Return-Path: Received: from sam.the-i.net ([206.136.176.251]) by ns1.olsusa.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-64832U3500L350S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 10:27:49 -0500 Received: from pavilion (ccd190.the-i.net [216.86.8.190]) by sam.the-i.net (Vircom SMTPRS 4.4.184) with SMTP id for ; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 09:35:46 -0600 Message-ID: <002701c06909$03507300$be0856d8@pavilion> From: "J. N. Cameron" To: "Lancair List" Subject: Walter Dodson's comments on static Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 09:41:21 -0600 X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com Reply-To: lancair.list@olsusa.com Mime-Version: 1.0 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> << Lancair Builders' Mail List >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Walter, No argument about the desirability of bleeding off static when things are getting tense! My question, however, is will static wicks really do anything for a non-conductive airplane? Your Seneca, of course, had a good old aluminium frame, so discharging any point on it (via a static wick arc) would effectively bleed off charge over the whole skin. For an e-glass airframe, it's just not clear to me how a static wick will do any good. Jim Cameron, ES builder >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LML website: http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html LML Builders' Bookstore: http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair Please send your photos and drawings to marvkaye@olsusa.com. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>