X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
Return-Path: <dale.r@cox.net>
Received: from fed1rmmtao02.cox.net ([68.230.241.37] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.6)
  with ESMTP id 920271 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 10 Jan 2006 10:45:00 -0500
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.230.241.37; envelope-from=dale.r@cox.net
Received: from [172.18.180.8] (really [172.18.180.18])
          by fed1rmmtao02.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with SMTP
          id <20060110154222.SHUR17006.fed1rmmtao02.cox.net@[172.18.180.8]>
          for <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>;
          Tue, 10 Jan 2006 10:42:22 -0500
X-Mailer: Openwave WebEngine, version 2.8.15 (webedge20-101-1103-20040528)
From: Dale Rogers <dale.r@cox.net>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>,"Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Renesis Thermal Pellet
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 10:38:08 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20060110154222.SHUR17006.fed1rmmtao02.cox.net@[172.18.180.8]>



Dunno, Rusty.  It showed up in today's mail, with a date of ...
28-Sep-2015! 

Dale R.


> From: "Russell Duffy" <russell.duffy@gmail.com>
> Date: 2006/01/10 Tue AM 09:01:52 EST
> To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Renesis Thermal Pellet
> 
> Hi Dale,
>  
> I seem to remember Leon's comment from months ago :-) Are you really this
> far behind on email?  
>  
> I'm assuming Leon is questioning why you'd want to "fix" something that
> isn't broken.  These things function just perfectly in stock engines, so
> it's not likely they're going to cause you a problem.  I've always thought
> they added them strictly for emissions reasons, but maybe he knows something
> we don't.  I can see that it would probably be a good idea to get everything
> up to temp asap, so from that standpoint, it would seem like a useful
> feature.  
>  
> I haven't seen Leon ranting <g> on the list recently, but maybe he'll chime
> in.  With any luck, he'll limit his response to 10,000 words or less :-)
>  
> Rusty (I'm guilty of removing them too) 
>  
>  
> 
> Hi Leon,
> 
>    IIRC, it's not a matter of "removing" the thermal pellet as "replacing"
> it 
> with an inert slug - so that there's never a time when oil isn't being fed 
> to the rotors.  
> 
> Dale R.
> 
> Leon Promet wrote: 
> 
> Hi Guys,
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone please tell me why you want to remove the thermal pellet
> 
> please??
> 
> 
> 
> Leon
> 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
>