Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 06:04 AM - Re: Simple timer for low fuel warning . . . (Jon Finley)
2. 07:50 AM - Re: E.I. instruments need pampering? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
3. 08:08 AM - stuff I have on ebay (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
4. 08:11 AM - Re: Simple timer for low fuel warning . . . (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
5. 08:12 AM - Re: IEEE guide (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
6. 10:20 AM - Re: 10503 Woodward (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
7. 10:36 AM - Re: Z15B? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
8. 11:14 AM - Battery Cables-I need some learnin'. (N2321G@aol.com)
9. 03:21 PM - Re: Battery Cables-I need some learnin'. (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
10. 03:51 PM - No Audio Panel (DHPHKH@aol.com)
11. 05:46 PM - Too many wires next to each other??? (Cameron Kurth)
12. 08:22 PM - Re: Too many wires next to each other??? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 10:06 PM - Re: No Audio Panel (richard@riley.net)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Simple timer for low fuel warning . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jon Finley" <jon@finleyweb.net>
Super information - thanks John. My auditor (Pamela) is definitely one
to fear!! :-)
Thanks to all for the information!
Jon
DO NOT ARCHIVE
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On
> Behalf Of John Loram
> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 6:45 PM
> To: 'aeroelectric-list@matronics.com'
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Simple timer for low fuel
> warning . . .
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Loram <johnl@loram.org>
>
> Hi Jon; It's best to pick the cheapest one... It will be
> easier to explane
> (pun?) to Pamela ;-)
>
> Seriously, there may be some packaging/case differences which
> you'll want to consider (usually designated by one or more
> letter following the main part number). In some cases the
> temperature range over which the part may be used is partly
> controlled by the packaging. You can go with the most limited
> temperature range which is often designated 'P' or 'N' for
> plastic packaging. For hand built stuff it's usually best to
> use "DIP" (Dual Inline
> Plastic) packages rather than the tiny surface mount
> packages. So, using your example; the CD4093B (the 'B' is
> part of the part number that is often left off these days
> because the earlier 'A' model is no longer available) in the
> DIP package/case from Texas Instruments is Digi-Key part
> number 296-2068-5-ND.
>
> The 1N4148 (that's a leading number one (1) not I ('eye'))
> will be most useful in the axial lead form so use the DO-35
> packaging/case.
>
> By the way, most all of these components are probably
> available at your local Radio Shack store where you will be
> able to fondle them first, before you buy. Then you be able
> to buy all the other stuff... perf-board or copper-clad,
> terminal lugs, sockets, bits and pieces of the very small
> gauge wire, rosin core solder, spaghetti (insulation), ...
> etc., etc., etc.
>
> Regards, -john-
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jon Finley [mailto:jon@finleyweb.net]
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Simple timer for low fuel
> warning . . .
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Jon Finley"
> --> <jon@finleyweb.net>
>
> Thanks for the circuit Bob!
>
> I'm a bit lost here. When I search for those part numbers
> (DigiKey) I get multiple results (CD4093 = 9, IN4148 = 16).
> I really don't have a clue which ones to order. Does it
> matter? Do I just pick any one of them and go?
>
> Jon "Clueless and Cold in Minneapolis" Finley
> N90MG Q2 - Subaru EJ-22 DD - 440 Hrs. TT - 0 Hrs Engine
> Apple Valley, Minnesota http://www.FinleyWeb.net/default.asp?id=96
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On
> > Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 2:12 PM
> > To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Simple timer for low fuel warning . . .
> >
> >
> > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
> > --> <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
> >
> > What you're looking for is more than a simple timer . . .
> and a brief
> > look at the replies on this topic didn't pick up on what's needed.
> >
> > A "flicker filter" is easy to implement in a little
> > micro-controller for the lowest parts count . . . but unless
> > you have access to the programming hardware and skills this
> > could a low-return-on-investment approach. A pure discrete
> > component approach is illustrated at:
> >
> > http://216.55.140.222/temp/Flicker_Filter.pdf
> >
> > All the parts are available from Digikey. Timing
> > for turn-on and turn-off response is set by the
> > 470K/22uF resistor/capacitor pairs. The constants
> > shown give you about 11 seconds of delay for uninterrupted
> > switch closure to turn the light on and the same delay of
> > uninterrupted switch opening to turn the light back out.
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
>
> ==========
> Matronics Forums.
> ==========
> List members.
> ==========
> ==========
>
>
>
>
>
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: | Re: E.I. instruments need pampering? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 01:32 PM 4/30/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>Here again is the copy that we have sent to you, which you claim was never
>sent.
>
>
>Mac S. Speed
>Electronics International Inc.
>63296 Powell Butte Highway
>Bend, OR 97701
>Phone: (541) 318-6060
>Fax: (541) 318-7575
>Web: www.Buy-Ei.com
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: EI Tech Support [mailto:Sales@Buy-Ei.com]
>Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 2:32 PM
>To: 'Robert L. Nuckolls, III'
>Subject: RE: E.I. instruments need pampering?
>
>We would like to respond to your questions of Friday-
>
>1). DO-160 Section 17 (Voltage Spike Testing) requires a +78 volt to a -22
>volt intermittent transient test for a 28 volt system and a +39 volt to a
>-11 volt test for a 12 volt system each with 50 ohm output impedance. In
>our opinion this test is not stringent enough for an instrument to survive
>on the main bus during an engine start on most aircraft. All of our
>instruments can survive transients that are well over the DO-160
>requirement.
<snip>
Mac,
I DID receive the note you've copied above. I replied
to David's letter the same day with amplifying questions.
I found a copy of my reply in my archival files but didn't
see that it was actually sent. My apologies, the ball was
indeed still in my court. Here's the message I neglected
to forward to you on 4/7 . . .
---------- David Campbell's letter and Nuckolls' reply of 4/7/3 ---------
At 02:31 PM 4/7/2003 -0700, <Sales@Buy-Ei.com> wrote:
>We would like to respond to your questions of Friday-
>
>1). DO-160 Section 17 (Voltage Spike Testing) requires a +78 volt to a -22
>volt intermittent transient test for a 28 volt system and a +39 volt to a
>-11 volt test for a 12 volt system each with 50 ohm output impedance. In
>our opinion this test is not stringent enough for an instrument to survive
>on the main bus during an engine start on most aircraft.
I am mystified by the numbers cited above. My copy of DO-160D
speaks to a +/-300 v capacitively stored spike delivered through
an air-core transformer and tailored for a 50-ohm source impedance.
28V system tests call for a +/-600 volt event. What change level
is your copy of DO-160? Perhaps I'm out of date.
Please cite a basis for your opinion. What is the amplitude,
waveform and duration of any transients you have observed and
> . . . . . All of our
>instruments can survive transients that are well over the DO-160
>requirement.
2). It is our understanding the industry standard for most electronic
>aircraft instrument installation is to install on an avionics or radio bus.
>We just installed an Apollo GX-60, SL-30, ACU, MX-20, SL-15, Garmin GTX 327,
>550/20 encoder, NSD-360 H.S.I. and many other pieces of equipment, and the
>install documentation made it clear that these instruments should be
>installed on the radio or avionics bus (isolating them from the starting
>sequence).
It is indeed a "practice" originally promulgated by the notion
that the root cause of lots of dead transistors at Cessna
and elsewhere was "spikes" from the starter. This was the
early days of low voltage, germanium transistors that
were showing up in audio and power supply circuits in the
current crop of aircraft radios. I cannot attest to studies done
elsewhere but at Cessna, there were NO actual spikes captured,
quantified and deemed antagonistic to our radios. When we
added the avionics master, the problems mostly went away
so the "practice" was called a success and we drove happily
onward.
Nearly 40 years later some folk assume that a "practice"
has become a "standard" and that the standard has some foundation
in real physics for its existence. I've been designing electronics
for aircraft for nearly 40 years and never have I identified
transients on the bus that reside outside the DO-160
test envelope.
My personal perception is that products tested to DO-160
recommendations do not require extraordinary system
architectures or pilot actions to "protect" the product.
I.e, the "avionics bus" is a mis-understood and ill-
conceived feature in the design of an aircraft electrical system.
>3). Our definition of a sophisticated circuit (when referring to power
>supplies), is one that would require fly back transformers to drive plasma
>displays or TFT backlights, one that uses floating step-up power to allow
>top side differential measurement, and high efficiency and charge pump
>units.
>
>4). We know that our instruments can handle input voltage spikes in excess
>of +/- 250 volts and over 400 microseconds AC input impedance. This is
>approximately 100 times the energy limitation of DO-160 and much better than
>other aviation equipment that we have tested.
>We feel that the industry needs published data on the voltage spikes
>produced during the start sequence for normal aircraft, worst case normal,
>abnormal and worst case abnormal. Most manufacturers have solved the
>uncertainty by going to a radio or avionics bus that is switched off during
>engine start.
I infer from this that E.I. believes there are undocumented stresses
generated during the normal action of getting the engine started.
Further, these stresses have been overlooked by 40 or
so years of industry-staffed committees who have participated
in the crafting of DO-160 and other documents at RTCA.
If such stresses exist in the course of operating an
airplane, I could not agree more. Based on EI installation
recommendations, I would have assumed that EI has
studied and quantified the problem and made an
engineering judgment as to whether or not their products
could/should be designed to withstand the worst case
cranking transients but this appears not to be the case.
>We have been producing TSO'd equipment for over 20 years that can survive
>the somewhat hostile aircraft electrical environment, but would prefer that
>the UBG-16 be operated from a source that is protected from the starting
>sequence.
>
>We are always open to suggestions and new ideas. Thank you for your input.
>David Campbell
>Electronics International Inc.
>63296 Powell Butte Highway
>Bend, OR 97701
>Phone: (541) 318-6060
>Fax: (541) 318-7575
>Web: www.Buy-Ei.com
Perhaps I can suggest this. Take a scope and go look
at the output from the cigar lighter on a car. Set up to
+ slope trigger at say, 20 volts and then crank the engine.
My Tektronix TDS220 could not capture a single transient at
ANY horizontal resolution. Tried triggering on - slope
at zero volts. Same result. I'd say my GMC van is roughly
equal to C-150 for cranking currents and DC system impedance.
This is typical of what I've captured on a number of
airplanes ranging from C-150 to Beechjets over the past
25 years measured with all manner of scopes, chart
recorders and high speed (8,000 samples/second)
data acquisition systems, etc.
A charter adopted by the AeroElectric Connection is to
principals upon which modern electrical systems can be
crafted. Our readers would be pleased to know of any data
you can add to the knowledge base upon which we will
advance the state of our science.
Bob . . .
(-----------------------------------------)
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( -C. F. Kettering )
(-----------------------------------------)
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: | stuff I have on ebay |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
Quartz hour meter . . .
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2413197823
2-1/4" voltmeter . . .
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=26442&item=2413488496
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
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: | Simple timer for low fuel warning . . . |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 04:44 PM 4/30/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: John Loram <johnl@loram.org>
>
>Hi Jon; It's best to pick the cheapest one... It will be easier to explane
>(pun?) to Pamela ;-)
>
>Seriously, there may be some packaging/case differences which you'll want to
>consider (usually designated by one or more letter following the main part
>. . .
<snip>
John, thanks for the expanded explanation. I was
in a hurry and left an earlier reply somewhat
'short-changed' . . . appreciate the back up!
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 11:48 PM 4/30/2003 +0200, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Gilles.Thesee"
><Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>Bob and all,
>
>A fellow builder just sent me a CD Rom with a copy of an 'IEEE guide for
>aircraft electric systems' in pdf format.
>Most interesting. a few pages missing though.
>
>FWIW,
>Regards
>
>Gilles
I'd really like to see it.
How bit a file is it? Can you e-mail me a copy or post it
to a server somewhere we can download it?
Bob . . .
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: | Re: 10503 Woodward |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
>Thursday, May 1, 2003
>
>Bob,
>I had a voltage regulator which failed closed giving me a very high
>reading on the ammeter of my PA28-161. I ended up replacing the voltage
>regulator and the alternator as it had failed the resistance test from the
>field terminal to ground with only.005 ohms. Now, when I hit the PTT or
>mic button, the cabin speaker squeals at very high volume. I disconnected
>the speaker and now get some, but not bad, feedback throught the headset
>when I hit the PTT. ATC has no problems with my reception. Any thoughts
>would be greatly appreciated!!
Sounds like you experienced a runaway alternator event that
was not brought under control by an over-voltage relay. Do
you even HAVE an ov relay? In any case, the only thing I
can think of is that some part of your electronics may
have been damaged by the event.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 05:30 PM 4/30/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: TimRhod@aol.com
>
>Bob Could you explain why Z15B is not a good Idea.=A0=A0=A0 That particular
>architecture would work well for the velocity where the #2AWG runs in a duct
>from firewall through canard bulkhead right to the batteries. A seperate #
>4AWG could come from the panel ground block on the panel and to the batteries
>via a different route.=A0 If you dont recommend this then I would have to cut
>through the duct inside the cabin behind the panel run the #2 wire up to the
>panel ground presumable on the panel and then back down into the duct to go
>to the battery. It would be a lot of heavy wire inside the cabin and onto the
>panel.=A0 Is there a better way I'm not seeing?=A0=A0=A0=A0 Thanks Tim
Z15 View B suggests that the battery (-) terminal be the
tie point of two wires which is in error. The battery (-)
lead and ground lead extending to engine compartment aft
should come together at a fat brass bolt on the ground block.
Bob . . .
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: | Battery Cables-I need some learnin'. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N2321G@aol.com
My Tomahawk has a several large cables under the cylinders to the alternator
,starter and crankcase ground.
All of these cables are pretty ugly, oil soaked etc, but seem to work ok.
The cables on newer airplanes that Ive looked at appear to have a Tefzel
jacket. The ones I have looked to be wrapped with what looks like a large
dia thread. Mine look as if the jacket has absorbed oil.
Is there a good rule of thumb as to replacement of these older cables? Is
welding cable or (welding cable in firesleeve) verboten on production a/c?
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: | Re: Battery Cables-I need some learnin'. |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 02:13 PM 5/1/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: N2321G@aol.com
>
>My Tomahawk has a several large cables under the cylinders to the alternator
>,starter and crankcase ground.
>All of these cables are pretty ugly, oil soaked etc, but seem to work ok.
>
>The cables on newer airplanes that Ive looked at appear to have a Tefzel
>jacket. The ones I have looked to be wrapped with what looks like a large
>dia thread. Mine look as if the jacket has absorbed oil.
>
>Is there a good rule of thumb as to replacement of these older cables? Is
>welding cable or (welding cable in firesleeve) verboten on production a/c?
Welding cable would work fine in or out of fire-sleeve but there is
a lot of potential for future hassles and really good wire isn't
all that expensive.
Your airplane may be old enough to have been wired with Mil-W-16878
or similar wire popular before 1980. It may even have cloth over-braid
that was famous for soaking up sticky-ugly stuff under the cowl.
Depending on how obsessive you and/or your mechanic are about
crossing t's and dotting i's, you can fill out lots of paper
and generally have no problem with renewing your wiring using
modern, Mil-W-22759 wire which is used on the vast majority
of GA aircraft for the past 20 years or so.
If it were my airplane, I'd just fix 'em and keep on flying.
Mil-W-22759/16 (Tefzel) wire, terminals and double-wall heat
shrink to dress the ends is readily available from lots of
places not the least of which is
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Catalog/BCcatalog.html
Bob . . .
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 |
|
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: DHPHKH@aol.com
Gang,
Working on a friend's project. Two coms (430 and Microair), an intercom (PM1000),
and no audio panel. Space is getting tight, and no, I didn't do the layout.
Looks like it should be possible to tie them together with 5 switched double
poles, maybe 2 DPDT and an SPDT, or a 5PDT if available. Nav audio would need
another SPDT before the intercom input. Sort of a poor-man's audio panel.
Reasonable or dumb? Technical issues? Anybody know where to get a good 5-pole
double throw switch? Two switches (a com select and a nav interupt) wouldn't
be so bad.
Dan
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: | Too many wires next to each other??? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Cameron Kurth <cameronkurth@yahoo.com>
I'm new to the group, so if this question has been
hammered to death already, sorry.
Is it OK to run the same ground wire for the flasher
power supply, landing light, and nav light? I plan to
run those wires in the same conduit out to the wing
tip. Am I going to be able to also run an antenna
cable for my nav in the same conduit, or will there be
too much noise from the strobe power supply. The
power supply is at the wing tip so there won't be hi
voltage wires next to the antenna cable.
Thanks
Cam
__________________________________
http://search.yahoo.com
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: Too many wires next to each other??? |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <bob.nuckolls@cox.net>
At 05:45 PM 5/1/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Cameron Kurth
><cameronkurth@yahoo.com>
>
>I'm new to the group, so if this question has been
>hammered to death already, sorry.
>
>Is it OK to run the same ground wire for the flasher
>power supply, landing light, and nav light? I plan to
>run those wires in the same conduit out to the wing
>tip. Am I going to be able to also run an antenna
>cable for my nav in the same conduit, or will there be
>too much noise from the strobe power supply. The
>power supply is at the wing tip so there won't be hi
>voltage wires next to the antenna cable.
run them all together . . .
Bob . . .
Message 13
| 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: No Audio Panel |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: richard@riley.net
I've flown a couple of homebuilts with setups like that. A dpdt to select
which radio would transmit with the PTT, and a spst for each radio that you
wanted to listen to - often com, com and nav. Sub mini toggles. Don't
have a sketch, but I'll bet someone here does.
At 06:50 PM 5/1/03 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: DHPHKH@aol.com
>
>Gang,
> Working on a friend's project. Two coms (430 and Microair), an
> intercom (PM1000), and no audio panel. Space is getting tight, and no, I
> didn't do the layout.
>
> Looks like it should be possible to tie them together with 5 switched
> double poles, maybe 2 DPDT and an SPDT, or a 5PDT if available. Nav
> audio would need another SPDT before the intercom input. Sort of a
> poor-man's audio panel.
>
> Reasonable or dumb? Technical issues? Anybody know where to get a
> good 5-pole double throw switch? Two switches (a com select and a nav
> interupt) wouldn't be so bad.
>
>Dan
>
>
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! --
|