From: "Tarver Engineering"
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>
Subject: Re: (Avionics) How can this circuit produce an "inductive surge"?
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:02:37 -0700
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
"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:
> >> > "Jim Pennino" wrote in message
> >> > news:email@example.com...
> >> >> 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
> >> >> 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
> >> references instead of personal attacks.
> > I have qualified myself as a legal reference Jim.
> > If you have similar qualification, or written references, please feel
> > 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
> 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
> 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
> >> > gain some rudimentry understanding of balanced and unbalanced three
> > phase
> >> > faults.
> >> And the theory of multi-phase AC distribution systems relates to the
> >> absurd statement that 400 HZ systems have smaller "rectifiers" in what
> >> way?
> > 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
> reactive component.
> 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
> 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 gave you the mathematical basis upon which to educate yourself, Jim.