Why The Hell... (random rant)

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

And that tells you your course, not which direction the nose is pointed.

For navigation, your ground track is more important.

There is no GPS instrument available that will tell you which way
your nose is pointed.

As I've said, you just use two.

There is are GPS instruments available that can be linked to tell you
that.

The only two places on Earth a magnetic compass doesn't work in an
airplane are over the north and south magnetic poles.

No. There are thousands of local magnetic anomalies that can make a compass
useless.

Not at airplane altitudes and speeds.

If there are thousands, name just 30.

Piston engines have magnetos which generate the spark plug firing
voltage, and only the spark plug voltage.

Last time I checked, sparks counted as electricity.

Well, I can see electricity can be added to that ever growing list
of things about which you know nothing.

Magnetos generate pulses measured in the thousand of volts and microamps
of current. Even if they were hooked to something else, which they
aren't, the power generated would be useless for powering something like
a GPS.

My god, everytime you say something, more ignorance just roles out.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

Not at airplane altitudes and speeds.

Then why are they marked on the charts?

Well, I can see electricity can be added to that ever growing list
of things about which you know nothing.

Are you saying that sparks are something other than electricity? What are
they, then?

Magnetos generate pulses measured in the thousand of volts and microamps
of current.

Volts? Microamps? These units are used in electrical engineering, not
plumbing.

Even if they were hooked to something else, which they
aren't, the power generated would be useless for powering something like
a GPS.

But that wasn't the assertion. The assertion was that there was no
electricity in some aircraft. If they have typical powerplants, there is
electricity.

My god, everytime you say something, more ignorance just roles out.

I'm not the one making the mistakes.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

In rec.aviation.piloting Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

Not at airplane altitudes and speeds.

Then why are they marked on the charts?

Why are not what marked on the charts?

snip

But that wasn't the assertion. The assertion was that there was no
electricity in some aircraft. If they have typical powerplants, there is
electricity.

Spewing idiot, by that interpretation, there is electricity when you
shuffle across the rug.

That is NOT what people are talking about when they are talking about
powering things.

Have you not the slightest bit of common sense?

snip

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
writes:

Not at airplane altitudes and speeds.

Then why are they marked on the charts?

Well, I can see electricity can be added to that ever growing list
of things about which you know nothing.

Are you saying that sparks are something other than electricity? What are
they, then?

Magnetos generate pulses measured in the thousand of volts and microamps
of current.

Volts? Microamps? These units are used in electrical engineering, not
plumbing.

Even if they were hooked to something else, which they
aren't, the power generated would be useless for powering something like
a GPS.

But that wasn't the assertion. The assertion was that there was no
electricity in some aircraft. If they have typical powerplants, there is
electricity.

My god, everytime you say something, more ignorance just roles out.

I'm not the one making the mistakes.


You can talk more **** than a Jap radio.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
writes:


But that wasn't the assertion. The assertion was that there was no
electricity in some aircraft. If they have typical powerplants, there is
electricity.

Uh, no. What Ron Natalie said was:

"The engine in just about every airplane out there runs just freaking fine
without any electrical power consumed nor delivered to the rest of the
aircraft."

It's an accurate statement - that's probably what confused you.

"..no electricity" is what you mis-stated. Who asserted no electricity?

CJ

CJ writes:

Uh, no. What Ron Natalie said was:

"The engine in just about every airplane out there runs just freaking fine
without any electrical power consumed nor delivered to the rest of the
aircraft."

It's an accurate statement - that's probably what confused you.

"Without any electrical power consumed." And before you say it, "nor"
excludes the remainder of the sentence (unlike "or").

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
CJ writes:

Uh, no. What Ron Natalie said was:

"The engine in just about every airplane out there runs just freaking
fine
without any electrical power consumed nor delivered to the rest of the
aircraft."

It's an accurate statement - that's probably what confused you.

"Without any electrical power consumed." And before you say it, "nor"
excludes the remainder of the sentence (unlike "or").

Hmm, why does "Pedantic Usenet Ass" leap to mind?

Okay, s_l_o_w_l_y now, "The engine in just about every airplane out there
runs just freaking fine without any electrical power consumed...", is what
Mr. Natalie said. "The assertion was that there was no electricity in some
aircraft" is what you said. "Who asserted no electricity" is what I said.
To anyone but a pedantic usenet ass, Mr. Natalie's statement is clear - the
ENGINE runs fine without any electrical power being consumed - it generates
it's own electricity using a magneto. It does not CONSUME electricity - no
outside source of electricity.

Repeating the question you snipped, who asserted no electricity?

CJ

Has anyone trademarked "pedantic usenet ass" yet? I think I first saw it in
a McNicoll / Honeck thread.