Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:11 AM - Re: Re: Transponder 'air switch' (Ken)
2. 05:22 AM - Re: Re: risks to battery for in situ recharging (Ken)
3. 06:25 AM - Re: Re: Final (REALLY) PMag Update - Part 2 ()
4. 07:07 AM - Re: Re: Final (REALLY) PMag Update - Part 2 (sportav8r@aol.com)
5. 07:55 AM - Ammeter Shunt connection (Peter Mather)
6. 07:58 AM - Re: trim relay deck trim speed control (Mark R Steitle)
7. 08:45 AM - Re: Re: Transponder 'air switch' (Mike Larkin)
8. 09:56 AM - Re: Transponder 'air switch' (Speedy11@aol.com)
9. 10:29 AM - Re: Re: Transponder 'air switch' (Craig P. Steffen)
10. 11:46 AM - Re: Re: Transponder 'air switch' (Mike Larkin)
11. 11:57 AM - Re: Ammeter Shunt connection (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
12. 12:01 PM - Re: Re: risks to battery for in situ (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
13. 12:17 PM - Re: Re: risks to battery for in situ recharging (Craig P. Steffen)
14. 03:50 PM - Re: Re: risks to battery for in situ recharging (Ken)
15. 04:22 PM - Re: Re: risks to battery for in situ (Dave Morris \)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Transponder 'air switch' |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
That seems to be changing somewhat. I believe there are a number of
airports around the world now where transponder on is standard for all
taxiing and a requirement to operate during reduced visibility?? I'd
expect this to slowly become normal at major North American airports as
surface movement tracking equipment becomes more common. Too many runway
incursions seem to be occurring.
Ken
Mike Larkin wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Larkin" <mlas@cox.net>
>
>Yes, we have run into that at Houston Intercontinental. On the Airbus,
>we tell the controllers that our transponder it is not available on the
>ground and they have to live with it. A transponder is for airborne
>operations and is not required for ground operations. It is my
>experience that controllers often want many things they can't have. Just
>remember controllers work for you and if the folks in Washington have
>there way you will be paying them directly for everything in the near
>future. I suspect most pilots will be come more vocal about what they
>will and won't do as the customer.
>
>Mike Larkin
>
>
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: risks to battery for in situ recharging |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
Another consideration may be that it is not particularly uncommon for
compact automotive alternators to fail when charging a dead battery.
Some alternators come with admonishments in the box stating not to do
that. If you delay replacing a dying battery too long in a car, you have
a good chance of also having to replace the alternator.
Ken
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>At 06:35 PM 8/22/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: BobsV35B@aol.com
>>
>>
>
> This condition was fairly common with 24 volt light aircraft
> (small, FLOODED batteries) and 60 to 125A alternators. However,
> the RG battery, especially in 12v sizes is very tollerant of
> high recharge rates. When we certified the Genesis RG batteries
> into certified ships about 12 years ago, we showed that a completely
> discharged, RG battery was not at-risk for damage when used in
> the typical 60A, constant voltage aircraft electrical system. This
> notion is supported by words we find on page 7 of
>
> http://www.enersysreservepower.com/documents/US-GPL-AM-002_0605.pdf
>
> . . . where tolerance to high recharge rates is described.
>
>
snip
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: Final (REALLY) PMag Update - Part 2 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
Stormy,
I apologize for not expanding more. My concern is with the torsional resonance
that all parts of our Lycoming engines are subjected to. This phenomenon subjects
parts to forces much higher than you would think. For a better explanation
see:
http://www.epi-eng.com/ET-PistonExcit.htm
http://www.prime-mover.org/Engines/Torsional/index.html
The second link deals with the effects of torsional resonance on PSRUs. However,
the effects are felt by all rotating componants in the system.
My point is to show that there is more than meets the eye to what may appear as
a "simple" gear.
Charlie Kuss
PS I'm on vacation this week. When I get home, I'll check the Rockwell hardness
of some old Lycoming timing gears I have.
---- sportav8r@aol.com wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
>
> Idyllic or not, we'll all have to wait and see what the longer term field experience
is with these gears. For me, the most relevant point is that made by
Brad, who states the Lycoming gears they were copying were also not case-hardened.
If that's correct, we're probably looking at an isolated failure here.
Time will tell.
>
> -Stormy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: chaztuna@adelphia.net
> To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Final (REALLY) PMag Update - Part 2
>
>
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <chaztuna@adelphia.net>
>
> Stormy,
> Your idyllic vision of the gear's life would be true, IF we were dealing with
> "constant combustion" (turbine or jet) engines. However, our Lycomings are 4
> cylinder "intermittent combustion" engines. The gears need to be hardened to
> take the constant "jack hammering" they receive due to this process. This
> process is also what made both Lycoming and Continental quit making geared
> piston engines.
> Charlie Kuss
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: Final (REALLY) PMag Update - Part 2 |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: sportav8r@aol.com
That will be interesting, Charlie. Let us know what you learn about the gear hardness.
Meanwhile, I will querry Brad at Emag for more details.
-Stormy
>>PS I'm on vacation this week. When I get home, I'll check the Rockwell hardness
of some old Lycoming timing gears I have.<<
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: | Ammeter Shunt connection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Peter Mather" <peter@mather.com>
Please forgive the question, I sure I'm missing something.
In chapter 7 of aeroelectric connection, Bob recommends putting the ammeter
shunt in the battery earth lead and states that a 100amp shunt should not be
worried by 200+ amp cranking currents. However, in all the Z diagrams the
shunt is in the alternator B lead. As far as I can see this can then only
measure alternator output and not battery charge/discharge.
What is the received wisdom on this one?
Best regards
Peter
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: | trim relay deck trim speed control |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mark R Steitle" <mark.steitle@austin.utexas.edu>
Lui,
This reply may be too late for your benefit, but I will explain how I
approached this problem in hopes that it will help others.
I used two of the pwm light dimmer kits from mpja.com, p/n 4057 MD, and
substituted four RatShack DPDT relays (two per board) for the reversing
switches. With a little futzing, these relays will fit into the same
holes in the board intended for the reversing switch. These are
activated by the coolie hat switch. One board controls the aileron
servo, the other controls the elevator servo.
The last step is to remotely mount the potentiometer. This requires a
3-wire harness long enough to reach the panel, or wherever you choose to
mount it. I used a higher quality "dual" pot rather than the ones
supplied in the kit. This way, one knob controls the speed to both
servos.
To make things really kosher, I mounted both boards in a metal project
box and then mounted the box under the pilot's seat. Works great!
Mark Steitle
Lancair ES (N208TX)
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Lui Esc"
><f1rocketbuilder@hotmail.com>
>
>
>I have the Infinity Aeropsace Trim Relay Deck, see at
>
>http://www.infinityaerospace.com/Relay_Deck_Wiring_Schematic.jpg
>
>I am trying to install a Ray Allen Speed control for the pitch trim but
have
>a few ?? on the wiring.
>
>http://www.rayallencompany.com/RACmedia/instructionsSPD.pdf
>
>Not sure where to connect the red wire from the Speed control to the
>Infinity Relay Deck. The Relay Deck only has a
>
>1. A port for Trim motor
>2. B port for Trim motor
>3. +12 v
>4. Ground
>
>It doesn't have a provision for "blue wire" like shown on Diagram 2 of
the
>Ray Allen schematic. I guess it is so simple that I don't see it.
>
>
>Thank you,
>
>Lui
>
>
>--
>
>
>-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------------------
< Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition >
< of man. Advances which permit this norm to be >
< exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the >
< work of an extremely small minority, frequently >
< despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed >
< by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny >
< minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes >
< happens) is driven out of a society, the people >
< then slip back into abject poverty. >
< >
< This is known as "bad luck". >
< -Lazarus Long- >
<------------------------------------------------------>
http://www.aeroelectric.com
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: | Re: Transponder 'air switch' |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Larkin" <mlas@cox.net>
Ground radar/tracking is here at many airports. Most of the systems as
it has been explained to me, do not use airborne transponders for this
function. It is my understanding that at airports that ask for aircraft
to leave transponders on are undergoing a test program to explore new
ideas and technologies. The high dollar systems at such places like
London's Heathrow do not use mode A transponding.
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Transponder 'air switch'
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
That seems to be changing somewhat. I believe there are a number of
airports around the world now where transponder on is standard for all
taxiing and a requirement to operate during reduced visibility?? I'd
expect this to slowly become normal at major North American airports as
surface movement tracking equipment becomes more common. Too many runway
incursions seem to be occurring.
Ken
Mike Larkin wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Larkin" <mlas@cox.net>
>
>Yes, we have run into that at Houston Intercontinental. On the Airbus,
>we tell the controllers that our transponder it is not available on the
>ground and they have to live with it. A transponder is for airborne
>operations and is not required for ground operations. It is my
>experience that controllers often want many things they can't have.
Just
>remember controllers work for you and if the folks in Washington have
>there way you will be paying them directly for everything in the near
>future. I suspect most pilots will be come more vocal about what they
>will and won't do as the customer.
>
>Mike Larkin
>
>
--
8/22/2005
--
8/22/2005
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: Transponder 'air switch' |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
I teach pilots to never turn on the strobes until taking the active runway
for takeoff - especially in low light or night conditions.
Stan Sutterfield
In a message dated 8/23/2005 3:00:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
I like strobes flashing on the ground.. Maybe (especially?) before engine
start.
Regards,
Matt-
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: Transponder 'air switch' |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig P. Steffen" <craig@craigsteffen.net>
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 12:55:20PM -0400, Speedy11@aol.com wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
>
> I teach pilots to never turn on the strobes until taking the active runway
> for takeoff - especially in low light or night conditions.
> Stan Sutterfield
>
>
> In a message dated 8/23/2005 3:00:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
> I like strobes flashing on the ground.. Maybe (especially?) before engine
> start.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt-
The relevant FAR (in part):
************
FAR 91.209 Aircraft lights.
No person may:
...
(b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light
system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the
anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command
determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the
interest of safety to turn the lights off.
************
It just occured to me to wonder; when they say "Operate an aircraft",
do they mean in the air, or at all?
I'm pretty sure that airliners always have their rotating lights
running whenever their engines are on.
Craig Steffen
--
craig@craigsteffen.net
public key available at http://www.craigsteffen.net/GPG/
current goal: use a CueCat scanner to inventory my books
career goal: be the first Vorlon Time Lord
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: Transponder 'air switch' |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Mike Larkin" <mlas@cox.net>
Yes, I would agree. The two questions are what is "safe" and what is
"operate". On a lighter note, which pilot-in-command.
I think everyone would agree that making oneself as visible to others
(be it airplane, truck, worker, or ground crew) as possible is
important. However, at larger airports other airplanes have to operate
safely at the same time. Therefore, a bright white three position
double flash strobe being turned off during taxi operations may be
safer. This seems to be the position at many airlines today. I
remember a night while taxing for takeoff at Boston's Logan Airport and
their was a Cirrus taxing for takeoff with the type of strobes mentioned
above going full tilt. Their were many airplanes taxing in a long line
this night. The lights were so bright and distracting many airplanes
maintained a much larger distance from that airplane than normal which
caused a string-out of the taxi line. One other byproduct were the many
humorous comments over the radio. The main point is you could see him
but you couldn't see anyone else....
Yes we run the rotating beacons when ever an engine is running or
external system (i.e. flaps, slats, spoilers, ect.) is being operated.
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Craig
P. Steffen
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Transponder 'air switch'
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig P. Steffen"
<craig@craigsteffen.net>
On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 12:55:20PM -0400, Speedy11@aol.com wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
>
> I teach pilots to never turn on the strobes until taking the active
runway
> for takeoff - especially in low light or night conditions.
> Stan Sutterfield
>
>
> In a message dated 8/23/2005 3:00:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> aeroelectric-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
> I like strobes flashing on the ground.. Maybe (especially?) before
engine
> start.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt-
The relevant FAR (in part):
************
FAR 91.209 Aircraft lights.
No person may:
...
(b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light
system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the
anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command
determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the
interest of safety to turn the lights off.
************
It just occured to me to wonder; when they say "Operate an aircraft",
do they mean in the air, or at all?
I'm pretty sure that airliners always have their rotating lights
running whenever their engines are on.
Craig Steffen
--
craig@craigsteffen.net
public key available at http://www.craigsteffen.net/GPG/
current goal: use a CueCat scanner to inventory my books
career goal: be the first Vorlon Time Lord
--
8/22/2005
--
8/22/2005
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: | Re: Ammeter Shunt connection |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
At 03:54 PM 8/23/2005 +0100, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Peter Mather" <peter@mather.com>
>
>Please forgive the question, I sure I'm missing something.
>
>In chapter 7 of aeroelectric connection, Bob recommends putting the ammeter
>shunt in the battery earth lead and states that a 100amp shunt should not be
>worried by 200+ amp cranking currents. However, in all the Z diagrams the
>shunt is in the alternator B lead. As far as I can see this can then only
>measure alternator output and not battery charge/discharge.
>
>What is the received wisdom on this one?
That chapter is among the next to be updated in R12. The short
answer is install shunts as shown in Z-figures, not chapter 7.
If you believe a battery ammeter is useful to you, use a hall
effect device.
Bob . . .
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: risks to battery for in situ |
recharging
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr@cox.net>
recharging
At 08:25 AM 8/23/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>
>Another consideration may be that it is not particularly uncommon for
>compact automotive alternators to fail when charging a dead battery.
>Some alternators come with admonishments in the box stating not to do
>that. If you delay replacing a dying battery too long in a car, you have
>a good chance of also having to replace the alternator.
>Ken
Hmmmm . . . given public propensity for leaving accessories
or lights on after parking a car, this vulnerability might pose
significant risks. I'm mystified as to the mechanism by which
a "dead" battery kills an alternator given the inherent current
limiting features of an alternator. Given what I understand about
alternators right now, I can't give the admonition any credence.
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: risks to battery for in situ recharging |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig P. Steffen" <craig@craigsteffen.net>
> significant risks. I'm mystified as to the mechanism by which
> a "dead" battery kills an alternator given the inherent current
> limiting features of an alternator. Given what I understand about
> alternators right now, I can't give the admonition any credence.
Would it be possible that a battery be old and discharged enough to
draw enough current that the alternator _cannot_ maintain a reasonable
system voltage within its maximum rated output? I don't actually
know, I'm just wondering.
Craig Steffen
--
craig@craigsteffen.net
public key available at http://www.craigsteffen.net/GPG/
current goal: use a CueCat scanner to inventory my books
career goal: be the first Vorlon Time Lord
Message 14
| 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: risks to battery for in situ recharging |
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
I figure that they overheat??
Some Delcos on large cars with fairly high running loads are somewhat
notorious for popping diodes if the battery is run down.
I don't know the details of how alternators are rated but I suspect that
many cannot tolerate full output for very long in common automotive
applications. I assume that high underhood temperatures and poor cooling
airflow are significant factors. If possible, I always recommend
charging rather than jump starting if a battery is run down. I used to
think that mechanics were ripping people off by replacing the battery
when the alternator died. Now I think it is sometimes a good idea and
that it reduces the chance of another failure and an unhappy customer.
Probably not an issue on a Lycoming with the alternator up front in the
breeze.
Ken
Craig P. Steffen wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig P. Steffen" <craig@craigsteffen.net>
>
>
>
>> significant risks. I'm mystified as to the mechanism by which
>> a "dead" battery kills an alternator given the inherent current
>> limiting features of an alternator. Given what I understand about
>> alternators right now, I can't give the admonition any credence.
>>
>>
>
>Would it be possible that a battery be old and discharged enough to
>draw enough current that the alternator _cannot_ maintain a reasonable
>system voltage within its maximum rated output? I don't actually
>know, I'm just wondering.
>
>Craig Steffen
>
>
>
Message 15
| 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: risks to battery for in situ |
recharging
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Dave Morris \"BigD\"" <BigD@DaveMorris.com>
recharging
I've never heard of this in all my decades of driving cars and running
batteries down. (Maybe because I switched to German and Japanese cars back
when American companies were trying to find ways to make me spend a fortune
on parts?)
Dave Morris
At 05:53 PM 8/23/2005, you wrote:
>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken <klehman@albedo.net>
>
>I figure that they overheat??
>Some Delcos on large cars with fairly high running loads are somewhat
>notorious for popping diodes if the battery is run down.
>I don't know the details of how alternators are rated but I suspect that
>many cannot tolerate full output for very long in common automotive
>applications. I assume that high underhood temperatures and poor cooling
>airflow are significant factors. If possible, I always recommend
>charging rather than jump starting if a battery is run down. I used to
>think that mechanics were ripping people off by replacing the battery
>when the alternator died. Now I think it is sometimes a good idea and
>that it reduces the chance of another failure and an unhappy customer.
>Probably not an issue on a Lycoming with the alternator up front in the
>breeze.
>Ken
>
>Craig P. Steffen wrote:
>
> >--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Craig P. Steffen"
> <craig@craigsteffen.net>
> >
> >
> >
> >> significant risks. I'm mystified as to the mechanism by which
> >> a "dead" battery kills an alternator given the inherent current
> >> limiting features of an alternator. Given what I understand about
> >> alternators right now, I can't give the admonition any credence.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Would it be possible that a battery be old and discharged enough to
> >draw enough current that the alternator _cannot_ maintain a reasonable
> >system voltage within its maximum rated output? I don't actually
> >know, I'm just wondering.
> >
> >Craig Steffen
> >
> >
> >
>
>
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! --
|