Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 17:03:50 +1100, "K. Smith"
wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 10:43:41 +1100, "K. Smith"
wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 08:17:23 -0600, Del Cecchi
wrote:
~~ snippage ~~
Trying to keep the barbarians from giving you a false impression. :)
Trying to keep the actual same people who spammed Ficht from doing it
all over again:-)
Karen, I've said this before and I'll say it again.
I have great appreciation for any opinion you would care to share on
other matters pertaining to boats and engines. You have knowledge to
impart and when you want to, you share good information.
In this area you are nothing more than a loud voice making lots of
noise and no sense. My experience and the experience of others is in
direct contradiction to your constant yammering on the subject of
FICHT and I suspect that it's something personal, not professional.
Gee Tom "your experience" is 1 in 3 failed, OMC finally admitted as a
marketing strategy for their latest fix no less:-) that only 1 in 5
failed:-)
One in three failed yes. However it was not a mechanical failure - it
was an electrical failure. You yourself admitted, along with Bill,
that a stator failure is almost unheard of in any outboard engine. The
Bombardier engineers were so interested in it, they paid for the parts
and labor so they could get their hands on the stator and computer to
try and understand what happened. Which they didn't have to do
because it was an OMC engine.
The resulting voltage cascade took out the computer which I would
have expected to have happened - no manufacturer takes the proper
precautions in protecting onboard computers from huge cascade failures
like this. So it was strictly a one-off - very rare, very unusual.
You couldn't be more wrong and the unfortunate thing is that anything
you have to say worthwhile is severely diminished.
Fascinating stuff Tom:-) So you confirm in your "experience" 1 in 3
Ficht failed???
Yes yes Tom I've heard it all before you like what I say so long as you
agree with it, are you absolutely sure you're not an OMC dealer???
possibly in a previous life???
Anyway if I upset you too much then just stop supporting Bill's spam &
I'll have no cause to correct you:-) Or if that's too much for a Koala
to bear try killfiling me, don't ask Krause how to do it though:-) he
claims he has me killed yet answers in 10 minutes; hey maybe that just
expedites msgs???
Anyway so far nobody, not you, not spam man Bill, not Humpty Dumpty
have actually challenged the technical merit of what I say, so I can
only assume on that front it's all tickety boo but you & spam Bill are
just trying to keep it quiet as long as you can. You to save what little
boat value is left & Bill?? well so he can sell more :-)
K
Been busy today so I'll keep the Krause lie of the day short.
This lying simpleton, after it became clear he was losing a thread
where he was displaying his usual lack of patriotism much less gratitude
for the brave men & women out there risking their everything, to keep
the likes of him safe, he just reverts to type.
But seriously can you imagine this uneducated union thug now claims he
is reviewing universities!!! & wait for it he poo poos the engineering
course!!! this from a lying uneducated union thug who couldn't use a
toaster without a union authorised electrician in attendance.
I've included just one of the followup responses but it was such a bald
faced lie it even embarrassed the rejoinders:-)
I have visited West Point, the Naval Academy, the Air Force Academy and
the sub training facility at Groton. Some years ago, I actually did look
over descriptions of some of the course material at Annapolis and the
c.v.'s of some of the faculty. I'm sure the engineering course material
is fairly rigorous, though it is more "trade-oriented" and did not look
up to MIT or CalTech standards. I mean, if your goal is to be an
aeronautical engineer, you're going to get better training at MIT or
CalTech or at any of a large number of other engineering schools. I
thought the faculty academic credentials no better than what is found at
a typical smaller four year public university. The military academies
turn out military officers with an education, not highly educated
military officers. But that is their purpose, eh?
--
Holy molly, grandma, put on your high boots.
Harry Krause, admitted graduate in the humanities with a degree in English
is hereby qualified to critique the engineering curriculum of not only West
Point, but also that of the Naval Academy and the Air Force Academy and
compare it to that of MIT and CalTech.
The above paragraph is a classic.
You missed your calling Harry.
|