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 |

>>  Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>>  Archive:  http://lancaironline.net/lists/flyrotary/List.html