X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 13:07:32 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.124] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.3.1) with ESMTP id 4084011 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:28:46 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=71.74.56.124; envelope-from=Wolfgang@MiCom.net X-Original-Return-Path: X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=2KxVmLDjAAAA:8 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=QXL2Y3pJomMiE1nykdwA:9 a=EYX7pJ-k38-pzOp3iwkA:7 a=ieB8pG7Cotf2byuUihERl7LcIo8A:4 a=weayJwiuG0EA:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=-qij4erAg7JD03HrtcIA:9 a=DXwg5stWy9spyaDs1LsA:7 a=1dF-DavnM-vOw17jWzkV68tddiQA:4 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 74.218.201.50 Received: from [74.218.201.50] ([74.218.201.50:1667] helo=micomxp) by hrndva-oedge02.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.2.39 r()) with ESMTP id FD/F4-17464-9A5A05B4; Fri, 15 Jan 2010 17:28:10 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <000a01ca9608$173710f0$6401a8c0@micomxp> From: "Wolfgang" X-Original-To: Subject: Re: Do-it-yourself AOA Project X-Original-Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:28:02 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01CA95DE.2E01AAE0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01CA95DE.2E01AAE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I'm not trying to beat my chest and show how much I know. My desire is = to bring solutions, not just criticism.=20 By fixing a specific part of a problem, one can not assume approval of = the whole, that would be remiss let alone foolish. I was addressing specific criticism of a specific design fault . . . . = only. Wolfgang -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- From: Brent Regan =20 Sender: =20 Subject: Re: Do-it-yourself AOA Project=20 Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 10:38:24 -0500=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 =20 =20 =20 Wolfgang writes: <<< A simple solution would be to have the 5V regulator with a heat = sink feed the LED's. . . . . what I assumed in the first place. I like offering a fix rather than just criticism. >>>> You are a smart guy. You can see the deficiencies in a design and = correct them on the fly (npi), but not all builders have that = capability. The problem with the LED power is more a symptom than the = problem. It shows and incomplete understanding of the factors that go = into a reliable design. There are a multitude of things wrong with the = proposed design and the average builder should be aware of these things = in the interest of safety. Hamid pointed out a few of the most egregious = problems. The full list is much longer. You would not build a device unless you plan to use it. If you use = it you will come to rely on it. If you rely on it and it fails you will = likely be in a worse (perhaps much worse) state than if you did not have = the device in the first place. This reasoning is why you want to avoid poorly designed and or = poorly tested devices that may effect flight. FYI, Hamid has been designing electronics for decades and = certified avionics for 12 years. His designs range from simple = communication repeaters to complete, certified Pentium motherboards. = His products are used by the likes of Cobham, Boeing, CMC Electronics, = Rockwell Collins, Honeywell, Liquid Robotics, and on and on. He is wise = enough to know that putting a Band-Aid on a massive blunt force head = trauma will not fix the big picture. Likewise, offering a patch for the = LED problem would be, de facto, approving of the balance of the design.=20 Do you think the balance if the design is reliable, fail-safe and = unlikely to negatively effect flight? Consider your answer carefully as = it will say a lot about your design skills. Regards Brent Regan=20 ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01CA95DE.2E01AAE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm not trying to beat my chest and = show how much I=20 know. My desire is to bring solutions, not just criticism.
 
By fixing a specific part of a problem, = one can not=20 assume approval of the whole, that would be remiss let alone=20 foolish.
 
I was addressing specific criticism of = a specific=20 design fault . . . . only.
 
Wolfgang
lml@lancaironline.net
From: Brent Regan=20 <brent@regandesigns.com>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: Do-it-yourself AOA = Project
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 10:38:24 = -0500
To:


 
Wolfgang writes:

<<<
A simple solution would be = to have the=20 5V regulator with a heat sink feed the LED's. . . . . what I=20 assumed in the first place.
 
I like offering a fix rather than = just=20 criticism.

>>>>

You are a smart = guy.=20 You can see the deficiencies in a design and correct them on the = fly=20 (npi), but not all builders have that capability. The problem with = the LED=20 power is more a symptom than the problem. It shows and incomplete=20 understanding of the factors that go into a reliable design. There = are a=20 multitude of things wrong with the proposed design and the average = builder=20 should be aware of these things in the interest of safety. Hamid = pointed=20 out a few of the most egregious problems. The full list is much=20 longer.

You would not build a device unless you plan to use = it. If=20 you use it you will come to rely on it. If you rely on it and it = fails you=20 will likely be in a worse (perhaps much worse) state than if you = did not=20 have the device in the first place.

This reasoning is why = you want=20 to avoid poorly designed and or poorly tested devices that may = effect=20 flight.

FYI, Hamid has been designing electronics for = decades and=20 certified avionics for 12 years. His designs range from simple=20 communication repeaters to  complete, certified Pentium = motherboards.=20 His products are used by the likes of Cobham, Boeing, CMC = Electronics,=20 Rockwell Collins, Honeywell, Liquid Robotics, and on and on. He is = wise=20 enough to know that putting a Band-Aid on a massive blunt force = head=20 trauma will not fix the big picture. Likewise, offering a patch = for the=20 LED problem would be, de facto, approving of the balance of the = design.=20

Do you think the balance if the design is reliable, = fail-safe and=20 unlikely to negatively effect flight? Consider your answer = carefully as it=20 will say a lot about your design skills.

Regards
Brent=20 Regan
------=_NextPart_000_0007_01CA95DE.2E01AAE0--