🚀 go-pugleaf

	This article has two sections.  The first covers technical issues, and
its end is clearly marked for those readers who wish to stop reading at that
point.  The second is designed to give Mr. DeArmond an "attitude adjustment"
for his propensity to Tell Tall Tales, and it reveals some facts which may
assist readers in evaluating his credibility.  There are also fascinating
excerpts from previous articles posted by Mr. DeArmond, courtesy of a CD-ROM
Usenet archive.  I dislike having to write the second part of this article,
but everyone has a limit as to how much bullshit and name-calling they will
silently and politely endure.  In previous articles I hinted to Mr. DeArmond
that people in glass houses should not throw stones, but he didn't get the
message.  He *will* get the message this time.

In article <5265@rsiatl.Dixie.Com>, jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes:
> >>In article <5232@rsiatl.Dixie.Com>, jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes:
> >>> Here is how to extend your bulb life indefinitely with practically (<1%)
> >>> decrease in output.  Place a negative tempco thermistor of the proper
> >>> value in the lamp lead. [description of modifying light fixture deleted]

> amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) writes:
> >    The funny part here is that while ul listed, these button type jobs are
> >a common cause of fires, and very popular (winning) lawsuit item.  I have
> >a friend that testifies and consults, and has made a ton of money off these
> >little jobs blowing up.  The UL rating was either a result of poor government
> >inoperation or just a simple bribe.  

	UL disagrees with these statements.  Perhaps you can prove otherwise?

> I'll second that motion.  I tried some of the little buttons in a 4 bulb
> chandelier in my den.  By the time they had failed and shorted under 
> 100 watt bulbs, they had emitted a large quantity of smoke and had 
> fried to a blakened crisp.  *I* consider them a fire hazard after my
> experience.

	Amazing!  Mr. DeArmond never told us about his alleged experience
with the button-type devices until *after* Allen Michielsen stated that
they were a fire hazard.

	Out of curiosity, I called a contact at UL (708/272-8800) who
referred me to an engineer responsible for lighting fixture safety (name
upon request).  The engineer with whom I spoke, who was quite familiar
with the button-type lamp life extenders, had no knowledge of *any* fires
caused by UL-approved devices inserted in lamp sockets.

	My curiosity being piqued, I called the IES (Illuminating Engineering
Society, 212/705-7919) and an engineer who deals with lighting safety issues,
John Briggs, was kind enough to speak with me out of professional courtesy
since I am not an IES member.  Mr. Briggs was familiar with the button-type
devices, and was unaware of any fires caused by their use.

	At Mr. Briggs' suggestion I contacted the General Electric Lighting
Products Division (216/266-3900) and spoke with a technical specialist who
advised me that he knew of no fire hazard from the use of such button-type
devices.  Mr. Briggs offered the opinion that if anyone had any prejudice
*against* lamp life extenders it would be a lamp manufacturer.

	Since this was getting curioser and curioser, I then contacted the
NFPA (National Fire Protection Association, 617/770-3000) and spoke with an
engineer in their Electrical Engineering department, Mike Ode, who was not
aware of these devices being a fire hazard.  At Mr. Ode's suggestion, I then
spoke with Ken Taylor in the NFPA Fire Analysis Division, who had no specific
data as to these devices being a fire hazard.  Mr. Taylor did give me an
interesting statistic: approximately 3,200 fires per year are caused by
lamps and lighting fixtures.

	There was only one more organization left to call - which was
fortunate since I have only a finite amount of coffee break time to spend
on this pursuit. :-)  I called the CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission,
regional office, 212/264-1130) and spoke with Robert Moro, who stated that
their agency did have about half a dozen complaints concerning *one*
particular button-type device which was imported and did *not* have UL
approval.  About half of these complaints pertained to electrical shock
resulting from the exposed portion of the metal lamp screw base (since a lamp
can no longer screw into a socket as deeply with a button-type device).  The
CPSC had not as yet reached any final determination on these complaints, and
they had as yet no conclusive information that any fires had actually been
caused by such devices.

	Clearly there is a grain of truth to these devices being the subject
of complaint, but there does not yet appear to be conclusive data that
they have been the *direct* cause of any fire.  If such were the case, one
might think that UL, IES, NFPA and General Electric would be aware of the
situation.  It is important to bear in mind that there are *3,200* fires
each year caused by lamps and lighting fixtures, and that even if such a
button-type device were installed when such a fire occurred, one cannot
simply conclude that the mere presence of such device caused the fire.

	Likewise, I had not previously heard of any fires caused by the
UL-approved devices, which is why in my original article I stated that UL
considered them safe because they were confined within the metal barrier
of the lamp socket.

	It may also help readers to know that typical base temperatures
of incandescent lamps in the range of 60 to 100 watts run from 194 to
208 deg F (data taken from NFPA handbook).  It does not seem likely that
the button-type devices will get hot enough to destroy any thermosetting
plastic insulating material used in their manufacture, considering that
most thermoset plastics used for electrical component manufacture (like
allyls, phenolics, etc.) will withstand temperatures of at least 350 deg F.

> I tried some of the little buttons in a 4 bulb
> chandelier in my den.  By the time they had failed and shorted under 
> 100 watt bulbs, they had emitted a large quantity of smoke and had 
> fried to a blakened crisp.

	Since a chandelier is open, with heat rapidly dissipated through
convection, and since under such circumstances the lamp base temperature
is not likely to exceed 212 deg F, what, pray tell, caused the devices to
allegedly "emit a large quantity of smoke and fry to a blackened crisp"?

	Enquiring minds would like to know why Mr. DeArmond seems to be
one out of only a handful of persons in the *entire* country with a truly
specific claim as to the burning of these button-type devices.  In addition,
do Mr. DeArmond's alleged devices bear UL-approval?  If not, then why would
a person as allegedly astute as Mr. DeArmond purchase such a device lacking
UL-approval?  Readers who make it through to the end of this article may
well develop a theory as to Mr. DeArmond's claims, however.

> The thermistors specified are meant for surge or inrush limiting
> applications.

	ALL of the thermistors in the Panasonic ERT-D-series and the
Keystone RL-series specified by Mr. DeArmond are intended for temperature
measurement, temperature compensation, time delay, and limiting for signal
(*not* power) circuits only.  The thermistors in these series have 26 AWG
and 24 AWG wire leads, which ought to be a clue as to their intended
application - if one actually had such a thermistor in their possession.
But this wire lead gage data is not found in the Digi-Key catalog.

	What Mr. DeArmond failed to find in his Digi-Key catalog, because
it was somewhat buried at the upper right hand corner of a page which
otherwise listed varistors, was the one series which actually is suitable
for power inrush limiting.  Those thermistors, the Keystone CL-series,
have 18 AWG and 22 AWG wire leads, are quite suitable for lamp or power
applications, and have explicitly specified current ratings from 1.1 to
12 amps.  The best part is that at full rated current THEY DON'T GET ANY
HOTTER THAN 25 DEG C.

	Based upon the thermistor selection listed in the Digi-Key catalog,
it would be utterly absurd to consider anything other than the Keystone
CL-series for a lamp application.

	Why didn't Mr. DeArmond tell us about *that* series?  Was it because
he overlooked it while trying to make the best of other part numbers in
support of his latest Tall Tale?

	But, this situation gets better and better, so please be patient...

> I thoroughly tested the application before I made the recommendation.

	I know of some oceanfront property for sale in Arizona. :-)

> Because this is a new application for the parts, different than the
> normal use in switchmode powersupplies

	It's a "new application" alright, because none of the thermistors
mentioned by Mr. DeArmond are intended for "switchmode powersupplies".

> I set up a test environment in my
> lab that consisted of a  light fixture representative of what is in my
> house, a variac to vary the applied voltage and a thermocouple datalogger
> to record what thermal events occured. One thermocouple was fastened via
> thermal epoxee to the thermistor and the other to the base of the lamp
> socket.  A 100 watt bulb  and a PAR reflector lamp were tested.   

	My gawd, I'm impressed.

> >	While the above installation technique may function as intended,
> >readers should be aware that such an "aftermarket" installation: (1) most
> >likely voids the UL approval on the lighting fixture in question; 
> 
> Since doing anything to a fixture that deviates from the UL test conditions
> voids the approval, (such as putting all those 100 watt bulbs in "60
> watt max" sockets), at least one can say that "voiding" is common and
> does not cause many fires.  As we'll see, the *practical* safety is
> not degraded and if anything, is enhanced.

	Self-proclaimed "practical safety" which violates explicit rules,
regulations and standards (i.e., UL, NEC and building codes) does not go
very far with insurance companies or building inspectors.
 
> >(2) is a National Electrical Code (NEC) violation; 
> Hardly.  Most areas adopt the NEC in total.  I've had other occasions to
> check here in Cobb county and know that this is the case here.

	Which means that use of a light fixture no longer having UL approval
violates the local building code in Marietta, GA.

	Now, why is this *important*?  Because the discovery of such an
intentional violation may void insurance coverage in the event of a fire.
Consider the following quotation from a Hartford insurance policy:

	"We will not pay for loss or damage caused by or resulting from
	any of the following ...
	c.  Faulty, inadequate or defective:
	    (1) Planning, zoning, development, surveying, siting;
	    (2) Design, specifications, workmanship, repair, construction,
	        renovation, remodeling, grading, compaction;
	    (3) Materials used in repair, construction, renovation or
	        remodeling; or
	    (4) Maintenance;
	of part or all of any property on or off the described premises."

	Who wants to risk losing the economic investment in their house
and personal possessions by taking Mr. DeArmond's advice and modifying a
light fixture to save a paulty few dollars per year?

	But Mr. DeArmond has nothing to worry about.  He'll just tell
the insurance company that he made measurements with a gen-U-wine
FLUKE 8800A 5-1/2 digit DVM, that while 12 years old and obsolete,
still has NBS-traceable calibration! :-)

> But let's address the issue Larry the Lid raises above.  Even though we
> know that a filament short is always blown away instantly upon contact

	A filament short is *usually* blown away because there is no
device in series with the lamp to create impedance and limit current.
A series thermistor, even in the hot state, may well limit current such
that neither the shorted filament nor thermistor itself will have
enough energy to instantaneously open.  The actual instantaneous
fault current available from a typical 20 ampere electrical branch
circuit may reach the hundreds of ampere range, with a low resistance
fault within a lamp usually blowing out in several cycles - which is
usually not long enough to trip an overcurrent device.  It doesn't take
much imagination to see how even 1 ohm of series resistance can drastically
reduce current such that the energy necessary to open an internal lamp
fault is no longer available.

	Consider this example, which should be intuitive to many readers.
A 2" piece of 28 AWG wire connected to the 18 AWG conductors of a line cord
will probably blow away in a fraction of a second if the line cord were
plugged into an AC outlet.  If an appropriate series impedance that limited
current were now added to the circuit, the 28 AWG wire would first become
red hot (perhaps for a long time) before opening.  Also, that series
impedance might itself get rather hot in the process.

> and because we could speculate that a lamp construction that would allow
> a continuous short between electrodes could never be approved,

	Mr. DeArmond should take apart a few different models of light
bulbs and see how filament support wires can well be deflected against
broken filament sections to create low resistance faults in a lamp failure.
Such light bulbs are all UL-approved.

> Since power dissipation would be worst case with a cold, high resistance
> termistor, my testing was done at ambient.  My test rig is simplicity
> itself - a ptn-126 thermistor clipped in a  Jesus Cord (a 120 volt cord 
> with aligator clips on the end - makes you yell "JEEEESUS" when they get
> together and can aid you in meeting Him if you grab 'em :-) and laying on
> a paper towel for fuel.   Plug the cord in and ... POP!  The thermistor
> blows apart instantly. No flame and no smoke.   This is, of course, many
> times more severe than conditions that exist in the light fixture.   

	One can perform the same test and achieve the same results with a
1N4005 rectifier diode; I suspect that this is intuitive to many readers.
Earlier in his article, Mr. DeArmond seems to have taken the bait planted
by Allen Michielsen and agreed that the diode devices are a hazard.

	Well, if both a diode device and a thermistor device will "blow
apart instantly", then why is Mr. DeArmond's thermistor device *safe*,
but the diode device a *hazard*?

> I plan on setting up an accelerated life test with a cycle timer that
> will cycle the lamp on and off at about 10 0r 15 second intervals. I'll
> probably conduct at least part of the test with fiberglass insulation
> wrapped around the thermistor to see if that makes any differnece.

	Well, since Mr. DeArmond has told us in misc.jobs.contract that
he is out of work, I suppose he has nothing better to do with his time.
I am a little disappointed, though, that Mr. DeArmond cannot think of
anything more creative to do than duplicate efforts that others have
already done - all to save a few dollars per year.  But it makes a Great
Tall Tale, doesn't it, Mr. DeArmond?

$$> Typical on resistance for the 16 ohm device is 1 ohm which means that it
$$> dissipates about a watt with a 100 watt bulb. ...
$$> The part will rise
$$> about 60 degrees C over ambient when in operation so you don't want
$$> to insulate it or pack it in a closed box.

	The above are quotes from Mr. DeArmond's original article.  I'm
not always certain what he means by "ambient", but I suspect the above
refers to room temperature.  But, as readers will see shortly, it doesn't
make much difference how his ambient temperature is defined.

> >	The 16-ohm device is actually a Panasonic (PNT-126), and has a
> >maximum rating of 0.6 watts.  Its R25/R50 deg C resistance ratio is 2.3,
> >which means that its resistance is still about 7 ohms at 50 deg C.  I
> >would find it difficult to believe that at 85 deg C ("60 degrees C over
> >ambient") its resistance would be as little as 1 ohm.  2.5 to 3 ohms
> >seems more likely, which means we could be dissipating at least 2.5
> >watts.  That's *FOUR* times the *maximum* rating of the thermistor!
> 
> The actual *MEASURED* (as opposed to hypothesized or made up) voltage
> drop across a PTN-126 while wired in series with a 100 watt bulb ranges
> from 0.8 to 1.0 volts as measured with a Fluke 8800A 5-1/2 digit
> voltmeter with the true RMS option installed and an NBS (ne NITS)
> traceable  calibration.  Since the measured current is just a bit under
> an amp, the computed resistance is about an ohm and the  power
> dissipation is about a watt.  We know from experience that Larry finds
> experimental data "difficult to believe".  Fabricated numbers are *SO*
> much more tidy. 

	I have 9 pages of detailed specifications on that Panasonic ERT-D
thermistor series, and the part claimed by Mr. DeArmond will *not* achieve a
resistance of 1 ohm at 85 deg C.  The exact part number for the PTN-126 [sic]
Digi-Key stock number is the Panasonic ERT-D3FFL160S.

	Let's first consider its recommended application from the actual
Panasonic data sheets: "Temperature detection.  Temperature compensation
for measuring equipment.  Temperature compensation for deflection coil
in TV's, etc."  Not one word about inrush current limiting.  In fact, in
the "Precautions for Handling" section Panasonic makes it clear that this
part should be used as a measuring component only.

	Not given in the abbreviated Digi-Key specifications is the
dissipation constant of this device: 7 mw/deg C.  This means that in
order for it to dissipate 1 watt (as claimed by Mr. DeArmond), its
temperature would have to rise 143 deg C above 25 deg C, for an actual
temperature of 168 deg C.  Since the absolute maximum temperature for
the device is 125 deg C, it would be destroyed before dissipating 1 watt.

	Yet, Mr. DeArmond says: "The part will rise about 60 degrees C
over ambient when in operation".  I believe he means room temperature
ambient here, but even if he means fixture ambient, the end result is
the same: component failure.

	I do believe we have, shall we say, "a discrepancy" here.  Some
possible explanations are: (1) the temperature is really greater than
what Mr. DeArmond reported; (2) Mr. DeArmond has made some measurement
error; (3) Mr. DeArmond is not using the part number he so claims;
(4) Panasonic has lied on their data sheets; or (5) Mr. DeArmond is
pulling our leg.

	Perhaps I am to be so impressed with Mr. DeArmond's claimed
use of a 12-year old obsolete 5-1/2 digit DVM with "NBS traceability"
that I am to be deterred from further pursuing this issue?

	But it gets even better in about 22 more lines, so read on...

> >	Also, the above thermistor series is primarily intended as a
> >temperature measuring element, and not for any significant power dissipation
> >in any protective circuit.  That's why its only rated at 0.6 watts.
> 
> Low ohm negative tempco thermistors with significant watt ratings are 
> designed for inrush applications and make pretty poor measuring devices,
> as a glance at the thermistor curves would show.

	Oh, so Mr. DeArmond has the curves for this thermistor?  If so, then
he must notice an amazing degree of parallelism in slopes among the curves
for *every* thermistor in this ERT-D-series, from 8 ohms to 150,000 ohms.
Since the Panasonic curves are log plots, the lines are almost straight.
Low resistance thermistors are indeed used for measuring applications,
primarily for temperature compensation.

	That was a good bluff, Mr. DeArmond - too bad it didn't work.

> Since the 600 milliwatt
> rating is for worst-case conditions, I have no problem at all operating
> the device at higher dissipations under less severe thermal conditions.

	I have a confession to make: I baited Mr. DeArmond, and he fell
for it, shall we say, hook, line and sinker.  Call me an SOB if you'd like,
but I am really tired of Mr. DeArmond's name-calling and fairy tales.

	The 600 mw rating is not at all what Mr. DeArmond thinks it is,
and I intentionally did not clarify the issue in my original article.
Let me quote from the Panasonic data sheets: "Rated power is power that
is needed to go up till 125 deg C, and when the ambient temperature
exceeds 25 deg C, the rated power should be derated according to the
following curve."  The curve is a straight line showing 100% at 25 deg C
and 0% at 125 deg C.

	This means that at 125 deg C ambient the thermistor is rated to
dissipate *ZERO* power.

> We must remember that the ambient temperature in a fixture is MUCH higher
> than the 60 degree rise, (80 degree C absolute) measured on the surface
> of the thermistor. 

	I'll be generous and say the ambient temperature in Mr. DeArmond's
fixture is only 85 deg C.  At 85 deg C, the maximum permissible dissipation
is 40% of 600 mw, or 240 mw.  Oh my, Mr. DeArmond is allegedly running the
thermistor at *FOUR* times its rating.  Which is exactly what I said in my
original article, but I derived the 4-times in an intentionally misleading
fashion.

	I am sorry if I misled anyone else, but my "bottom line" was still
correct - and that was the real point.

> Since the 600 milliwatt
> rating is for worst-case conditions, I have no problem at all operating
> the device at higher dissipations under less severe thermal conditions.

	The truth is, the 600 mw rating is for *best* conditions when
the thermistor temperature is heat-sinked at 25 deg C.  Less severe thermal
conditions, my ass!  Maybe this article will cause Mr. DeArmond to grow up
and realize that he cannot always bluff his way through life - especially
when he pretends to have engineering knowledge that he in fact lacks.

	In the particular case of this do-it-yourself lamp life extension
procedure described by Mr. DeArmond, it disturbed me that he would give
bogus advice which has the potential to jeopardize life and property.
This is the reason I took some time to research and write this article.

	The above completes the first half of this article.  For those
who are solely concerned with technical information, you may stop reading
here.  For those who would like to see Mr. DeArmond get some well-deserved
"attitude adjustment" concerning his Tall Tales, read on.  The next part
is rather long, and the "revelations" are toward the end, but it should
have decent entertainment value to some readers.

In article <5265@rsiatl.Dixie.Com>, jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes:
> Allen, you just gotta overlook Larry the Lid (as he's referred to in other
> groups.)  I induced him to make an ass out of himself in comp.dcom.telecom
> a few months ago and he's been messing his britches to get even ever since.

	For those readers who are unaware, Mr. DeArmond treated telecom
readers to a Tall Tale in which: (1) while working for "the government" at
a time when he would have been a teenager; (2) he obtained an electronic
eavesdropping device from the CIA; (3) bragged about committing a felony
by installing it in his supervisor's office without the benefit of any
lawful authority; and (4) used recordings so made to blackmail his
supervisor so that the supervisor would not proceed with a plan to have
Mr. DeArmond fired by planting marijuana in Mr. DeArmond's car!

	That's quite a story, huh?  Certainly worthy of a few episodes
on the former television series "Soap".  When I pointed out certain, uh,
technical improbabilities in his *detailed* story, Mr. DeArmond got a
little upset with me.  I wonder why?

> He's quite fond of quoting the hypothetical and or calculated answers as
> fact.

	My armchair diagnosis is that Mr. DeArmond appears to disdain what
he cannot comprehend, most likely due to feelings of insecurity resulting
from his self-admitted lack of a college education (or any other professional
credentials, for that matter).  More on this shortly from the keyboard of
Mr. DeArmond himself.

> Just a spoiled rich kid not getting his way.

	Wrong choice of insult, Mr. DeArmond, as you are about to learn.

	Funny, but I have never, *ever* mentioned anything on the Net about
my finances, employment or standard of living.  I do talk about my numerous
cats, though.  I wonder if that makes me a "spoiled rich kid"?

	On the other hand, readers of misc.jobs.contract sure have been
treated to Tall Tales from Mr. DeArmond about *his* incredible string of
financial successes.  How about a few choice examples, and then we'll
inject some truth?

In article <3058@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes:
$$> I'll use myself and my current team as an example.  With only one of us
$$> earning less than 100k/yr, I think we could agree that we're more than
$$> adequately compensated.  The interesting thing is that NONE of us have
$$> degrees.  I'll be there's not 4 years' college between all of us.

	I sure believe that last sentence!

$$> My slightly younger brother is a dentist.
$$> Our earned income is about the same - and remember that I've intentionally
$$> backed off a bit for a bit.  BUT.  He has 8 years of post-secondary
$$> education, during which time he did not make a dime.  IN fact, he came out
$$> of dental school with very large student debt.  (and he's one of the few who
$$> believes that you really should pay it back.)  During that same 8 years,
$$> my earnings were in the 7 digit range.

	Okay, show of hands time: How many other Net readers claim earnings
"in the 7 digit range"?  Gawd, *SEVEN* digits - why, Mr. DeArmond must be a
MILLIONAIRE!  And to think he called *me* a "spoiled rich kid"...

$$> I'm vastly better educated than most of my peers.
$$> The difference is that I made myself become educated rather than relying
$$> on an institution to do it for me.  I have a library that rivals many
$$> small schools.  I've read everything in it at least once.

	Does "read == comprehend"?  As my late father was fond of saying
about incompetent people: "He woke up one morning, hit himself over the
ass with a book, and called himself an engineer."

$$> I have a
$$> hardware and software development lab that is better than anything any of
$$> my clients have.

	Doesn't say much for the caliber of his "clients", does it?

$$> I hope the above did not sound too snobbish.

	Naw, not at all.

$$> But I know of no other way to make the point other than to make an
$$> example of myself.

	Mr. DeArmond certainly has made an example of himself, but not quite
in the manner he intended.

$$> Of course, one of the best ways to run into degree snobs is to
$$> contact a company through their HR slime.  Being degree snobs is the only
$$> way these people can build any self-respect.

	One of the reasons why Mr. DeArmond dislikes "HR slime" is because
they *verify* resumes, background and credentials - scrutiny which would
likely preclude hiring of Mr. DeArmond.  More about this later...

$$> John De Armond, WD4OQC  | 
$$> Radiation Systems, Inc. |
$$> Atlanta, Ga             |
$$> {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd|

In article <3128@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes:
$$> As a person who has built and sold a large consulting engineering firm 
$$> in order to return to being small, let me address this point.

	A "large" consulting engineering firm, no less.  Mr. DeArmond always
needs to inject that hyperbole.  What is the name and location of that firm,
pray tell?

$$> My personal goal is to do billable work only about 
$$> 9 months out of the year and spend the rest of the time relaxing/studying/
$$> building new product.  I'm just about there.

	Gawd, I'm turning green with envy.

In article <3610@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes:
$$> Or consider when I was a heavy equipment operator and in the IUOE.
$$> I started out running a bulldozer.
$$> - a reminder of a much darker period of my career.

	Oh, so *that's* the kind of "consulting engineering firm" built
and sold by Mr. DeArmond, who is now apparently an "operating engineer".
Perhaps he consults on how to operate bulldozers?  Maybe that's why he
doesn't know much about thermistors?

In article <3365@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes:
$$> Let me get this straight.  You're advocating that I
$$> close down my consulting operation, forgo a 6
$$> digit income and start paying out money to some institution that
$$> will after 4 years of hassles give me a sheet of paper?

	Well, now we're down to a mere "6 digit income"...

In article <3578@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes:
$$> My brother and I have had an
$$> informal contest for years to see who makes the most money each year.   
$$> So far, I've beaten him every year, though the margins are narrowing as I
$$> back off from a full 2000 hour work year.

	Anyone want to give Mr. DeArmond's brother, Eben Jr., a call and
ask how the "contest" is going?  He practices dentistry in Cleveland, TN.
I wonder how Dr. DeArmond would react to his brother posting these, um,
"contest results" to the whole world?

In article <3610@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes:
$$> In my past 
$$> career, I consulted in the nuclear power industry, usually in the
$$> field of industrial controls and radiation monitors.

	How likely is it that a person with an apparent total lack of
educational and professional credentials would "consult to the nuclear
power industry"?  In matters of safety with radiation monitors, no less!
Unless, of course, Mr. DeArmond's "consulting" is one reason why the
nuclear power industry is presently in trouble.  I wonder if he worked
at Three Mile Island?

In article <3351@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes:
$$> One of these associations later enabled me to get a half million line of
$$> signature credit in order to start my first company.

	Half a million dollars must have started a pretty large company.
I don't suppose Mr. DeArmond would tell us the name and location of that
company, eh?  Or what happened to it?

	Mr. DeArmond certainly seems like a very rich and successful person.
One would think that a person with "7 digit earnings" would live in some
storybook Southern mansion replete with antebellum splendor.  Especially a
fellow like Mr. DeArmond, who obviously likes to show off and is *very*
proud of his alleged income and success.

	Curiously, however, that does not appear to be the case.  Sources
in Marietta, GA say that Mr. DeArmond and his wife Doreen live in a 
rather non-descript one-story 2,051 sq-ft house on a 4,089 sq-ft lot with
an improved value of $ 76,936.00.  Where, pray tell, are the fruits of
Mr. DeArmond's "7 digit earnings", since they certainly don't appear to be
in his house?  They don't appear to be in the cars he drives, either.

	Could all his income be tied up maintaining NBS-traceability for a
12-year old obsolete FLUKE 8800A 5-1/2 digit DVM?

	How can Mr. DeArmond reconcile this curious situation?  Lemme guess:
perhaps he'll say it's just the servants' quarters and he really lives
elsewhere!

In article <3488@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes:
$$> Anyway, I thought I'd offer some experiences regarding working at home.
$$> RSI is based in my basement.  I've converted the entire 2500 sq ft 
$$> basement into an office and laboratory.

	Good lord, Mr DeArmond even exaggerates the size of his basement!
Can't he tell the plain truth about *anything*?  But wait, maybe the extra
25% is located in an underground bunker, the existence of which is unknown
to the Cobb County Board of Assessors.  That's right, that's the ticket!

	I will give an even better example of Mr. DeArmond's veracity.

In article <4976@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes:
$$> Never use the title of President except where you legally
$$> must.  I use the title "General Manager" or "Director of Engineering"
$$> depending on who I am addressing.  This implies a larger organization
$$> ...
$$> I've had many clients in the last 10 years
$$> but only one employer - my company, Radiation Systems, Inc.  My resume
$$> reflects that fact.  This approach gets around the pinheaded personnel
$$> people plus it demonstrates to your prospective sponsor a degree of
$$> stability and success.  It's all a matter of perspective.

	Here's the truth, as furnished by a recipient of one of Mr. DeArmond's
"resumes" who had the truly bad manners to actually check it out:

	Radiation Systems, Inc. was incorporated in the State of Tennessee
on 2/28/85 listing Mr. DeArmond as registered agent with a home address on
Talley St. in Cleveland, TN, and with a corporate address of his father's
(Eben DeArmond, Sr.) accounting business office on Broad St.
	
	Now, here's the real kicker - on 3/31/89 the Tenessee Secretary of
State revoked the corporate charter of Radiation Systems, Inc. for failure
to file corporate reports and tax returns since 1987!  While Mr. DeArmond
now lives in Marietta, GA, his corporation was never incorporated or
registered as a foreign corporation in the State of Georgia, either.
One would think Mr. DeArmond's "CPA" or "corporate attorney" (as he is fond
of referring to in misc.jobs.contract when dispenses allegedly sage advice)
would see that he uses a corporate identity in a lawful manner, huh?  Or is
Radiation Systems, Inc. apparently just another one of Mr. DeArmond's
failures?  Incur some debts in the name of a corporation, screw the creditors
and let it go defunct, perhaps?  Maybe botch some work, get sued by unhappy
clients and just run away?

	Oh well, so much for "10 years with one employer" and truthfulness
on a resume...  In fact, so much for being truthful to Net readers, too!

	Perhaps Mr. DeArmond could also tell us why *suddenly*, three or
so weeks ago he finally stopped using the name Radiation Systems, Inc.?
Someone catch up with you, Mr. DeArmond?  The IRS, perhaps?  The IRS
is on the Net, btw, (check the DC map file), and I bet they could have
a field day with Mr. DeArmond's "7 digit earnings" and solicitation of
business (over the Net, too!) using a defunct corporation name.

	In closing, here are a few more assorted gems:

In article <4164@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes:
$$> Yes, Yes, and Yes.  In my case, even though the company has existed
$$> for almost 10 years,  I have a multi-hundred thousand dollar line 
$$> of unsecured credit and my record is absolutely spotless, we almost
$$> did not get a loan on our last house.  We ended up putting down 
$$> 25% which entitles you to a "No-docs" or no credit check loan.

	The above seem a little funny to any reader?  I certainly believe
the part about paying extra money to avoid the embarrassment of failing to
pass a credit check, though!

$$> Disclaimer for the knuckleheads out there:  No, I do not advocate lying
$$> or even distorting the truth.

	Naw, never - eh, Mr. DeArmond?

In article <3132@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes:
$$> Reality is starkly different.  Over the last 5 years or so, I've 
$$> written off about $50,000 in bad debt losses and have paid about
$$> another $30k in legal fees prosecuting collections.  The scars are
$$> just now going away.  I've NEVER lost a collection suit and I've 
$$> never collected any significant amount of money!

	I genuinely believe that Mr. DeArmond lost money and incurred
legal fees, but perhaps for some slightly "different" reasons.

In article <3204@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes:
$$> Just as we were turning up the first system, the founders of this
$$> startup phone company sold the company.  The new owner was, shall
$$> we say, unsavory.  He decided that he did not want to pay royalities
$$> or allow us to own the program -which we had the right to.  So he 
$$> addressed the problem in the usual mob manner - he sent some goons over
$$> to kidnap us while they stole our equipment and software.  
$$> ...
$$> Sure we sued them and pressed criminal charges.  But in America today,
$$> money is justice (and don't ever forget that.)  He managed to have the
$$> criminal charges quietly dropped and the civil case, though still
$$> technically on the docket now 5 years later, is effectively dead.

	Lordy, what a *story*!  KIDNAPPED BY GOONS FROM THE MOB!  And
Mr. DeArmond wants us to believe his claim about testing the thermistors!?

Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp.  "Have you hugged your cat today?"
VOICE: 716/688-1231   {boulder, rutgers, watmath}!ub!kitty!larry
FAX:   716/741-9635                  {utzoo, uunet}!/      \aerion!larry