From: Jim Pennino
Subject: Re: (Avionics) How can this circuit produce an "inductive surge"?
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:36:34 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Special Solutions, LLC
References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 17:36:34 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: tin/1.4.5-20010409 ("One More Nightmare") (UNIX) (SunOS/5.9 (sun4u))
In rec.aviation.owning Tarver Engineering wrote:
> "Jim Pennino" wrote in message
>> In rec.aviation.owning Tarver Engineering wrote:
>> > "Jim Pennino" wrote in message
>> > news:firstname.lastname@example.org...
>> >> In rec.aviation.owning Tarver Engineering wrote:
>> >> > You are way too clueless for this conversation, Jim.
>> >> > John P. Tarver, MS/PE
>> >> No response to the technical points; the only recourse left to you is
>> >> name calling, John?
>> > Your technical points are on the ground in flames Jim.
>> If so, it should be easy for you to refute them on technical grounds with
>> references instead of personal attacks.
> I have qualified myself as a legal reference Jim.
> If you have similar qualification, or written references, please feel free
> to post them.
You have added MS/PE to your signature, big deal. Just because you're
registered doesn't make you correct.
You have made my day though. The "legal reference" part had me in stitches.
I feel no need to flout any degrees, registrations, or certifications
to try to prove a point.
A technical statement needs to stand on it's own merits, not that of some
piece of paper the speaker may have.
As an aside, the most incompetent EE I ever had working for me was registered
and the most competent was self taught with no degree what so ever.
Sorry, I'm not impressed with just the ability to pass a government test.
>> > I recommend a look at the Blondel Transform for you, such that you might
>> > gain some rudimentry understanding of balanced and unbalanced three
>> > faults.
>> And the theory of multi-phase AC distribution systems relates to the
>> absurd statement that 400 HZ systems have smaller "rectifiers" in what
> If you have a problem with the concept of reactive components and their
> relationship to frequency, then I do not see why you are posting to a
> technical thread.
You seem to have a problem understanding that a rectifier is NOT a
A diode is a rectifier. Diodes are not reactive.
To be precise, there is some small junction capacitance, but that's
negligable at power frequencies.
All the reactive components are in the supply to the rectifier and/or the
filter after the rectifier.
And before you even think about throwing out the red herring, you could say
a MG set run on AC that puts out DC is a "rectifier" under the classical
definition, but those around you would just smile politely and walk away
shaking their heads.
>> > Please don't make a further fool of yourself attempting to discuss
>> > electricity in these newsgroups.
>> Please respond to technical criticism with a technical response showing
>> where the technical criticism is incorrect.
> Did and done.
"Hey, look at my PE, I'm right" isn't a technical response. I've yet
to see a direct technical response from you; ad hominem, yes, redirection,
yes, direct technical, no.
>> I do apologize to the group for allowing myself to be suckered into your
>> ad hominem responses to technical criticism.
> You would do well to apologize for your incompetence in the subject at hand
> Jim. You have no reason to be posting to this thread.