[NSRCA-discussion] 6-32 control horns WAS Chapter-12 computerscience.
randy9004 at comcast.net
randy9004 at comcast.net
Tue Jul 3 07:28:48 AKDT 2007
Surely we are all using AL bolts instead of steel. Does Homedepot carry them?
randy
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Ed Miller" <edbon85 at charter.net>
> I've been using 3mm bolts, finer thread than 6-32.
> Ed M.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rick Wallace" <rickwallace45 at hotmail.com>
> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 2:03 AM
> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] 6-32 control horns WAS Chapter-12
> computerscience.
>
>
> John -
> 6-32 all-thread from the hardware store's been working fine... if you want I
> can cut some 2.63452" lengths and package them in a 'Pattern' container -
> for you, only $16.50 per pair !
>
> let me know -
> Rick
>
>
>
> > From: jpavlick at idseng.com> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> Date:
> > Tue, 3 Jul 2007 00:40:20 -0400> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-12
> > computer science.> > Hey, this is fun! i guess i did a good job with that
> > one. The next time the > list is slow, I'll know what to do!> > Hey - real
> > question: What is everyone using for 6-32 threaded control horn > setups?
> > I heard that stainless screws are too brittle. Can I just use >
> > zinc-plated hardware from Home Depot or will that only work on a "sport" >
> > model? <LOL>> > John Pavlick> http://www.idseng.com> > John Pavlick>
> > http://www.idseng.com> > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Keith
> > Black" <tkeithblack at gmail.com>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List"
> > <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 12:32 AM>
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-12 computer science.> > > >
> > Matthew,> >> > syntax error: you didn't define cnt.> >> > And by the way,
> > though in principal I agree with you about the int> > declaration
> > (depending on John's intent) in C or C++ it's perfectly> > acceptable to
> > increment (++) a char.> >> > Keith> >> > ----- Original Message ----- > >
> > From: "Matthew Frederick" <mjfrederick at cox.net>> > To: "NSRCA Mailing
> > List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> > Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007
> > 10:34 PM> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-12 computer science.>
> > >> >> >> John,> >> What language is that for? C/C++? I don't think that
> > function would work> >> because doing math with a data type char provides
> > unpredictable results.> > It> >> looks like a function that would return
> > the number 255 to the function> > that> >> called it, but I would have
> > written it like this:> >> int foo(void){> >> int num;> >> for(num = 0; cnt
> > < 255; num++){> >> }> >> return num;> >> }> >>> >> Or better yet:> >> int
> > foo(void){> >> return 255;> >> }> >>> >> Or even better yet, if you know
> > the number that will always be returned,> >> just make it a global
> > constant and be done with it... Also I've never> >> intialized 2 variables
> > in a FOR statement before. Didn't know it was> >> possible, and not quite
> > sure I would ever need to. If the language shown> > was> >> not C/C++,
> > then maybe in that language you can in fact do math with data> >> type
> > char, but why would you store numbers as text? It takes far more> > space>
> > >> to store them. Keep in mind, I haven't done actual programming in a >
> > >> couple> >> of years so I am a little rusty (I don't consider working
> > with access> >> databases and excel to be programming although some
> > knowledge is > >> helpful).> >>> >> Matt> >>> >> ----- Original
> > Message ----- > >> From: "John Pavlick" <jpavlick at idseng.com>> >> To:
> > "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> >> Sent: Monday,
> > July 02, 2007 9:16 PM> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-12
> > computer science.> >>> >>> >> > OK, what does this do?> >> >> >> > char
> > foo(void)> >> > {> >> > char cnt, num;> >> >> >> > for(cnt = 0, num = 0;
> > cnt < 256; cnt++)> >> > {> >> > num++;> >> > }> >> > return num;> >> > }>
> > >> >> >> > John Pavlick> >> > http://www.idseng.com> >> >> >> >> >>
> > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> > From: "Matthew Frederick"
> > <mjfrederick at cox.net>> >> > To: "NSRCA Mailing List"
> > <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> >> > Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 4:22
> > AM> >> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.> >> >>
> > >> >> >> >> I'd like to see the code myself... I've got quite a bit of
> > Computer> >> >> Science> >> >> training.> >> >> ----- Original
> > Message ----- > >> >> From: "Fred Huber" <fhhuber at clearwire.net>> >> >>
> > To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> >> >> Sent:
> > Tuesday, June 26, 2007 3:23 PM> >> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
> > Chapter-5 Going too far.> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> What computer language was
> > the program written in?> >> >>>> >> >>> Send me the source code.> >> >>>>
> > >> >>> ----- Original Message ----- > >> >>> From: "W. Hinkle"
> > <whinkle1024 at msn.com>> >> >>> To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> >>
> > >>> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 10:25 AM> >> >>> Subject: Re:
> > [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> Dave
> > is a good pilot but character being beyond reproach is a bit of> > a> >>
> > >>>> stretch. Ask John Glizellis about when Dave shot him down and > >>
> > >>>> haggled> >> >>>> over> >> >>>> the price. This was to replace a brand
> > new model with less than 30> >> >>>> flights> >> >>>> on it at the NATS.
> > The incident was at the NATS during practice at> > the> >> >>>> AMA> >>
> > >>>> field. We all make mistakes, but to penny pinch the guy that just> >
> > cost> >> >>>> his> >> >>>> new model part way through the Nationals. JR
> > had to step in and> > forced> >> >>>> the> >> >>>> hand. If it had not
> > been for Dave the sponsorship threat Dave would> >> >>>> still> >> >>>>
> > be> >> >>>> argueing the price of a new built model. Dave replaced it
> > after some> >> >>>> debate> >> >>>> with JR. This is not character beyond
> > reproach? Dave may be a good> > guy> >> >>>> just> >> >>>> don't be on the
> > same freq. He'll tell how poor your model is built> > and> >> >>>> its> >>
> > >>>> not worth the price of a professional built kit.> >> >>>>> >> >>>>
> > I'll agree that both parties in this fight are not angels. I'm not a> >>
> > >>>> fan> >> >>>> or> >> >>>> Eric's but my question to this forum> >>
> > >>>>> >> >>>> Why is the NSRCA involved at all?> >> >>>>> >> >>>> Doesn't
> > the NSRCA have better things to do with its time and energy> >> >>>> than>
> > >> >>>> lynching a judge at the request of a couple pilots that have> >
> > character> >> >>>> beyond reproach?> >> >>>>> >> >>>> I feel this is
> > another sign of the NSRCA just wasting resources, > >> >>>> time> >> >>>>
> > and> >> >>>> money in the name of being the Savior of pattern flying.
> > Beware> > people> >> >>>> beware. Come on. Getting two of Dave's best
> > buddies in D1 to write a> >> >>>> program> >> >>>> to damn a person that
> > they and David hate with a passion. To me is> >> >>>> smells> >> >>>> like
> > old shellfish. These were the same judges who claimed in the> > past> >>
> > >>>> the> >> >>>> judge that gave the zero was the one that got it right.>
> > >> >>>>> >> >>>> The NSRCA has no business in this arena. I find it
> > appalling the> > Board> >> >>>> even> >> >>>> had this on the agenda. I
> > also find it appalling that a ruling was> >> >>>> made,> >> >>>> then Eric
> > was notified of the charges and the conviction. As Eric> >> >>>> stated,>
> > >> >>>> no> >> >>>> statistics can determine what the judge actually saw
> > or better yet> > what> >> >>>> the> >> >>>> pilot actually flew. So Eric's
> > scores were below the average for a> >> >>>> given> >> >>>> pilot. Maybe
> > the pilot flew below average in Eric's eyes. This is > >> >>>> why> >>
> > >>>> the> >> >>>> NATS uses more than one judge. This is a fact of life.
> > This looks> > very> >> >>>> one> >> >>>> sided by the NSRCA.> >> >>>>> >>
> > >>>> The NSRCA has no place in this squabble.> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >>
> > >>>>>From: "John Pavlick" <jpavlick at idseng.com>> >> >>>>>Reply-To: NSRCA
> > Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> >> >>>>>To: "NSRCA
> > Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>> >> >>>>>Subject: Re:
> > [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.> >> >>>>>Date: Tue, 26 Jun
> > 2007 01:27:00 -0400> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>Len,> >> >>>>> All of the people
> > involved were from D1 - I thought the good ol'> > boys> >> >>>>>were in D2
> > and D3! <LOL>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>John Pavlick> >>
> > >>>>>http://www.idseng.com> >> >>>>> ----- Original Message -----> >>
> > >>>>> From: Leonard Rudy> >> >>>>> To: NSRCA Mailing List> >> >>>>> Sent:
> > Monday, June 25, 2007 8:47 PM> >> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
> > Chapter-5 Going too far.> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> John,> >> >>>>>> >>
> > >>>>> The conflict may have blossomed like a Hockey Game Conflict,> >>
> > >>>>> but> >> >>>>> in> >> >>>>>the NHL> >> >>>>> those "with the power"
> > hear both sides and let each side present> >> >>>>> their> >> >>>>>case
> > before> >> >>>>> the powers to be assign penalties. After the penalties
> > are> > imposed,> >> >>>>> the> >> >>>>>player or> >> >>>>> individual
> > still has the right to appeal the decision.> >> >>>>> You say Eric should
> > take whatever the powers to be want and> >> >>>>> don't> >> >>>>>make any>
> > >> >>>>> noise or waves.> >> >>>>> This is a clear message to others who
> > will be judging at> > meets> >> >>>>> in> >> >>>>>the future. DO NOT GIVE
> > THE GOOD OLD BOYS GROUP any low or bad> > scores> >> >>>>>or> >> >>>>>you
> > may be on the receiving end of some form of penalty that you > >>
> > >>>>>will> >> >>>>>not> >> >>>>>like.> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> Len Rudy> >>
> > >>>>> "Life is easier if you learn to plow around the stumps" or in> >>
> > >>>>> other> >> >>>>>words, do not> >> >>>>> hand out low scores to the
> > Good Old Boys or you will pay dearly> > for> >> >>>>> it> >> >>>>>one way
> > or> >> >>>>> another.> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> Fred Huber
> > <fhhuber at clearwire.net> wrote:> >> >>>>> The penalty does not appear
> > appropriate...> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> It also sounds like it was not applied
> > in a manner consistant> > with> >> >>>>> the> >> >>>>>rules system.> >>
> > >>>>> ----- Original Message -----> >> >>>>> From: John Ferrell> >> >>>>>
> > To: Don Ramsey ; NSRCA Mailing List> >> >>>>> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007
> > 8:12 AM> >> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too
> > far.> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> I have the good fortune to not be
> > involved in this dispute. I> > am> >> >>>>>only aware of the conflict.> >>
> > >>>>>> >> >>>>> Not being very good at staying out of arguments, I offer
> > the> >> >>>>>following observations:> >> >>>>> A heated difference of
> > opinions occurred.> >> >>>>> Every one involved is considered a valuable
> > asset to the> > Pattern> >> >>>>>Game.> >> >>>>> Things were said that
> > should not have been said.> >> >>>>> Every one thinks they are right.> >>
> > >>>>> There was probably at least one (or may be several) bad> > call(s)>
> > >> >>>>> by> >> >>>>>some one.> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> The conflict blossomed
> > like a Hockey Game Conflict and the > >> >>>>> net> >> >>>>>result was
> > those with the power and responsibility treated it like a> >> >>>>>Hockey>
> > >> >>>>>Game Conflict! A serious "time out" was assigned to the individual
> > > >> >>>>>at> >> >>>>>the> >> >>>>>focal point of the conflict. It was
> > their duty to put the problem on> >> >>>>>ice.> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> The
> > expectations of the rest of us who value the game and its> >> >>>>>players
> > is that right or wrong the referee's call must be honored.> > The> >>
> > >>>>>referee has the power to impose further penalties if the individual>
> > >> >>>>>continues to make waves. Right or wrong, this is the was disputes
> > > >> >>>>>are> >> >>>>>handled in the world of competition.> >> >>>>>> >>
> > >>>>> If the individual was drawn into the conflict by goading it > >>
> > >>>>> is> >> >>>>> still> >> >>>>>he who gets the penalty.> >> >>>>>> >>
> > >>>>> Conflict resolution is not something that is natural to the> >>
> > >>>>> human> >> >>>>>condition. Conflict is.> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> Eric
> > needs to take the penalty and get on with things.Those > >> >>>>> in> >>
> > >>>>> power> >> >>>>>need to accept that the penalty has been applied and
> > to continue the> >> >>>>>game.> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> WE ALL need to be aware
> > that we either play nice or get sent> > to> >> >>>>> the> >>
> > >>>>>showers!> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> Another factor to consider is that the
> > higher profile one> >> >>>>> achieves> >> >>>>>in this sport the greater
> > the need to hold that individual to higher> >> >>>>>standards.> >> >>>>>
> > Eric is certainly a "high profile" player.> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> John
> > Ferrell W8CCW> >> >>>>> "Life is easier if you learn to plow> >> >>>>>
> > around the stumps"> >> >>>>> http://DixieNC.US> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> -----
> > Original Message -----> >> >>>>> From: Don Ramsey> >> >>>>> To: NSRCA
> > Mailing List> >> >>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 7:32 PM> >> >>>>>
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.> >> >>>>>> >>
> > >>>>>> >> >>>>> I would like to thank Eric for the nice complement in his>
> > >> >>>>> comment,> >> >>>>>"To circumvent this conflict of interest
> > problem and to keep the> >> >>>>>Nationals> >> >>>>>above reproach, I
> > steeped out of line and asked Don Ramsey to> >> >>>>>independently> >>
> > >>>>>choose the judges, Dave could not refuse this method, but I will > >>
> > >>>>>tell> >> >>>>>you> >> >>>>>that he got extremely mad at me for doing
> > it."> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> I must respond that for good or bad I've been
> > choosing the> >> >>>>> finals> >> >>>>>judges for many years. I started
> > that process when Jeff Hill was> > Event> >> >>>>>Director. It must also
> > be stated that I've never had any pressure > >> >>>>>of> >> >>>>>any> >>
> > >>>>>kind from contest management regarding who I choose to judge. I try>
> > > to> >> >>>>>pick the best candidates and rotate those so no single judge
> > can> >> >>>>>influence> >> >>>>>the outcome extradionarly.> >> >>>>>> >>
> > >>>>> Don> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>>
> >
> >>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------->
> > > ---> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________>
> > >> >>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list> >> >>>>>
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >> >>>>>
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion> >> >>>>>> >>>
> >
> >>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------->
> > > ---> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.> >>
> > >>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.> >> >>>>> Version: 7.5.472 / Virus
> > Database: 269.9.6/863 - Release > >> >>>>> Date:> >> >>>>>6/23/2007 11:08
> > AM> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________> >>
> > >>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list> >> >>>>>
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >> >>>>>
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion> >> >>>>>> >>
> > >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >>>
> >
> >>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------->
> > > -------> >> >>>>> Building a website is a piece of cake.> >> >>>>>
> > Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.> >> >>>>>> >>
> > >>>>>> >>>
> >
> >>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------->
> > > -------> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>
> > _______________________________________________> >> >>>>> NSRCA-discussion
> > mailing list> >> >>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >> >>>>>
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion> >> >>>>> >>
> > >>>>> >> >>>>>_______________________________________________> >>
> > >>>>>NSRCA-discussion mailing list> >>
> > >>>>>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >>
> > >>>>>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion> >> >>>>> >>
> > >>>>> >> >>>> _______________________________________________> >> >>>>
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list> >> >>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > >> >>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion> >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> -- > >> >>>> No virus found in this incoming
> > message.> >> >>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.> >> >>>> Version: 7.5.476 /
> > Virus Database: 269.9.9/872 - Release Date:> >> >>>> 6/26/2007> >> >>>>
> > 6:43 PM> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>>
> > _______________________________________________> >> >>> NSRCA-discussion
> > mailing list> >> >>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >> >>>
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion> >> >>> >> >>
> > _______________________________________________> >> >> NSRCA-discussion
> > mailing list> >> >> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >> >>
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion> >> >> >> >
> > _______________________________________________> >> > NSRCA-discussion
> > mailing list> >> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >> >
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion> >>> >>
> > _______________________________________________> >> NSRCA-discussion
> > mailing list> >> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >>
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion> >> >
> > _______________________________________________> > NSRCA-discussion
> > mailing list> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> >
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion > >
> > _______________________________________________> NSRCA-discussion mailing
> > list> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list