X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.4) with ESMTP id 1000229 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:58:25 -0400 Received-SPF: softfail receiver=logan.com; client-ip=64.102.122.149; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (64.102.124.12) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Jun 2005 10:57:40 -0400 Received: from xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-201.cisco.com [64.102.31.12]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j5DErqNM029032 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:57:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: from xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.38]) by xbh-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:56:43 -0400 Received: from [64.102.45.251] ([64.102.45.251]) by xfe-rtp-201.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:56:43 -0400 Message-ID: <42AD9EAB.8000602@nc.rr.com> Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 10:56:43 -0400 From: Ernest Christley User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: Is common sense dead (rant mode on) References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Jun 2005 14:56:43.0235 (UTC) FILETIME=[1CB1E330:01C57028] Michael LaFleur wrote: >There's no reason at all a one men operation couldn't >practice the same methods and processes. Build a >tester load box. Write some test code for the module >to exercise the inputs and outputs. PC controlled >instrumentation is not that expensive. Used >thermochambers are cheap at auctions. I've seen big >ones go for $500 - $1000. EMC is trickier, but it can >be done. Get a spectrum analyzer. > > If I have to spend $500 - $1000, then take the time to design an experiment, then build a test box and write some code for every part of my build, it will never get built. In another post, you say that you meant this to apply only to manufacturers. Problem is that that WE are the manufacturers of our airplanes (at least that's what the FAA says). I have a stack of 'experiments' sitting on the bench, that have been sitting there for "a long time", and I expect that they'll be there a while yet. The problem is that every time I think about performing an experiment, building an actual airplane gets in the way. It has been like this for over three years now. The experiments that do get performed are ones that will have an immediate impact on the system currently under construction, and then only if there is no other way to get the data and someone else hasn't performed it. But like you said, your only building bulkheads right now. After you've been at it a while you'll see that thinking about an experiment takes a lot less time than actually doing it. -- ,|"|"|, | ----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta | o| d |o www.ernest.isa-geek.org |