Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:01:08 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-905789@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.18.130.7; envelope-from=brent@regandesigns.com
From: Brent Regan <brent@regandesigns.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Where has all the power gone?
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------050300040309080605040505"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------050300040309080605040505
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Paul writes:

"Look I have a problem with engineering snobs, especially engineering 
snobs with no engineering degrees."

So you look down on those without engineering degrees. OK, now I'm 
confused. Who is the snob here?

In a similar vein, my mother never understood the irony in calling me a 
"Son of a bitch".

Until now I was ignorant of Paul's considerable education and experience 
as it was not apparent in his writing.  But I see nothing in that 
education or experience that makes him any more of an authority on the 
intimate details of the intermittent internal combustion processes. You 
wouldn't ask a neurosurgeon about athletes foot nor would you have a 
podiatrist perform a root canal (unless you are a politician).

Paul's argument is that Electronic Ignition is better because of self 
evident attributes such as; it is modern, you can muck with the timing, 
its lighter, the plugs are cheaper, there are no gears and less 
opportunity for corrosion, and better for anecdotal merits like; faster 
starting, lower idle speeds, more horsepower at low altitudes and better 
fuel economy. I say anecdotal because if Joe Pilot puts an EI system in 
his airplane, flies it and then claims an improvement in performance or 
economy, it is not proof, it is justification. Paul also seems to 
believe that magnetos are bad because they are old.

My argument is that while EI has advantages it also has shortcomings 
(NPI) such as; added complexity, dependency on ships power, lower 
potential reliability due to design implementation, the ability for the 
pilot to dynamically adjust timing, greater sensitivity to EMI, 
lightning and HIRF and a greater susceptibility to accidental damage. I 
am also of the opinion that magnetos, while old, are well suited to the 
task and should not be eliminated from consideration due to 
techno-chauvinism. Magnetos may be the aerospace equivalent of a hammer 
but when you need to drive a nail.........

My comments regarding the inadvisability of counting batteries as THE 
standby source or power are based on the fact that there is no accurate 
way for the pilot to tell how much energy is stored in the battery and 
the battery is charged by the alternator, the thing it is supposed to 
replace.  Most alternators have a polyphase bridge rectifier to convert 
the alternators three phase AC output into a varying DC voltage. Should 
one of the bridge rectifiers fail, the current  generating capability of 
the alternator will decrease while the regulator will maintain the 
output voltage. If the current output capability of the alternator falls 
to the steady state current demands of the airplane there will be 
little, if any, power available to charge the battery after start. The 
pilot's only indication will be a slightly low buss voltage. Should the 
over stressed remaining alternator components fail then your standby 
source may already be depleted. True redundancy results in the 
elimination of single point failures. The above scenario describes how a 
single component failure (alternator) can fail both primary and standby 
systems.

Before anyone makes a decision regarding their aircraft that, by its 
very nature, could be a life or death decision, they need to look beyond 
the marketing hype and G-whiz factors  so that they can make an informed 
risk assessment based decision. Hope, faith, fraternity and 
preconceptions have no place in a logical and reasoned consideration.

As for the name calling, in part I welcome it. When someone has erected 
their best argumentative defense for a position and finds that defense 
inadequate and the position flawed they often retreat to one remaining 
act of desperation. Pull the pin and lob the ad hominem attack, a 
strategy of increasing popularity in the modern media.  "Don't listen to 
him, he is a snobbish, phobic, arrogant ass"!  LOL

Call me what you wish, the facts remain. QED

I'll finish with this thought experiment, if Paul is ever so fortunate 
to fly behind a Chelton Flight Systems EFIS (experimental or certified) 
he will be staring at hardware designed by that snobbish, phobic, 
arrogant ass he has a problem with while at the same time, because it is 
based on modern technology, will be intrinsically superior than 
antiquated steam gauges. How will he ever resolve the paradox?

Regards
Brent Regan



--------------050300040309080605040505
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  <title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Arial">Paul writes:<br>
<big><br>
"</big></font><font><font id="role_document" color="#000000"
 face="Arial" size="2"><big>Look I have a problem with engineering
snobs, especially engineering
snobs with no engineering degrees."<br>
<br>
So you look down on those without engineering degrees. OK, now I'm
confused. Who is the snob here?<br>
<br>
In a similar vein, my mother never understood the irony in calling me a
"Son of a bitch".<br>
<br>
Until now I was ignorant of Paul's considerable education and
experience as it was not apparent in his writing.&nbsp; But I see nothing in
that education or experience that makes him any more of an authority on
the intimate details of the</big></font></font><font><font
 id="role_document" color="#000000" face="Arial" size="2"><big>
intermittent</big></font></font><font><font id="role_document"
 color="#000000" face="Arial" size="2"><big> internal combustion
processes. You wouldn't ask a neurosurgeon about athletes foot nor
would you have a podiatrist perform a root canal (unless you are a
politician). <br>
<br>
Paul's argument is that Electronic Ignition is better because of self
evident attributes such as; it is modern, you can muck with the timing,
its lighter, the plugs are cheaper, there are no gears and less
opportunity for corrosion, and better for anecdotal merits like; faster
starting, lower idle speeds, more horsepower at low altitudes and
better fuel economy. I say anecdotal because if Joe Pilot puts an EI
system in his airplane, flies it and then claims an improvement in
performance or economy, it is not proof, it is justification. Paul also
seems to believe that magnetos are bad because they are old. <br>
<br>
My argument is that while EI has advantages it also has shortcomings
(NPI) such as; added complexity, dependency on ships power, lower
potential reliability due to design implementation, the ability for the
pilot to dynamically adjust timing, greater sensitivity to EMI,
lightning and HIRF and a greater susceptibility to accidental damage. I
am also of the opinion that magnetos, while old, are well suited to the
task and should not be eliminated from consideration due to
techno-chauvinism. Magnetos may be the aerospace equivalent of a hammer
but when you need to drive a nail.........<br>
<br>
My comments regarding the inadvisability of counting batteries as THE
standby source or power are based on the fact that there is no accurate
way for the pilot to tell how much energy is stored in the battery and
the battery is charged by the alternator, the thing it is supposed to
replace.&nbsp; Most alternators have a polyphase bridge rectifier to convert
the alternators three phase AC output into a varying DC voltage. Should
one of the bridge rectifiers fail, the current&nbsp; generating capability
of the alternator will decrease while the regulator will maintain the
output voltage. If the current output capability of the alternator
falls to the steady state current demands of the airplane there will be
little, if any, power available to charge the battery after start. The
pilot's only indication will be a slightly low buss voltage. Should the
over stressed remaining alternator components fail then your standby
source may already be depleted. True redundancy results in the
elimination of single point failures. The above scenario describes how
a single component failure (alternator) can fail both primary and
standby systems.<br>
<br>
Before anyone makes a decision regarding their aircraft that, by its
very nature, could be a life or death decision, they need to look
beyond the marketing hype and G-whiz factors&nbsp; so that they can make an
informed risk assessment based decision. Hope, faith, fraternity and
preconceptions have no place in a logical and reasoned consideration. <br>
<br>
As for the name calling, in part I welcome it. When someone has erected
their best argumentative defense for a position and finds that defense
inadequate and the position flawed they often retreat to one remaining
act of desperation. Pull the pin and lob the ad hominem attack, a
strategy of increasing popularity in the modern media.&nbsp; "Don't listen
to him, he is a snobbish, phobic, arrogant ass"!&nbsp; LOL<br>
<br>
Call me what you wish, the facts remain. QED<br>
<br>
I'll finish with this thought experiment, if Paul is ever so fortunate
to fly behind a Chelton Flight Systems EFIS (experimental or certified)
he will be staring at hardware designed by that </big></font></font><font><font
 id="role_document" color="#000000" face="Arial" size="2"><big>snobbish,
phobic, arrogant ass he has a problem with while at the same time,
because it is based on modern technology, will be intrinsically
superior than antiquated steam gauges. How will he ever resolve the
paradox? </big></font></font><br>
<font><font id="role_document" color="#000000" face="Arial" size="2"><big><br>
Regards<br>
Brent Regan<br>
<br>
<br>
</big></font></font>
</body>
</html>

--------------050300040309080605040505--