Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:01 AM - (Gary Casey)
2. 07:32 AM - Re: RGbattery/ Froogle (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 07:36 AM - Re: Power Sources -- clarify please... (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 08:51 AM - Re: Re: E.I. instruments need pampering? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 09:55 AM - Re: Wiring AH & DG (Neal Dillman)
6. 11:27 AM - Fw: Mechanical Latching Battery Disconnect (Rick Fogerson)
7. 11:52 AM - List of current consumption figures (Neville Kilford)
8. 04:35 PM - Re: Power Sources -- clarify please... (Geoff Evans)
9. 05:19 PM - Voltage drop at battery (TimRhod@aol.com)
10. 05:50 PM - Re: FADEC BRownout (TimRhod@aol.com)
11. 10:33 PM - FS: UPSAT stack, new and cheap (richard@riley.net)
12. 11:41 PM - Re: FS: UPSAT stack, new and cheap (TimRhod@aol.com)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gary Casey" <glcasey@adelphia.net>
<<I bet that if we investigated the real reason for killing
the accessory bus on cars during cranking, we'll find that
it's to remove extra loads from the battery during cranking,
not to protect things tied to the accessory bus>>
That's exactly right - I've been involved in the car end of things for a
long time and as far as I know the "accessory" function of the ignition
switch started with the first tube radios (before my time). Listening to
the radio with the ignition switch on would impose an additional
approximately 2 amps draw because of the ignition system. Solution was to
add the accessory function to the ignition switch to avoid having to walk
home from "Inspiration Point." The ignition switch is a simple
sliding-contact switch so it was easy to shut off the accessories during
crank, leaving only the ignition running. The only incentive was to reduce
the battery load during cranking. These days there isn't much advantage to
the accessory position because the engine ECU doesn't draw much load when
left on with the engine not running. On a lot of cars the high-current
accessories are electronically controlled and would be off during cranking
anyway. Protecting electronics during cranking was never a consideration as
far as I know. Voltage transients from the ignition coil turn-off (5+
amps), alternator switching transients, blower motor commutation, etc, etc,
are far more troublesome than anything that happens during cranking. The
worst is probably the diode switching transients of high-current
alternators.
Oh, and for adding Transorbs at the breaker position. I submit that it
would be much more effective to put them right at the end user. Reason is
that the Transorb, or any other shunting protection device, needs an
"upstream" resistance to work against or it will have to protect the whole
system, which it probably can't. Putting it at the radio end of the wire
allows it to use the resistance of the wire as it's lever. Of course, the
device in question almost certainly has the same supply voltage transient
protection internally, so the externally mounted Transorb is probably
redundant.
Gary Casey
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | RGbattery/ Froogle |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 06:58 PM 4/11/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Sam Hoskins"
><shoskins@globaleyes.net>
>
>Have you tried Froogle? It's very cool, go to www.froogle.com put in the
>item or part number of what ever it is you are looking for, and get the
>competitive prices listed on on page!
>
>Sam
Interesting site. Thanks for the heads up . . .
Bob . . .
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Power Sources -- clarify please... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 05:32 PM 4/11/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Geoff Evans
><hellothaimassage@yahoo.com>
>
>I have spent many hours searching the archives for a simple answer to my
>seemingly simple question, but the plethora of conflicting information seems
>to suggest that neither the question nor the answer is very simple.
>
>In planning a system with dual electronic ignitions, which is the better
>option from among these choices: two alternators with one battery, or one
>alternator with two batteries?
How do you want to use your airplane, what features do you
propose to install and what is your budget? There are a lot
of choices, each with some
>Bob has suggested in some messages that modern RG batteries do not fail and
>that a system with one battery and two alternators (similar to figure Z-13)
>is perfectly acceptable for dual electronic ignitions.
>
>However, in other messages, he goes further to say something like, "You might
>want to consider adding a second battery to support the second electronic
>ignition." This leads me to believe that a Z-13 system isn't adequate for
>dual electronic ignitions.
Depends on what you choose to worry about. A PROPERLY MAINTAINED
RG battery is the single most reliable power source you can put
in your airplane. Could you run dual electronic ignition systems
from their own fuses on a single battery bus? Sure.
Now, what about alternator-out operations. With one alternator
and a DESIGN REQUIREMENT that you can exhaust fuel before your
battery(ies) run down may suggest some variations on the theme.
An AUX battery more than a year old and less than two years
old running ONE ignition system says that in the extreme case
of running the main battery flat with e-bus loads, the engine
keeps running. Alternatively, if you're in a position to
get shed of vacuum operated accessories and the pump that
drives them, then a second alternator on the vacated vacuum
pump pad is a no-brainer decision.
>Furthermore, in the Aeroelectric Connetion book, the following statements
>appear to conflict with each other:
>
>Page 17-11: "The only reason to install two batteries is for the purpose of
>supplying independent power sources to each half of a dual ignition
>system..."
As cited above . . .
>Page 17-11: "Last, antiquated concerns for a battery 'failure' dragging down
>the rest of the system are simply not founded in the physics of modern
>battery construction....drives the probability of gross battery failure to
>zero."
Don't see the conflict here. This is a simple statement
that argues with a long standing myth that a flat battery
will kill a fully charged battery if you connect them in
parallel. The only kind of battery failure that so affects
the good battery is a shorted cell . . . a well maintained
flooded battery doesn't short 'cause you replaced it before
it got so bad, an RG battery doesn't short because of the
way it is constructed -AND- because you've taken it off
the airplane long before it's performance becomes doubtful.
>Page 17-13: "The compelling reason for upgrading to dual batteries is when
>both magnetos have been replaced with electronic ignition systems. If you
>don't plan to have a vacuum system and want dual electronic ignition, then
>putting an auxiliary alternator on the vacuum pad makes the most sense and
>you can stay with a single battery."
Yup . . . the notion here is that three separate power sources will
get you through about any kind of failure you might expect
on a single flight. All-Electric-on-a-Budget is VERY attractive
to me for a number of reasons . . . the second alternator weighs
less than the second battery would. The second alternator has a service
life equal to that of the engine/airframe. The second alternator
has more CAPACITY than any battery you would ever want to carry
around in your airplane. 10A for 4 hours is 40 a.h. . . . that's
one BIG MOMMA battery. Second alternator's maintenance requirements
are so low as to make it $free$ in about 5 years.
>On the other hand, every schematic in Appendix Z that illustrates dual
>electronic ignitions has dual batteries.
>
>Most of the people who post to this list seem to be going the dual-battery
>route with dual electronic ignitions, and I've read all their reasons why.
>For a day/night VFR (with the possibility for occasional light IFR in the
>future) airplane, it really seems like overkill to me, though.
???? If you have one alternator and truly independent systems
upon which the engine depends for operation, then Figure Z-11
with a second battery is compelling. It's a simple addition to
an already robust architecture (because of the e-bus) that
makes sure you have independent power to ONE of the ignition
systems that will be available no matter how you load the e-bus.
The battery-a-year swap-around is a relatively low cost
power availability insurance.
What variation on this theme would mitigate your perception
of overkill? One alternator and one battery makes you
entirely responsible for (1) KNOWING what the battery capacity
is, (2) setting your e-bus loads to insure the goal of
making it to airport of intended destination battery-only
with some head-room for stored energy and/or (3) joining the
ranks of our spam-can flying brothers who have to frantically
search the map for nearest safe-haven when their alternator
craps . . . mentally kicking themselves in the butt all the way
down for not paying more attention to battery maintenance.
>I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but what's the real deal? Reading the
>archives just leaves me with more questions.
Ask away . . . if you don't understand what's being
described, that's my fault not yours. What are your plans for
operating and outfitting your project and what alternatives
to Appendix-Z suggestions do you find appealing and why?
Bob . . .
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RE: E.I. instruments need pampering? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
> > The comfort factor cannot be discounted but it's
> > still not good engineering or good consumerism. One
> > of the reasons that certified aviation has lagged so
> > far behind ordinary consumer products sold by
> > Walmart and BestBuy is our blind faith and timid
> > acceptance of things "certified" . . . once blessed
> > they are assumed to be the best that can be done.
>
>I think you misunderstand my position.
>
>I add a transorb because I feel its GOOD engineering to protect against
>potentially BAD engineering by some avionics out there. There is not always
>an affordable GOOD product available and as many on this list have found
>what was thought to be good may not be so good.
??? If I were to design a bracket to hold some product
in an airplane, I take known stress limits and design with
material thickness and the right number of rivets to
compliment material strength. Any more rivets or any
heavier material for the sake of adding comfort would
not sell well with my boss . . .
>Perhaps E.I or RMI or ?? fails to meet the design requirements of GOOD
>design in one or more ways, the best we all can do is know about it and
>decide for ourselves if there is an better alternative.
. . . indeed any manufacturer can fall short in a whole
lot of ways other than spike protection . . . and indeed they
do. Most of my wrestling matches with suppliers over the past
20 years had nothing to do with spike protection . . .
>There is more to my life than finding and "bitching" about poor designs. I
>applaud your approach but by adding a $.50 part I can stop worrying about
>the manufacturers ability to design to spec and risk a large repair bill.
Bitching???? I'm mystified. If E.I. or any other supplier
to the industry has shortcomings that are easily identified
and easily rectified, bringing this to their attention
and expressing your displeasure is "bitching" . . .
Suppose I went to city hall and explained that if the
"walk" signs at some intersection were illuminating
while the protected left-turn arrows were still on
for parallel traffic and people were stepping into
hazardous space . . . would that be "bitching"?
If someone says "water freezes at 40F" and you take
the time to point out a fundamental error in physics,
is that "bitching"?
>We will never agree about the presence of absence of transients.
It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. All I
have ever asked of any other engineer is to tell me
what is the source of the offending spike, what is it's
size, shape and energy content and what mode of
propagation gets it from source to victim with enough
energy to damage to anything.
>I have seen some transients first hand and let my personal experience drive
>my conservative design. Perhaps its somewhat driven by the spacecraft
>applications design experience where the designs stopped the noise at the
>source and also stopped external noise from getting in. Redundent perhaps.
I have seen some transients first hand too . . . in
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/spikecatcher.pdf I
went to the workbench and described some gawd-awful
spikes from contactor coils and went through the
physics that described their effects and effective
ways of dealing with them. I this case it turns
out that the 300 volt plus spike is 99.9% used up
in burning up the battery master switch and does
not propagate out onto the system in any magnitude
that suggests a hazard to other systems. None-the-less,
a diode across the coil let's the master switch
breathe easier.
There are indeed a multitude of devices in any
system capable of generating transients and if you
just look at the numbers for the unbounded event
as in the article cited above, they can scare
the pants of any neophyte designer. But when one
studies propagation limits and discovers
rudimentary mitigation techniques both for ability
to limit antagonists and ability to withstand for
victims, it's not that big a deal after all.
>As for meeting -160 perhaps the intent was being tested for 20 years but I
>have the maint manuals for some I have here that was designed less than 10
>years ago that are very suspect as to transient protection (not to mention
>with the "famous" warning not to have ON during starting).
The cornerstone of good science is the repeatable
experiment. Every year, I write up test plans, gather
equipment, conduct the test, compile the results and
then draw conclusions based on those results. Anyone
with an interest or need to take advantage of those
conclusions is welcome to critique the test setup,
re-analyze the results, or even go to his own lab
and repeat the experiment in its entirety.
If I've done good work, others will be able to
apply the results of my effort to their advantage
comfortable with the notion that the conclusions
are sound.
All I expect from anyone who has a opinion to offer
is to describe the repeatable experiment in a way
that I can intuitively and logically accept the
opinion or go to the lab or field and confirm it
for myself.
When I read admonitions in installation manuals
about the perils-of-starters, I am seriously
interested in talking to the engineer who signed
off on that manual. In EVERY case (and there have
been about a half dozen over the years) where
I've been able to contact the responsible engineer, he
admitted that the statement was included more out
of reverence for tradition than from any design
consideration in his product. As you no doubt have
noted, we're still waiting to hear from our friends
at E.I.
I've yet to receive the details on any repeatable
experiment that justifies the avionics master switch
-or- the need adding protection over and above
that which comes built into the product as delivered.
>I also have instrumentation that will NOT always work thru the lower voltage
>during starting and have decided to use it as it has the unique features
>that I want at a price I can afford. But so what, as I do not need it to be
>on during starting and its not damaged by long term low V.
LV is another issue but it's covered by DO-160
too. As always, I'm not trying to convince you
of anything. In the role of teacher, I must be
convinced of the simple-ideas I offer are either
good or bad based on the repeatable experiment.
Bob . . .
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wiring AH & DG |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Neal Dillman <neald@glyph.com>
Bill,
On many electric AIs and DGs pin A and B are power and ground for the
gyro, while pin C and D are for internal lighting. This is the case for
most of the units in the AIM/JET/BFG series.
Regards,
Neal
William Bernard wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "William Bernard" <billbernard@worldnet.att.net>
>
> I'm in the process of pulling wires for 'stuff' and want to inlcude wiring for
eventual installation of electric AH and DG. I understand that these devices
use a 4 pin plug. One wire is obviously for power and another is a connection
to ground, but what are the other two for?
>
> Also, does anyone have an estimate of how long the AH and DG are, including the
connectors?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Mechanical Latching Battery Disconnect |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Rick Fogerson" <rickf@cableone.net>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Fogerson" <rickf@cableone.net>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Mechanical Latching Battery Disconnect
> Hi Bob,
> I'm a little unsure now if my wiring diagram violates what is discussed
> below? I'm using diagram Z-11 modified to include dual electronic
ignition,
> fuel injection pump, and dual batterys located in the rear.
> The main battery bus has a hi-pressure pump (7A) and one electronic
ignition
> (15A) and the aux battery bus has the other electronic ignition (15A).
All
> three have toggle switches up front on the panel. Do these switches meet
> your requirement of "pilot controlled disconnect in close proximity" or
do
> they need the relays shown in that hand drawn sketch at the website?
>
>
> Also, my essential bus has 2 X 7A and 3 X 3A, all with switches (either
> external or internal). Do I need some sort of solid state relays here
> also. I'm just not sure what is meant by milliamp budgets, etc? I guess
I
> need a diagram.
>
> Thanks, Rick Fogerson
> RV-3 finish kit
> Boise, ID
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Mechanical Latching Battery Disconnect
>
>
> > > . . . a 7A protected lead gets a local disconnect
> > relay for the e-bus alternate feed that's burdened
> > with big transmitter and/or perhaps gyros. This could
> > be a 10A feeder. The point is that long, always hot
> > wires protected at over 5A need pilot controlled
> > disconnect in close proximity to the bus.
> >
> > . . . if you're fuel injected and need a hi-pressure
> > squirter fused at 10A, it gets a relay too.
> >
> > >
> > This is what I'd have to do to sell this or a
> > similar system to the FAA . . . it has to do
> > with crash safety. Always hot wires from the
> > battery are either pilot controllable or
> > limited to 5A or less. I've seen them allow
> > breakers but fuses are MUCH faster and offer
> > even greater safety.
> >
> > We've got a lot of builders who have built
> > some pretty hefty e-busses . . . with bigger
> > than 5A feeders for the alternate feed path.
> > If it were my airplane, I'd use the local
> > disconnect relay as shown for a budget of
> > about 100 mA to keep the relay closed. Or
> > better yet, a solid state relay with a 10 mA
> > budget.
> > Bob . . .
> >
> >
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | List of current consumption figures |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Neville Kilford" <nkilford@etravel.org>
I seem to remember someone asking about the amount of current consumed by
various bits of equipment.
I've just stumbled upon this page:
http://aircraftexpense.com/eloadindex.htm
which contains a *very* comprehensive list of aeroplane equipment and its
current consumption.
Hope this helps.
Nev
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Power Sources -- clarify please... |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Geoff Evans <hellothaimassage@yahoo.com>
Thanks for the reply, Bob.
>>
Ask away . . . if you don't understand what's being described, that's my
fault not yours. What are your plans for operating and outfitting your
project and what alternatives to Appendix-Z suggestions do you find appealing
and why?
<<
I think I understand what's being described, but I guess what I am really
looking for is a response that removes some of the variables that many of the
other messages on the topic seem to have.. Things like radios, EFIS, and
other electrical stuff that isn't strictly related to power source options
for dual electronic ignitions.
Specifically what I'm looking for is a compare/contrast of the actual
real-life reliability of dual electronic ignitions using either of these two
basic systems:
A) One 17ah RG battery, one B&C main alternator, and one B&C SD-8 alternator
on the vacuum pad.
B) Two batteries (don't necessarily have to be the same size) and one B&C
main alternator.
I really like your "all-electric airplane on a budget" schematic, and I agree
with your information about the failure of a modern, well-maintained RG
battery being equal to the probability of a wing falling off. I'd much rather
have two alternators and replace my single battery every couple of years (or
whenever it's necessary) than have only one alternator.
I guess the thing that confused me the most is that in some messages you say
that the "all-electric airplane on a budget" is more than adequate for dual
electronic ignitions, but in other messages you say that a second battery
would be a good thing to have. I'm not sure whether or not you were implying
a second battery *in addition to* the SD-8 alternator, or in place of it.
Obviously adding a second battery in addition to the SD-8 might increase
reliability even more, but is it really necessary? What kind of reliability
increase are we talking about?
Removing the airplane's other electrical doodads from the equation and
considering only the power sources for dual electronic ignitions, if the
reliability analysis of choice (A) above is equal to or better than choice
(B), then it seems to me that the only reason people would go with choice (B)
is because it makes them feel better to have two batteries. That's fine, and
I certainly wouldn't be critical of anyone for going that route. However,
given these two choices, I'd much rather put system (A) in my airplane if it
really is equal or better than system (B) from an actual reliability and
operational point of view.
Bottom line: Would you have any hesitation getting in an airplane with dual
electronic ignitions fed from the hot battery bus of a system like Z-13
(all-electric airplane on a budget)?
I'm trying not to throw other variables into this equation, but you asked
about my planned use of the airplane... I plan to equip it (it's an RV-8, by
the way) for day/night VFR at this time, with the potential for IFR
certification sometime down the road a ways. I'm planning no vacuum system, a
Blue Mountain EFIS/Lite, a VM-1000 engine monitor, a GPS/Comm, and a couple
of backup pitot-static instruments. I'm having the engine built up by
AeroSport Power, so equiping it with dual electronic ignitions seems to make
more sense than having them bolt a magneto on it.
Thanks again for your help and advice. We all REALLY appreciate the time and
effort you put in here.
-Geoff
P.S. My high-dollar B&C order will definitely be forthcoming when I reach
that stage of my project.
http://tax.yahoo.com
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Voltage drop at battery |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TimRhod@aol.com
I did an experiment today to determine the voltage drop at the battery during
cranking. Here are the results. On a chrysler mini van voltage before
cranking was 12V. During Cranking 11V On My Grumman Tiger with a skytec
starter. Battery before cranking 11V During cranking 9V.
The Tiger had not been started for several weeks and the battery is several
years old. That explains the low voltage to start with. So my conclusion
is that the voltage definitely drops at the battery during cranking. Whether
it drops below the 9.5V needed for the FADEC to work depends on the initial
condition of the battery. Since the Tiger is more of a real world situation
for my frequency of flying I think I need to have some other way to insure
power to my FADEC ignition. Comments?
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FADEC BRownout |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TimRhod@aol.com
Charlie I like your idea of a small RG battery past a diode to keep FADEC
voltage up. it could even be mounted on the firewall of the velocity to keep
it close to the FADEC ign.
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | FS: UPSAT stack, new and cheap |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: richard@riley.net
Due to some very complex changes in my life, I'm selling my radio stack.
(not stopping the project, just putting it on hold for a few months.)
These are all absolutely new, never unpacked with the full factory
warrantee, well below dealer cost, less than 6 months old. I prefer to
sell the whole stack but will part it out if need be. The GX-60 and MX-20
get a new database free when you register the warranty.
GX-60 $3650 (list $5195)
SL-30 $2925 (list $4155)
MX-20 $5100 (list $7295)
Microair
Transponder $1250 (list $1391) (just replaced with a new unit with
all the
post SN-600 updates)
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: FS: UPSAT stack, new and cheap |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TimRhod@aol.com
Richard I would be interested interested in the SL30. I already have a quote
of $3000 brand new and yours already has six months of the warrantee gone. I
read thier warrentee on thier web sight and there may not even be a warrentee
for a secondary sale. I could offer $2650. If you would be interested you
can email me back. Timrhod@aol.com
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|