Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=207.217.120.180; envelope-from=j-winddesigns@thegrid.net
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2005 09:25:36 -0500
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] For Al EWPs & Sump Heat Exchangers was  Re: Experiement vs Theory take 2
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-4-963201572
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552)
From: Jerry Hey <j-winddesigns@thegrid.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
In-Reply-To: <list-609580@logan.com>
Message-Id: <A7B78F10-6893-11D9-A096-0003931B0C7A@thegrid.net>


--Apple-Mail-4-963201572
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=ISO-8859-1;
	format=flowed


On Sunday, January 16, 2005, at 08:49  PM, Leon wrote:

> Electric Water Pumps are one of the major points of contention.=A0 =
You,=A0=20
> my good friend Al,=A0 might=A0NEVER say an EWP wouldn't work in an=20
> airplane.=A0 However, =A0I have literally=A0dozens and dozens of ACRE =
emails=20
> full of Lamar's abusive invective and derrisive drivel,=A0=20
> mathematically proving conclusively beyond all reasonable doubt=A0that=20=

> EWPs can't work,=A0 don't work,=A0 & won't ever work,=A0 and also =
stating=20
> categorically that the guy that makes them,=A0 Richard Davies,=A0 of=20=

> Davies Craig here in Melbourne Australia is a fraud,=A0 a cad,=A0 a=20
> bounder, and a scam artist!=A0=A0 Boy,=A0 is he lucky Richard is such =
a nice=20
> guy!!
> =A0
> Unfortunately,=A0 there are now possibly 1000 odd people who, =
(including=20
> Jerry Hey), believe this.=A0 And it's all lies!!=A0 Coz Todd Bartrim=20=

> demonstrated conclusively that they do perform,=A0 even in aircraft, =
as=20
> advertised.=A0(Thereby falsifying the hypothesis that they don't=20
> work).=A0But you will never hear or see a retraction or an apology to=20=

> correct what was a blatant error of assumptions,=A0 false premises=A0and=
=20
> dubious mathematics.

  I have come to realize that what Paul has to say may not only  not be=20=

true but in fact  can be intentionally false.   I have also experienced=20=

a pile of profane,  invective  laden  e-mail attacking me  and  those=20
who supported me concerning the p ports. Most of these were sent=20
privately. I have also had my comments suppressed so that in no way=20
could I present my side  in a friendly debate about a technical matter.

   Why so much strong emotion about whether a p-port should be a little=20=

larger or smaller is a question that I cannot answer.   At a certain=20
point Paul seemed to cross a line where fairness was no longer=20
required. For sure,  not accepting his reasoning, mathematical or=20
otherwise, can trigger rage.

  Canceling my subscription to ACRE was not a decision easily  reached,=20=

but in the end, there was no choice at all.  That was the way it had to=20=

be.   I do miss much of the theoretical discussion on ACRE.  I found it=20=

educational and  challenging. Jerry


--Apple-Mail-4-963201572
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/enriched;
	charset=ISO-8859-1


On Sunday, January 16, 2005, at 08:49  PM, Leon wrote:


<excerpt><fontfamily><param>Arial</param><smaller>Electric Water Pumps
are one of the major points of contention.=A0 You,=A0 my good friend =
Al,=A0
might=A0NEVER say an EWP wouldn't work in an airplane.=A0 However, =A0I =
have
literally=A0dozens and dozens of ACRE emails full of Lamar's abusive
invective and derrisive drivel,=A0 mathematically proving conclusively
beyond all reasonable doubt=A0that EWPs can't work,=A0 don't work,=A0 &
won't ever work,=A0 and also stating categorically that the guy that
makes them,=A0 Richard Davies,=A0 of Davies Craig here in Melbourne
Australia is a fraud,=A0 a cad,=A0 a bounder, and a scam artist!=A0=A0 =
Boy,=A0
is he lucky Richard is such a nice guy!!</smaller></fontfamily>

=A0

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><smaller>Unfortunately,=A0 there are now
possibly 1000 odd people who, (including Jerry Hey), believe this.=A0
And it's all lies!!=A0 Coz Todd Bartrim demonstrated conclusively that
they do perform,=A0 even in aircraft, as advertised.=A0(Thereby =
falsifying
the hypothesis that they don't work).=A0But you will never hear or see a
retraction or an apology to correct what was a blatant error of
assumptions,=A0 false premises=A0and dubious =
mathematics.</smaller></fontfamily>

</excerpt>

 I have come to realize that what Paul has to say may not only  not be
true but in fact  can be intentionally false.   I have also
experienced a pile of profane,  invective  laden  e-mail attacking me=20
and  those who supported me concerning the p ports. Most of these were
sent privately. I have also had my comments suppressed so that in no
way could I present my side  in a friendly debate about a technical
matter. =20


  Why so much strong emotion about whether a p-port should be a little
larger or smaller is a question that I cannot answer.   At a certain
point Paul seemed to cross a line where fairness was no longer
required. For sure,  not accepting his reasoning, mathematical or
otherwise, can trigger rage.=20


 Canceling my subscription to ACRE was not a decision easily  reached,
but in the end, there was no choice at all.  That was the way it had
to be.   I do miss much of the theoretical discussion on ACRE.  I
found it educational and  challenging. Jerry


--Apple-Mail-4-963201572--