Return-Path: Received: from imo-m14.mx.aol.com ([64.12.138.204] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3c3) with ESMTP id 812744 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:19:17 -0500 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.12.138.204; envelope-from=WRJJRS@aol.com Received: from WRJJRS@aol.com by imo-m14.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v37_r3.8.) id q.100.fa64cde (4222) for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:18:26 -0500 (EST) From: WRJJRS@aol.com Message-ID: <100.fa64cde.2f6f42a2@aol.com> Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 16:18:26 EST Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: BMW and EWP To: flyrotary@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-----------------------------1111353506" X-Mailer: 9.0 for Windows sub 5028 -------------------------------1111353506 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/20/2005 12:41:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, canarder@frontiernet.net writes: The other list is forever making pronouncements about what will or will not work. Their math is impeccable. The premises they operate from are not Is it not possible that we are overlooking or underemphasizing some important factor? That the hybrid (EWP and EDWP) systems we have online now are distorting the data? Leon's experience cannot ignore any of the factors. Our estimates can ignore as many as we want to (or are unaware of). I can't help but think that a little morel hard data gathered from a purely EWP system will put a lot of the controversy to rest. A flawless line of reasoning, based on a false premise leads us right through the lookin' glass ... Jim S. Jim, The False Premise comment seems to be spot on. Davies Craig mentions that the Ferrari 365 ALMS American Le Mans Series winner were using 2 EWP's in series per the Davies Craig site suggested method. I have been as skeptical as any about the EWP but is seems to be being used to great success. I think I will be planning for the use of 2, main and overtemp. I will really want a good alternator and backup system! Bill Jepson -------------------------------1111353506 Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 3/20/2005 12:41:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, canarde= r@frontiernet.net writes:

The other list is forever making pronouncement= s about what will or will not work. Their math is impeccable.&n= bsp; The premises they operate from are not Is it not possible=20= that we are overlooking or underemphasizing some important factor? Tha= t the hybrid (EWP and EDWP) systems we have online now are distorting= the data? Leon's experience cannot ignore any of the factors. O= ur estimates can ignore as many as we want to (or are unaware of). I c= an't help but think that a little morel hard data gathered from a purely EWP= system will put a lot of the controversy to rest.

A flawless=20= line of reasoning, based on a false premise leads us right through= the lookin' glass ...
Jim S.

Jim, The False Premise comment seems to be spot on. Davies Craig mentio= ns that the Ferrari 365 ALMS American Le Mans Series winner were using 2&nbs= p;EWP's in series per the Davies Craig site suggested method. I have be= en as skeptical as any about the EWP but is seems to be being used to great=20= success. I think I will be planning for the use of 2, main and overtemp. I w= ill really want a good alternator and backup system!

Bill Jepson

-------------------------------1111353506--