Ping Nesbitt

"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
ws.com...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in
news:0JydnYJ4TPELaJPdRVn- :

Whom does Knoyle sell his "negative knowledge" services to?


you, apparently.

Knoyle's employment is a "safety of flight" issue, bunyip.

And your alleged employment is a danger in flight issue.

I am self employed and doing very well.

Knoyle is due to be run out of the industry.

That'll be the day...

Post up your employer, Knoyle.

I'm sure they want to enjoy the light of your incompetence. Especially now
that it is revealed for the whole world to see. There are plenty here with
a concern for safety that you are a threat to, Jimmy.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
news

"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
ws.com...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in
:


"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote in
news:0JydnYJ4TPELaJPdRVn- :

Whom does Knoyle sell his "negative knowledge" services to?


you, apparently.

Knoyle's employment is a "safety of flight" issue, bunyip.

And your alleged employment is a danger in flight issue.

I am self employed and doing very well.

Knoyle is due to be run out of the industry.

That'll be the day...

Post up your employer, Knoyle.

I'm sure they want to enjoy the light of your incompetence. Especially
now
that it is revealed for the whole world to see. There are plenty here
with
a concern for safety that you are a threat to, Jimmy.


Anybody is invited to read anything I have posted (unedited by you)
and compare it to the drivel that you have posted. That's the whole point!
I recommend Google.

Be my guest.

A good start:
http://home.att.net/~j.knoyle/the_ta...hronicles.html

JK

"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
.. .
"Jim Knoyle" wrote:

Hang on here a second now Jim, you still need two samples. As Dan
says you need 'static pressure' to read the altitude from and you
need 'pitot pressure' (ram air pressure) as well as the static
pressure to derive the airspeed reading from. Sounds like you're
saying that you can read 'both' from just the 'ram air pressure'
alone. Or did I misunderstand you?

Jim has finally figued out what a pitot tube is, but somehow he still wants
to be correct in his archive troll. It is a great paradox.


I know...ain't life a bitch John

--

-Gord.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
.. .
"Jim Knoyle" wrote:

Hang on here a second now Jim, you still need two samples. As Dan
says you need 'static pressure' to read the altitude from and you
need 'pitot pressure' (ram air pressure) as well as the static
pressure to derive the airspeed reading from. Sounds like you're
saying that you can read 'both' from just the 'ram air pressure'
alone. Or did I misunderstand you?

Jim has finally figued out what a pitot tube is, but somehow he still
wants
to be correct in his archive troll. It is a great paradox.


I know...ain't life a bitch John

--

-Gord.


Splaps, you can go on quoting Gord's comment
'till the cows come home but your ommision of
my response to Gord is just more evidence of
your dishonesty.
The ongoing evidence of your dishonesty is much
appreciated. Keep on keeping on! :-)

JK

"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
.. .
"Jim Knoyle" wrote:

Hang on here a second now Jim, you still need two samples. As Dan
says you need 'static pressure' to read the altitude from and you
need 'pitot pressure' (ram air pressure) as well as the static
pressure to derive the airspeed reading from. Sounds like you're
saying that you can read 'both' from just the 'ram air pressure'
alone. Or did I misunderstand you?

Jim has finally figued out what a pitot tube is, but somehow he still
wants
to be correct in his archive troll. It is a great paradox.


I know...ain't life a bitch John

--

-Gord.


Splaps, you can go on quoting Gord's comment
'till the cows come home but your ommision of
my response to Gord is just more evidence of
your dishonesty.

There is no response possible, Knoyle.

You are revealed as an incompetent, for all to see.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in news:AeOdnWo-5YmRxozdRVn-
:


"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
.. .
"Jim Knoyle" wrote:

Hang on here a second now Jim, you still need two samples. As Dan
says you need 'static pressure' to read the altitude from and you
need 'pitot pressure' (ram air pressure) as well as the static
pressure to derive the airspeed reading from. Sounds like you're
saying that you can read 'both' from just the 'ram air pressure'
alone. Or did I misunderstand you?

Jim has finally figued out what a pitot tube is, but somehow he still
wants
to be correct in his archive troll. It is a great paradox.


I know...ain't life a bitch John

--

-Gord.


Splaps, you can go on quoting Gord's comment
'till the cows come home but your ommision of
my response to Gord is just more evidence of
your dishonesty.

There is no response possible, Knoyle.


Well, duh.

bertie