is if anyone wanted to have this kind of OV control, 

why on Earth would you make it harder on yourself with an I-VR 

alternator?  You can have your cake and it eat but sometimes the cake 

tastes like broccoli, if you know what I mean.



Bob:  don't get upset for me calling it a kludge.  It really is but 

until someone comes up with a better way of doing it, it's the best 

solution to the given problem.  Bottom line, though, is that is works so 

you use it until something better comes along.  There's no law that says 

things need to be perfect and that you can't use something today because 

new technology might make a better one tommorow.



-John Coloccia

www.ballofshame.com

Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>



 At 02:42 AM 1/27/2007 -0800, you wrote:

> <?xml:namespace prefix = o />>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" 

> <<mailto:nuckollsr(at)cox.net>nuckollsr(at)cox.net>

>

>     >George, you've been asked politely before to

>     >cease your disruptive behaviors in this classroom.

>     >If we're to interpret your latest rants as an

>     >unwillingness to comply with a simple-request,

>     >l'll have to make sure new-comers to the List

>     >are aware of your track record.

>

> Bob I think new comers are not aware of you track record. I

> assume this latest attack on me is because I simply stated

> my opinion that OV relays are a poor choice for I-VR alternators

> and to quote others, its *Kludgier*. You can disagree but save

> it. Lesson new-comers, don't disagree with Bob.



   No, my response was published long before your statement

   about "Kludgier".

>     >I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding

>     >and substance in your last postings. Instead,

>     >I've published a small excerpt from our past

>     >conversations at:

> Again with the condescending attitude and talking down. Bob

> you are not going to respond because you don't have a good

> argument or facts. I do. I also understand adding a big heavy

> relay on a I-VR alternator is not ideal. I-VR's are not designed

> for that kind add-on protection. That is all. I also stated there

> pied piper better approaches. Disagree all you want, but save

> the vitriolic hateful stuff for someone else. Ho humm boring,

> every one is bored with this little tiff, give it up Bob.



     Let's do this little experiment George. Like Paul and

     Greg, I'm betting that you cannot focus on a single issue

     and debate it based on the practice, science, or desires

     of the builder. You have hat-danced around every point

     I've made with respect to your lack of understanding. You

     claim to be a CFI yet you don't teach, you preach. You

     claim to be ATP rated yet you brush off the goals stated

     by myself and my builders to exploit practices and features

     found in the world's safest mode of transportation.



     You cannot differentiate between condescension and the

     unwillingness of a teacher to maintain standards of

     both behavior and technical excellence in his classroom.

     You cannot differentiate between "vitriolic hateful stuff"

     and considered observations of your aberrant, uncooperative

     and sometimes belligerent behavior. I have dozens of your

     writings that call me all kinds of names and cast aspersion

     upon my skills, motives and honor. At the same time,

     I've never cited your behavior for anything except fuzzy

     thinking and actions unbefitting an exchange of ideas

     amongst honorable individuals.



     So here is your pop quiz George. Take the question below

     and share with us the understanding that demonstrates

     any shortfall in the logic I've offered. I'll address

     the latest pails of sand throwing separately or perhaps

     never. Let us concentrated on one issue at a time. Here

     it is:



     Answer one question George. Is it, or is it not

     a valid design goal for the builder to desire any

     time, any conditions, no-risk, ON-OFF control of

     the alternator?  If "no" then please explain your

     rationale for this departure from conventions

     practiced in aviation since the first generator

     was installed on an aircraft. If "yes", then please

     explain and provide schematics of your suggested

     alternatives to the "kludgier" relay . . .



     Bob . . .

N6030X(at)DaveMorris.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 8:04 am Post subject: The problem with George

This is a Spock and Bones situation.  I just re-read the entire 

exchange that Bob posted, and it becomes quite clear after reading it 

that George is reacting emotionally to Bob's cold, calm, and purely 

logical arguments.  Bob presents facts, and if George can't refute 

them, he goes off in another direction trying to pull Bob into a 

different argument.  You seem to be a feeler, and Bob is obviously a 

thinker.  Nothing wrong with that as long as both people understand 

the conflict that naturally imposes on their interactions.



Look, George, having a mechanical engineering degree and flying 767s 

does not make you qualified as an expert on the design of electrical 

systems.  You have been a "user" of electrical systems.  Bob has been 

designing them for a very long time, according to specifications and 

design goals, and has real-world experience creating fault tolerant 

systems.  You seem to want to use anecdotal evidence from the 

automotive world to refute his designs and wave away the need for 

fault tolerance.  I just don't see you presenting any factual 

rebuttals to Bob's concerns about internal regulation.  So, please, 

be less emotional and more factual and you'll get the same respect 

that Bob gets.  Until then, it just sounds like another re-run of 

StarTrek, except that we've already seen all the re-runs and it's 

getting boring.  Give us some new data.



Dave Morris

aurbo(at)ak.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:09 am Post subject: The problem with George

Richard,

  

 George responds to lots of questions,  check out Van's Air Force web site.

 He provides lots of interesting  approaches and ideas. If we don't like them all you have to do is hit the delete  button.

  

 Mike Ice

 [quote]   ---

aurbo(at)ak.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:12 am Post subject: The problem with George

Walter,

  

 Whoa, big fella. Banning sucks. Are you  next? Or me? If you don't want to read this junk, just hit the delete  button.

  

 Mike Ice

 RV-9 

 main electrical  done

  

 PS, I elected to not do an over voltage  protection system. I did get the Plane Power alternator which has one built  right in.

  

  

  

 [quote]   ---

lists(at)stevet.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 10:02 am Post subject: The problem with George

Mike, 

This is not the issue.  If you want the whole story, look in the archives.  According to George, there is only one solution to these arguments; his own.  Then he proceeds  to personally attack Bob rather than to present logical arguments and concrete solutions.  



While his ideas may have some merit, they are couched in such poisonous rhetoric that not only is the point lost, but everyone on the list is thoroughly offended by his posts.  The poison overwhelms any possible benefit. 



I've been on this list for 4 years and no current poster has come close to the acrimony that George brings  to the table.  If he wants to continue to post on the Van's site, have at it.  But I would prefer that he just go away from this list.  His overwhelmingly poisonous attitude has no place here.

Best Regards,



Steve 

____________________________________________________________________

 



On Jan 27, 2007, at 9:08 AM, Michael T. Ice wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  Richard,

 

George responds to lots of questions, check out Van's Air Force web site.

He provides lots of interesting approaches and ideas. If we don't like them all you have to do is hit the delete button.

 

Mike Ice

	




 [quote][b]

aurbo(at)ak.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 10:25 am Post subject: The problem with George

Steve,

  

 I have been reading these lists for about  as long as you.  I agree that the belly bumping between these two is  getting pretty thin. I just think the easy solution is: If you don't like it  ignore it, hit the delete button and make it go away. Or if we were in the  Wizard of Oz, just click our heels together and repeat three times, "there's no  place like Nome".

  

 Remember the canary in the coal mine  story? When the canaries quit singing the miners were in big trouble. When  I don't hear any disagreement I worry. I am a contrarian (is that a  word) by nature.

  

 Again, hit the delete button if you don't  want to read something. That even refers to anything I  post.

  

 Mike Ice

 Alaska 

  

 Do not archive this junk,  please

 [quote]   ---

Terry Watson

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 290
Location: Seattle, WA USA

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 10:37 am Post subject: The problem with George

Then let’s get George off this list. I’m all for using the delete button and I do every time I see his name on an email, but someone always has to respond to him and that brings his crap in under some other s name and I have to wade through that until I realize it’s just more George.  

   

He has other places to massage his ego in public. I wish Matt would block him from this one.  

   

Terry  

   

   

         

  

From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael T. Ice

 Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 9:08 AM

 To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: The problem with George  

  

     

[b]Richard,[/b]  

    

   

    

[b]George responds to lots of questions, check out Van's Air Force web site.[/b]  

    

[b]He provides lots of interesting approaches and ideas. If we don't like them all you have to do is hit the delete button.[/b]  

    

   

    

[b]Mike Ice[/b]  

  [quote]    

---

jdalton77(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:58 pm Post subject: The problem with George

I don't enjoy it either - but it's a free country and Bob seems to do all right defending himself.  If George wants to think he has all the answers then that's OK with me - I don't have to listen to any of it.  He posts a lot of idiocy on Vans Airforce too.  

  

 Banning is a bad idea - the Internet should be open to all - whether or not they are jerks.

  

 Jeff

  

 [quote]-------------- Original message -------------- 

From: Steve Thomas <lists(at)stevet.net> 

Mike,  

 This is not the issue. If you want the whole story, look in the archives. According to George, there is only one solution to these arguments; his own. Then he proceeds to personally attack Bob rather than to present logical arguments and concrete solutions. 

 

 While his ideas may have some merit, they are couched in such poisonous rhetoric that not only is the point lost, but everyone on the list is thoroughly offended by his posts. The poison overwhelms any possible benefit. 

 

 I've been on this list for 4 years and no current poster has come close to the acrimony that George brings to the table. If he wants to continue to post on the Van's site, have at it. But I would prefer that he just go away from this list. His overwhelmingly poisonous attitude has no place here.

  <  SPAN c lass=Apple-style-span style="WORD-SPACING: 0px; FONT: 12px Helvetica; TEXT-TRANSFORM: none; COLOR: rgb(0,0,0); TEXT-INDENT: 0px; WHITE-SPACE: normal; LETTER-SPACING: normal; BORDER-COLLAPSE: separate; border-spacing: 0px 0px; -khtml-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -apple-text-size-adjust: auto; orphans: 2; widows: 2"> Best Regards,

 

 Steve 

  ____________________________________________________________________

  On Jan 27, 2007, at 9:08 AM, Michael T. Ice wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		   Richard,

 

 George responds to lots of questions, check out Van's Air Force web site.

 He provides lots of interesting approaches and ideas. If we don't like them all you have to do is hit the delete button.

 

 Mike Ice



	
[b]

jdalton77(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 2:58 pm Post subject: The problem with George

Yea, and while we're at it, Bob hasn't exactly shied away from the arguing either.  Maybe we can all get back to electronics eh?

  

  

  

 [quote]-------------- Original message -------------- 

From: "Michael T. Ice" <aurbo(at)ak.net> 

    Steve,

  

 I have been reading these lists for about as long as you.  I agree that the belly bumping between these two is getting pretty thin. I just think the easy solution is: If you don't like it ignore it, hit the delete button and make it go away. Or if we were in the Wizard of Oz, just click our heels together and repeat three times, "there's no place like Nome".

  

 Remember the canary in the coal mine story? When the canaries quit singing the miners were in big trouble. When I don't hear any disagreement I worry. I am a contrarian (is that a word) by nature.

  

 Again, hit the delete button if you don't want to read something. That even refers to anything I post.

  

 Mike Ice

 Alaska 

  

 Do not archive this junk, please

 [quote] ---

nuckollsr(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 3:15 pm Post subject: The problem with George

At 07:26 AM 1/27/2007 -0800, you wrote:

Bob



I have been a member of this forum off and on for over 5 years. You are a 

man that has a deep knowledge of this subject and is dedicated to helping 

us build robust and cost effective electrical systems. I have disagreed 

with you on some matters and have found you very open to other views and 

willing to agree to disagree if there is no fundamental problem with the 

facts. (Such as 28v electrical systems versus 14 volt, etc.) This guy 

George seems to be selling something and you indicate he is not willing to 

come clean on his identity and motives. I am sorry to see these 

interchanges and the amount of time you must have to waste replying to him 

and trying to get him to go away. I vote for you banning him outright so we 

can get back to the sort of healthy interchanges for which this forum in 

known.



   Not a problem sir and I wouldn't spend the time if I

   did not see value in it at some level. Quite frankly, some

   of my exchanges here on the list have prepared me to deal

   professionally with loose cannons in other venues. Blocking

   him directly is possible and if it becomes useless

   at every level to communicate with him, I'll probably

   see to it.   There is an underlying point to all this that

   has nothing to do with George or this particular conversation.

   For the time being, just delete what you don't want

   to be concerned or bothered with.



   I'll refer the readers to a recently updated tag on

   my signature. It's amazing how many citizens get bent

   out of shape for someone's inability to deal with certain

   situations even when that service is part of their name

   and job description. Take FEMA. They'll never live down

   the fact that they don't have the first clue as to

   management of emergency logistics while the Home Depot,

   Walmart and similar organizations can mount the needed

   tasks with ease. The difference? These are folks who do

   huge inventory and deployment tasks every day. FMEA does

   it rarely and it's never managed by someone with hands-on

   experience.



        Bob . . .



        ----------------------------------------

        ( IF one aspires to be "world class",  )

        ( what ever you do must be exercised   )

        ( EVERY day . . .                      )

        (                  R. L. Nuckolls III  )

        ----------------------------------------

Speedy11(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 6:52 pm Post subject: The problem with George

George,

 Bob is right.

 Why do you have to be so over-the-top with your comments?

 I really enjoy your input to the discussions, but your grovelling in the language gutter is embarrassing.

 I'm embarrassed for you.

 Stan Sutterfield

 Tampa

  

  	  Quote: 	
		      George, you've been asked politely before to

    cease your disruptive behaviors in this classroom.

    If we're to interpret your latest rants as an

    unwillingness to comply with a simple-request,

    I'll have to make sure new-comers to the List

    are aware of your track record.



    I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding

    and substance in your last postings. Instead,

    I've published a small excerpt from our past

    conversations at:



http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/gmcjetpilot.html



    I considered posting it at the time you were asked

    to leave some months ago but held off after you

    appeared to honor my request. Since you've chosen

    to resume your old counter productive and disruptive

    habits, it seems prudent to let everyone know what

    you're about and share a snapshot of what we've already

    experienced with your unwelcome activities here on

    the List.



    Do the honorable thing sir. 	


 

  [quote][b]

nuckollsr(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:13 pm Post subject: The problem with George

At 10:56 PM 1/27/2007 +0000, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  Yea, and while we're at it, Bob hasn't exactly shied away from the arguing 

either.  Maybe we can all get back to electronics eh?


	


    What's happening here is just as important as "the

    electronics."  Another List member suggested that maybe

    we shouldn't be so hard on George . . . after all,

    the Internet is a public arena.



    I will suggest that while what we do here is transported

    via the amazing thing that the 'net has become, it is

    by no means a public arena. It's the namesake of an

    endeavor I began 20 years ago at OSH with the first publication

    of the AeroElectric Connection. It's the mission of the

    'Connection (and this List) to advance the state of our

    art and science through the discovery and assembly of

    simple-ideas into new inventions.



    Activities that fall outside that mission may be tolerated

    even if unwelcome on Usenet groups. I've tried to function

    in that arena but gave it up after a very short effort.

    One cannot conduct serious business in the public arena.



    If we're to continue what I believe is a phenomenal success

    for crafting a useful and productive venture here on

    the List, there will have to be boundaries for behavior

    both technically and personally. Individuals who choose

    not to honor those boundaries are free to start their

    own List or join the folks on Usenet but there is no

    value in tolerating either personal attacks or

    dissemination of bad science.



    It's my mission to see that the AeroElectric Connection

    delivers on its promises whether by way of the book, the

    website or the list-server. We have a good thing going here

    folks, I hope you join me in guarding it vigorously.



    Bob . . .

nuckollsr(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 9:32 pm Post subject: The problem with George

At 07:45 AM 1/27/2007 -0800, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  



Since I'm the one who introduced the word "kludgier", I'll explain.  The 

solid state crowbar is a very elegant design.  Voltage goes up, trips, 

field to ground (or open on the other side of the regulator....whatever), 

circuit breaker eventually trips to save the wiring.  Very simple, very 

straightforward.


	


   No problem. "Kludge" pre-dates this conversation by decades. It's

   an elegant word in some contexts. I use it on occasion . . .



 	  Quote: 	
		  The crowbar on a relay coil IS a kludge.  There's no reason to crowbar in 

this case since regardless of how fast you denergize the coil, you're 

certainly limited by the speed of the spreading contacts.  In the first 

case, the crowbar solves the problem...the CB then pops to save the 

wires.  In this case, the crowbar detects the problem and removes power, 

then the relay opens and actually fixes it.  There are a dozens of 

different ways to accomplish the same thing.


	


   Recall that to shut off a runaway IR alternator you MUST

   physically disconnect it from the rest of the airplane's

   system. I've looked at various solid state approaches too . . .

 	  Quote: 	
		  On the other hand, how else do you do it that makes it any better?  Oh 

well.  If you feel you need this sort of control over your alternator and 

are dead set on I-VR, then that's really the only practical solution so 

you go with it.  The crowbar itself (or whatever device you use to remove 

coil power) is not the kludge here...it's the fact you have to go through 

a relay.



Maybe a better way would be to dump an I-VR's output into a dynamic load 

instead of disconnecting it completely.  Weight, complexity, cost.... 

BLECH.  Regardless, it's CERTAINLY less of a kludge than the "adjust your 

engine's RPM" method that I've heard mentioned many times when talking 

about controlling an I-VR runaway.  Apparently, some people fly over farms 

all day long.  Come out to the Mojave dessert some day and I'll take you 

on a flight in 110 degree weather when the DA on the ground is 5000FT+ to 

begin with.  Then we'll try to hop on over the mountains.  You'll find 

that power reduction is not an option.

Electrical problems should NOT be life threatening by requiring power 

reduction.



The real question is if anyone wanted to have this kind of OV control, why 

on Earth would you make it harder on yourself with an I-VR 

alternator?  You can have your cake and it eat but sometimes the cake 

tastes like broccoli, if you know what I mean.


	


    See my post earlier this evening on design goals for

    incorporating the IR alternator into aircraft . . .

 	  Quote: 	
		  Bob:  don't get upset for me calling it a kludge.  It really is but until 

someone comes up with a better way of doing it, it's the best solution to 

the given problem.  Bottom line, though, is that is works so you use it 

until something better comes along.  There's no law that says things need 

to be perfect and that you can't use something today because new 

technology might make a better one tommorow.


	


   In evaluating about a half dozen ways to break the link between

   ship's wiring and a malcontent alternator, I considered a variety

   of techniques in trade offs for cost of implementation, parts count,

   robustness of parts, size, weight, efficiency (energy lost in the

   switching mechanism) and cost of ownership. Yeah, I agree, that ol'

   fart S701-1 contactor is not very glitzy. But it won the trade-study

   in nearly all categories including the fact that it was but one more

   of perhaps several identical parts already on the airplane. Rather than

   drive up the number of different parts, it seems wiser to utilize more

   of the same parts as long as other goals in the design study were

   met.



   I'm as eager as anyone to take advantage of the latest and greatest

   processes an materials to advance the state of our art . . . but at the

   same time, I don't summarily discount what's worked for decades simply

   because it has been around for decades. Leaving the relay in Z-24a

   was no idle decision on my part. There's a sign that used to hang

   over my desk in the shop that read, "Sometimes, the best way to drive

   a nail is with a hammer." There's a companion product to the AED9004-1

   controller illustrated in . . .



http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Adapting_IR_Alternators_to_Aircraft.pdf



   It will be used to manage the e-bus alternate feed path but

   will offer some whippy new features that I'm not prepared to

   discuss yet. And shucky darn . . . the design calls for an S704-1

   relay . . . yeah I know, I COULD do it all with transistors but

   not nearly so efficiently and with a lower parts count. There's

   some neat things coming over the hill. Can't wait for warmer

   weather and the time to hammer on the drive stand.



   Bob . . .

nuckollsr(at)cox.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 10:01 pm Post subject: The problem with George

At 09:51 AM 1/27/2007 -0500, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  Since automobiles seem to feel that a malfunction light will tell you all 

that you need to know, I thought that my 3 month old Mercury Cougar was 

discharging when thae light came on. I drove the rest of the 20 miles home 

in that condition. When I lifted the hood, my battery was the shape of a 

balloon instead of rectangular and the smell of battery acid was strong. I 

quickly closed the hood and waited 4 or 5 hours untill things cooled down 

before addressing the problem. So much for the theory that IR alternators 

aren't subject to the runaway charging problem. Sorry, but my limited 

experience won't let me trust them. That's all I will say about that and I 

don't want to hear anything in argument.


	


   Thank you for sharing this. Please know that it's

   a very high priority with me to bring this feisty little

   marvel into the bag of tricks for building the best

   airplanes to have ever flown.



   Bob . . .

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum