---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 11/03/14: 10 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 0. 12:12 AM - Please Make A Contribution To Support Your Lists (Matt Dralle) 1. 04:09 AM - Radio Transmits Poorly Only When On The Ground (DaveG601XL) 2. 04:44 AM - Re: lithium facts (Henador Titzoff) 3. 10:33 AM - Re: lithium facts (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 4. 11:50 AM - Re: Radio Transmits Poorly Only When On The Ground (Charlie England) 5. 01:48 PM - Re: lithium facts (Charlie England) 6. 02:48 PM - Re: Radio Transmits Poorly Only When On The Ground (Cherie&Ken) 7. 05:30 PM - Re: lithium facts (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 8. 05:34 PM - Re: Radio Transmits Poorly Only When On The Ground (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 9. 09:50 PM - Re: lithium facts (Stuart Ashley) ________________________________ Message 0 _____________________________________ Time: 12:12:17 AM PST US From: Matt Dralle Subject: AeroElectric-List: Please Make A Contribution To Support Your Lists Dear Listers, There is no advertising income to support the Matronics Email Lists and Forums. The operation is supported 100% by your personal Contributions during the November Fund Raiser. Please make your Contribution today to support the continued operation and upgrade of these services. You can pick up a really nice gift for making your Contribution too! You may use a Credit Card or Paypal at the Matronics Contribution Site here: http://www.matronics.com/contribution or, you can send a personal check to the following address: Matronics / Matt Dralle 581 Jeannie Way Livermore, CA 94550 Thank you in advance for your generous support! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List and Forum Administrator ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 04:09:04 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Radio Transmits Poorly Only When On The Ground From: "DaveG601XL" I have a gremlin that I don't know how to troubleshoot. I have a 601XL all-metal airplane with an Icom A-200 radio, a RAMI com antenna mounted on the top skin and connected with RG-400 cable. I did all the installation myself. I have had this flying for 6 years now. It transmits just fine in the air, but when I initially installed it, I would get comments that it was a bit garbled while transmitting on the ground. It was always good enough though, as I could still carry on a 2-way conversation, plus I was able to operate out of tower controlled airports and not get any negative radio comments. Receiving wise, I have always been able to hear just fine whether on the ground or in the air. Just this summer, I started to get comments from fellow pilots that I was totally unreadable while transmitting on the ground. It would become crystal clear as soon as I took off. Does anyone have any thoughts of why this could be occurring or any place in particular I should start my troubleshooting?? Thanks, -------- David Gallagher Zodiac 601 XL-B: flying, 280+ hours now Next project under construction: Finish my father's Aircamper Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=432802#432802 ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 04:44:21 AM PST US From: Henador Titzoff Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts >________________________________ > >On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > >>My second point is: Could a simple solid state DC voltage regulator be designed to bring the 16.8 V. down to 14.4 V? This would maximize the potential of the lithium battery. >> >> >> Bob, if a regulator were designed to bring the voltage down to 14.4V, it >> would have to deal with the primary purpose of the battery - to start the >> engine. That's a lot of amps, making the design more difficult, expensive >> and of course, adding more weight.. It is also one more system to >> maintain and possibly fail in flight. >> --Henador >> >>This is exactly what the makers of computers, tablets, >>cell phones, and other products do. They use chargers >>designed for the battery voltage selected . . . and discharge >>to switch-mode power supplies that offers the desired system >>voltage. Unfortunately, our 'charger' is that belt driven >>thingy up front that is not especially tailored to the >>care and feeding of lithium. Even if it were, then yes, we'd >>need some mater of dc/dc converter to re-flavor the volts >>to 14.4. >> >> >> Bob, tablets and smartphones have two advantages in this >> regard. First, they are neatly packaged and designed to >> work with a single design per device. This means that the >> designers maximize all parameters to prevent EMI, and >> EMS and power utlization. >> >> >> Second, once the design is "thoroughly" tested, they make >> gazillions of the same thing. Our experimental airplanes are >> one of a kind, which means each one is a different design, >> electrical-wise. We don't have good control of EMI, EMS >> and power utilization across our experimental fleets as it is. >> And of course, it will add weight, more maintenance and >> decrease system reliability. >> --Henador >>The thrust of my articles is to explore the cost/benefit >>ratio for 'going lithium'. After you've spent the dollars >>for the premium product, can you get off shorter runways, >>fly over taller mountains, endure longer with a failed >>alternator, or carry more baggage? >> >> >> Bob, you might be able to, because your wallet will weigh >> less. >> --Henador >> >> ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 10:33:08 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts At 18:29 2014-11-02, you wrote: >Ken, > >You missed one question: How does the >performance of Li battery technology compare to >Pb with respect to maintaining our necessary >electronic equipment (aka electro-whizzies) >until we can make a safe return to terra >firma. That was the area of greatest deficiency >I found when doing my brief evaluation. The present studies are focused on understanding the capabilities and limits of the lithium technologies and systems integration issues to be resolved. There is no answer to your question based purely on chemistry or application. I was asked by a supplier of lithium products to help them craft an application chart . . . a table of various OBAM aircraft/engines with boxes citing the recommended lithium product. I'm not sure they really understood my reluctance to participate in such an adventure. My advice to them was simple. Tell the customer EVERYTHING they need to know to integrate the technology into their project and how to SIZE it to the task as defined by that customer's design goals. I took them to task for that "lead-acid equivalency" bull-hocky with a suggestion that they were hanging their fanny way out in the breeze for a lawsuit. The widow of some pilot downed in the mountains might have a foundation in PHYSICS to hypothesize that "Your recommendation of lithium product Z to replace my husband's lead-acid product X was the proximate cause of his panel going dark 30 minutes sooner than if he had NOT followed your recommendation." At the same time, the OBAM aviation community has both opportunity and encouragement to gather ALL the details necessary to make the change-out . . . based on personal design goals . . . not some poorly crafted substitution chart offered by the manufacturer. Patience my friend. We're learning more every day but data upon which your question depends is not yet in hand. At 18:04 2014-11-02, you wrote: Bob, It seems to me that your question "can you get off shorter runways, fly over taller mountains, endure longer with a failed alternator, or carry more baggage?" adds little to the discussion. I say this because making an airplane light is accomplished by many decisions to save small amounts of weight by going with option B rather than option A, option D rather than option C, etc. The cumulative result of all of these decisions does indeed allow one to get off quicker, climb faster, carry more baggage, etc. However, if we were to evaluate each decision individually, as you seek to do with lithium batteries, probably none of them achieve a meaningful difference in aircraft performance. The question to ask is not what the effect will be on aircraft performance. We already know that. This is no mystery. The question is already answered, because every pound counts just as much as every other pound when it comes to weight related performance whether it be a lighter battery, the choice of titanium over stainless steel for the firewall, or the decision to go on a diet to achieve a smaller beer belly. It seems to me the important questions are "How does the cost of lithium compare to the cost of lead acid?" and "How does the safety of lithium compare to the safety of lead acid?" Those questions are important. Questions of weight related aircraft performance are merely rhetorical. No argument there. But for all of lithium's uber-hyped features, WEIGHT is the big-bear in the woods. Okay, sit down an make a list of ALL opportunities to reduce aircraft empty weight in order of their probability of implementation and costs. Hmm . . . carbon fiber RV-7?. Aluminum IO-360? Smaller tires? Leave off the brakes? Yeah, the list is silly . . . but I use it to emphasize the fact that our airplanes are NOT clean piece of paper designs where weight savings reighns supreme over perhaps strength, handling qualities, payload, cockpit comforts, etc. etc. I'm recalling Voyager here . . . an airplane that needed 5 pounds of fuel to carry 1 pound of airplane around the world. Uncle Burt took the task so seriously that he installed B&C regulators without their housings . . . the electronics mounted to covers were stood up on spacers. Saved a few ounces. THAT approach to 1000 weight savings decisions go directly toward success or failure of the mission. But back in the RV builder's shop. Just how many opportunities REALLY exist for reduction of weight? The battery as a real chunk of lead/plastic is an obvious candidate . . . so what size lithium battery will DO EVERYTHING the existing lead-acid battery is expected to do? I am in the early stages of discovery that the lithium product dropped into a lead-acid optimized system is physically prevented from exploiting the full capabilities of the contained chemistry. This means that a direct lithium replacement might have to be $TWICE$ as large as originally thought just to store and deliver the same energy. OUR discussions/investigations are not conducted for the benefit of those who use a battery only for engine cranking. I am operating under the design goal of finding out exactly how many pounds and cubic inches of lithium are required to make a 1:1 change out. Early discoveries suggest that the real numbers for weight savings and costs are not nearly so attractive as the ads would like us to believe. All creative ventures from cooking to building airplanes to crafting a good house paint call for a knowledge of properties of materials and management of energy. Until we know those properties and how they influence our energy management, the answer is unclear. Finally, there are so few real opportunities to reduce weight beyond selection of bolt-on parts. So I'll suggest that the prudent owner/operator's costs for making the switch has little opportunity to make observable improvements in aircraft performance. Suggest you catch up on the lithium discussions thus far with a review of first three articles in Kitplanes and discussions here on the List over the last year. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 11:50:46 AM PST US From: Charlie England Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Radio Transmits Poorly Only When On The Ground On 11/3/2014 6:06 AM, DaveG601XL wrote: > > I have a gremlin that I don't know how to troubleshoot. I have a 601XL all-metal airplane with an Icom A-200 radio, a RAMI com antenna mounted on the top skin and connected with RG-400 cable. I did all the installation myself. I have had this flying for 6 years now. It transmits just fine in the air, but when I initially installed it, I would get comments that it was a bit garbled while transmitting on the ground. It was always good enough though, as I could still carry on a 2-way conversation, plus I was able to operate out of tower controlled airports and not get any negative radio comments. Receiving wise, I have always been able to hear just fine whether on the ground or in the air. > > Just this summer, I started to get comments from fellow pilots that I was totally unreadable while transmitting on the ground. It would become crystal clear as soon as I took off. Does anyone have any thoughts of why this could be occurring or any place in particular I should start my troubleshooting?? > > Thanks, > > -------- > David Gallagher > Zodiac 601 XL-B: flying, 280+ hours now > Next project under construction: Finish my father's Aircamper > > Everybody, or just some other pilots? I have a similar issue with my MicroAir when in receive mode and flying within a few hundred feet of another a/c. I'm pretty sure that the AGC (automatic gain control) in the MicroAir doesn't have enough range to avoid overdriving its input when the transmitting a/c is close. Other radios don't have this problem in the same environment. Charlie ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 01:48:02 PM PST US From: Charlie England Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts This sounds like 'a failure to communicate.' There would be no electrical performance advantage to Lithium (either will crank the engine), and there could (likely) be a disadvantage (in endurance). So for me, it really boils down to whether the weight savings is worth the pounds saved, and whether the pounds saved is worth the likely reduction in endurance and the unknown increase in risk due to failure (fire). Now if I could add a second alternator with its controls (for unlimited endurance) and combined with the lithium starting battery, weigh the same or less than single alternator & lead-acid battery, that would begin to tip the scales toward lithium. But the the money and safety questions remain to be resolved. Charlie On 11/2/2014 6:04 PM, Ken Ryan wrote: > Bob, > > It seems to me that your question "can you get off shorter runways, > fly over taller mountains, endure longer with a failed alternator, or > carry more baggage?" adds little to the discussion. I say this because > making an airplane light is accomplished by many decisions to save > small amounts of weight by going with option B rather than option A, > option D rather than option C, etc. The cumulative result of all of > these decisions does indeed allow one to get off quicker, climb > faster, carry more baggage, etc. However, if we were to evaluate each > decision individually, as you seek to do with lithium batteries, > probably none of them achieve a meaningful difference in aircraft > performance. > > The question to ask is not what the effect will be on aircraft > performance. We already know that. This is no mystery. The question is > already answered, because every pound counts just as much as every > other pound when it comes to weight related performance whether it be > a lighter battery, the choice of titanium over stainless steel for the > firewall, or the decision to go on a diet to achieve a smaller beer > belly. It seems to me the important questions are "How does the cost > of lithium compare to the cost of lead acid?" and "How does the safety > of lithium compare to the safety of lead acid?" Those questions are > important. Questions of weight related aircraft performance are merely > rhetorical. > > On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III > > > wrote: > > At 15:55 2014-11-02, you wrote: > Hi Bob; > > I have heard, but have no personal experience, that the danger of > fires from lithium iron batteries is much reduced in comparison to > lithium ion batteries, while their weight is only slightly greater. > > To be sure, there are big differences in how the various > chemistries behave AFTER the fire starts . . . but all > battery chemistries from lead-acid to ni-cad, to lithium > store a lot of energy in a relatively small volume. So > all chemistries present some hazard for rapid release of that > energy to varying degrees. Even the out-gassing products > of Li-Iron are combustible. This is why the True Blue batteries > > [] * . . . > have those little 'smoke stacks' on top. They connect to a > vent tube designed to take the nasties over-board in the event > of catastrophic failure within a case DESIGNED to contain > such events. > > To test the integrity of the case, the protective features > of the battery management system (BMS) are disabled and > the test lab puts 42 volts to the array of cells. After > a period of time, a 'fog' of nasties begins to pour from > the vent but case temperatures remain quite nominal . . . > non-hazardous to children and other living things aboard > the airplane. > > The design philosophy calls for getting this electronic version > of nitro-glycerine packaged in a manner that contains > worst-case failures . . . Damn I love FMEAs! Fooey on that > reliability study stuff . . . assume the worst and tame it. > > *So one of my questions is: With which type of battery are you > experimenting? If it's not lithium iron, I suggest you get one of > those too. > > These are lithium-iron . . . > > http://tinyurl.com/m4mlvsq > > but for the purposes of my articles, > it doesn't matter. If > the cells being offered by the various vendors take FMEA > into account and drive risks to acceptably low levels, > we have to assume that the energies contained are (1) > only allowed to get out through the terminals as electron > flow or (2) are very low risk due to management of manufacturing > quality and/or some manner of de-rating . . . like operating > them in the lower half of their energy storage tank? > > My second point is: Could a simple solid state DC voltage > regulator be designed to bring the 16.8 V. down to 14.4 V? This > would maximize the potential of the lithium battery. > > This is exactly what the makers of computers, tablets, > cell phones, and other products do. They use chargers > designed for the battery voltage selected . . . and discharge > to switch-mode power supplies that offers the desired system > voltage. Unfortunately, our 'charger' is that belt driven > thingy up front that is not especially tailored to the > care and feeding of lithium. Even if it were, then yes, we'd > need some mater of dc/dc converter to re-flavor the volts > to 14.4. > > The thrust of my articles is to explore the cost/benefit > ratio for 'going lithium'. After you've spent the dollars > for the premium product, can you get off shorter runways, > fly over taller mountains, endure longer with a failed > alternator, or carry more baggage? > > The design decisions are sort like those we should have > considered when we put those headers and 4-bbl carburetors on > our school transportation car . . . when we were so strapped > for cash that the used tire store was more likely to get > our business than Firestone. Good decision making is called > spontaneous organization, the science of elegant trade-offs. > > > I have read the AeroElectric Connection through a second time and > really appreciate the work you do. > Cheers! > > Thank you for that endorsement. I'm pleased that you find > the work useful. > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 02:48:17 PM PST US From: Cherie&Ken Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Radio Transmits Poorly Only When On The Ground I had a somewhat similar issue with that radio. At the time I had an assortment of headsets with different but not definitive results. Opening the case and reducing the mic gain helped but a slightly different setting seemed optimum for each headset . Eventually I noticed that the problem was worse in the morning and typically went away after 10 or 15 minutes by which time I was usually airborne. When I asked David Clark whether this might have anything to do with my mic they said yes it could and they offered to replace it which did indeed fix the issue for me. I bought a second DC headset and have been happy ever since. Ken On 03/11/2014 2:45 PM, Charlie England wrote: > > > On 11/3/2014 6:06 AM, DaveG601XL wrote: >> >> >> I have a gremlin that I don't know how to troubleshoot. I have a >> 601XL all-metal airplane with an Icom A-200 radio, a RAMI com antenna >> mounted on the top skin and connected with RG-400 cable. I did all >> the installation myself. I have had this flying for 6 years now. It >> transmits just fine in the air, but when I initially installed it, I >> would get comments that it was a bit garbled while transmitting on >> the ground. It was always good enough though, as I could still carry >> on a 2-way conversation, plus I was able to operate out of tower >> controlled airports and not get any negative radio comments. >> Receiving wise, I have always been able to hear just fine whether on >> the ground or in the air. >> >> Just this summer, I started to get comments from fellow pilots that I >> was totally unreadable while transmitting on the ground. It would >> become crystal clear as soon as I took off. Does anyone have any >> thoughts of why this could be occurring or any place in particular I >> should start my troubleshooting?? >> >> Thanks, >> >> -------- >> David Gallagher >> Zodiac 601 XL-B: flying, 280+ hours now >> Next project under construction: Finish my father's Aircamper >> >> > Everybody, or just some other pilots? I have a similar issue with my > MicroAir when in receive mode and flying within a few hundred feet of > another a/c. I'm pretty sure that the AGC (automatic gain control) in > the MicroAir doesn't have enough range to avoid overdriving its input > when the transmitting a/c is close. Other radios don't have this > problem in the same environment. > > Charlie > > _ ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 05:30:01 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts At 19:15 2014-11-02, you wrote: >Yes, I should have included that. Also I should have included "How >does Li compare to Pb with respect to cranking the engine?" There is no reason for any builder to believe that lithium products are not suited for cranking their engine -OR- running all desired electro-whizzies for a duration that meets design goals. Further, if you have an AGM battery installed that already meets your performance goals, then a lithium replacement for that battery will probably be lighter and occupy less volume. If your missions are day-vfr only and you have no battery only endurance requirements, then you're on pretty solid ground to accept the marketer's "lead acid equivalency" or "drop in replacement" assertions at face value. Further, your purchase will be MUCH lighter and smaller. I'm presently in possession of one of these products: http://tinyurl.com/jwk9wcu Note that the ad says this is a 'drop in' replacement for the Yuasa YTX20 series batteries (18 ah at a 10 hour rate), the YTX24 series (21 a.h.) and the UB12350 (35 a.h.). This statement should raise some eyebrows. The ETX36 may indeed CRANK like all of these batteries it purports to replace. Here's part of the data I've collected off this sample thus far: Emacs! When loaded to 5Amps, this battery consistently delivers about 140 watt-hours of stored energy for a 2-hour rate of 11.5 ampere-hours. We also see that this battery's charge cycle is pretty well ended at 12 volts, one full volt higher than end of charge on an SLVA battery. Incidentally, the family of curves cited above shows that out of the box, charged at 13.0 volts, 14.0 volts, and 15.0 volts, the device dumps a consistent energy value. This speaks well of the battery's internal battery management system. So how would this battery stack up for battery-only operations when replacing any one of the devices for which it is sold as a drop-in replacement? These data suggest that if your application calls for a KNOWN level of stored energy the ETX is NOT a drop in replacement for the products listed . Assuming that this battery, or one of its cousins, meets your cranking and stored energy requirements, then how does it stack up for a weight reduction goal at $350 a pop? Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 05:34:41 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Radio Transmits Poorly Only When On The Ground At 06:06 2014-11-03, you wrote: > > >I have a gremlin that I don't know how to troubleshoot. I have a >601XL all-metal airplane with an Icom A-200 radio, a RAMI com >antenna mounted on the top skin and connected with RG-400 cable. I >did all the installation myself. I have had this flying for 6 years >now. It transmits just fine in the air, but when I initially >installed it, I would get comments that it was a bit garbled while >transmitting on the ground. It was always good enough though, as I >could still carry on a 2-way conversation, plus I was able to >operate out of tower controlled airports and not get any negative >radio comments. Receiving wise, I have always been able to hear just >fine whether on the ground or in the air. > >Just this summer, I started to get comments from fellow pilots that >I was totally unreadable while transmitting on the ground. It would >become crystal clear as soon as I took off. Does anyone have any >thoughts of why this could be occurring or any place in particular I >should start my troubleshooting?? > >Thanks, What tests have you run? Have you tried a different microphone? Does your system include an intercom or does the mic connect directly to the radio? Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 09:50:28 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts From: Stuart Ashley Hi Bob; Thank you for performing a valuable service in testing lithium iron batteries. You have made a good point that a lithium iron battery may be capable of starting the engine, but may fall short in longevity while running the instruments. One point that has not been made in their favor is that substitution of a 3 to 4# battery for a 20 to 30# one may solve a weight and balance problem without needing to move the battery to the tail cone and adding long and heavy cables. Cheers! Stu. On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III < nuckolls.bob@aeroelectric.com> wrote: > At 19:15 2014-11-02, you wrote: > > Yes, I should have included that. Also I should have included "How does Li > compare to Pb with respect to cranking the engine?" > > > There is no reason for any builder to believe that > lithium products are not suited for cranking their > engine -OR- running all desired electro-whizzies > for a duration that meets design goals. > > Further, if you have an AGM battery installed that > already meets your performance goals, then a lithium > replacement for that battery will probably be lighter > and occupy less volume. > > If your missions are day-vfr only and you have > no battery only endurance requirements, then > you're on pretty solid ground to accept the marketer's > "lead acid equivalency" or "drop in replacement" > assertions at face value. Further, your purchase > will be MUCH lighter and smaller. > > I'm presently in possession of one of these > products: > > http://tinyurl.com/jwk9wcu > > Note that the ad says this is a 'drop in' replacement > for the Yuasa YTX20 series batteries (18 ah at a > 10 hour rate), the YTX24 series (21 a.h.) and the > UB12350 (35 a.h.). This statement should raise some > eyebrows. The ETX36 may indeed CRANK like all of these > batteries it purports to replace. > > Here's part of the data I've collected off this sample > thus far: > > [image: Emacs!] > > When loaded to 5Amps, this battery consistently delivers about > 140 watt-hours of stored energy for a 2-hour rate of 11.5 > ampere-hours. We also see that this battery's charge cycle > is pretty well ended at 12 volts, one full volt higher than > end of charge on an SLVA battery. > > Incidentally, the family of curves cited above shows that > out of the box, charged at 13.0 volts, 14.0 volts, and 15.0 > volts, the device dumps a consistent energy value. This speaks > well of the battery's internal battery management system. > > So how would this battery stack up for battery-only operations > when replacing any one of the devices for which it is sold as > a drop-in replacement? > > These data suggest that if your application calls for a KNOWN > level of stored energy the ETX is NOT a drop in replacement > for the products listed . Assuming that this battery, or one of > its cousins, meets your cranking and stored energy requirements, > then how does it stack up for a weight reduction goal at $350 > a pop? > > Bob . . . > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message aeroelectric-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/AeroElectric-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/aeroelectric-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/aeroelectric-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.