---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Sat 11/08/14: 11 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 05:35 AM - Re: lithium facts (Henador Titzoff) 2. 08:25 AM - Re: lithium facts (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 3. 09:07 AM - Re: lithium facts (Henador Titzoff) 4. 11:28 AM - lithium facts (Lyle Peterson) 5. 11:53 AM - Re: lithium facts (Bill Watson) 6. 12:49 PM - Re: lithium facts (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 7. 12:50 PM - Re: lithium facts (Jan de Jong) 8. 02:15 PM - Re: lithium facts (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 9. 02:36 PM - Re: lithium facts (rayj) 10. 04:38 PM - Re: lithium facts (Henador Titzoff) 11. 06:47 PM - Re: lithium facts (Charlie England) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 05:35:51 AM PST US From: Henador Titzoff Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts Jim, You sound like a man of real world experience with the batteries mentioned below. I'm guessing the following: * Much of your RC model airplane experience with lithium batteries is based on what you've been doing in the military world * You and your military friends have been exposed to more information about lithium battery testing than us civilians have, especially as applied to aviation. * This is probably why your military friends have not converted to lithium; instead, they went SVLA. * The lithium data that Bob N. is testing for has probably already been generated and reported but is proprietary and/or classified. I'm also speculating the reason Boeing has had bad luck with lithium batteries in their Dreamliner is they either didn't do enough testing, or the naysayers were overridden by the politicians who wanted to cut weight everywhere. Throw out a piece of failed test data here and there, and you're good to go thinking. They were probably in a hurry to leap frog the Frogs and Airbus. All speculation, mind you. I could be wrong about all this, but it's my hunch. Henador Titzoff >________________________________ > From: Jim Kale >To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >Sent: Saturday, November 8, 2014 2:16 AM >Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts > > > >I have been studying lithium batteries for several years, when and where I >can find information. I am not a chemist, or electrical battery engineer. >Just a guy who uses lots of lithium batteries. I use them to power large >radio control models aircraft. Common RC models these days use batteries >similar to the type you would use in a homebuilt airplane. The RC models I >fly typically use 4 cell, 14.4 nominal volt batteries. They are discharged >at the rate of about 30 to 150 amps and get totally drained in about 10 >minutes. Us modelers have also found that stopping the discharge at about >20 to 30 percent capacity remaining helps keep the cells cool and increases >their life substantially. > >I have seen some lithium batteries catch fire in flight and the RC model >(normally fairly expensive - a few hundred dollars and normally built from >wood or plastic) goes down in flames. > >All of the multi cell lithium batteries I use are charged with each cell in >the battery pack getting charged individually from a very special charger >normally called a balancing charger. That means if you have 4 cells, there >are 5 wires coming from a balancing charger that independently charges and >monitors each cell while it is charging. I believe that some of the high >end lithium batteries in use today have some balancing technology built into >each cell and these special batteries may be charged form a common source >like an alternator, with a single total charge voltage, sort of like the >lead acid battery charging we are all familiar with . Inside each cell or >these special lithium batteries, the automatic circuitry keeps each >individual cell at a controlled charge current and the proper float voltage >when the cell is topped off at the proper voltage for the chemistry being >used. All of this automatic control inside each cell, just means there are >many potential failure points. If any individual cell, or its automatic >charge circuitry goes bad, the whole battery may fail in a mild manor (just >quits working) or catastrophic manor (fire). > >All of this automatic cell monitoring is very expensive. Failures may be >dangerous, or just very expensive. > >The bottom line is if you want to switch to lithium batteries, you should >have your charge system designed by some highly qualified folks. Just >buying and installing a lithium battery can be very expensive at best, or >very dangerous at worst. Let the home builder beware. You can bet Boeing >spent some very large sums of money for that lithium battery that caught >fire in their 787 Dreamliner. Catastrophic failure is always possible no >matter how much you spend for hardware. > >I work as a flight training systems instructor for a USAF squadron that >flies helicopters. For the past 50 years or so, the military forces used >Nickel Cadmium batteries in their aircraft. These batteries costs about 8 >times as much as lead acid batteries, and required many man hours of service >and tests every 4 months. Recently we switched to sealed lead acid >batteries (Gel Cells). Now we pay about 5 times less than the NICADs costs, >and they don't need any regular maintenance. We just use them till they >don't come up to standards, and replace them. Much like you maintain your >car. A giant leap backwards, and we save lots of money and get better >reliability and performance, not to mention improved safety (those NICADs >had a tendency to melt down every now and then.) It doesn't get much better >than that. Of course, the quality and performance of sealed lead acid >batteries has improved by leaps and bounds over the last 50 years. > >Jim Kale > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com >[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jan de >Jong >Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2014 5:28 AM >To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts > >--> > >On 11/5/2014 9:22 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >> >> >> At 12:46 2014-11-05, you wrote: >>> >>> >>> Well, all I can say - I'm amazed. >>> I wonder why I never read anything anywhere but 3.6V to 3.7V - with >>> dire warnings about exceeding much... >>> >>> By the way, these people show 90% charge at 3.6V (100% at 4.2V): >>> http://www.powerstream.com/LLLF.htm >> >> Check out this page . . . >> >> http://tinyurl.com/2349lq2 >> >> and the links cited thereon. Isidor Buchmann is >> about as knowledgeable as they come about batteries >> exceeded only by his generosity for sharing what >> he knows. >> >> >> Bob . . . >> >Interesting. > >It remains difficult to know when generic "Li-ion" data applies and when >specific data is needed for one of the cathode chemistries: "LCO", "LMO", >"LFP", "NMC", "NCA", "LTO" >see >http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/types_of_lithium_ion >http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/lithium_based_batteries > >What I am guessing at the moment: > >- the aging mechanisms and lifetime statistics are similar > but some are more robust than others > >- the maximum cell voltage (4.2V) applies to all > >- charging method and charging phases are similar > but they have different capacity vs. final charging voltage curves > charging LFP beyond 3.6V doesn't add much, charging LCO beyond 3.8V to >4.2V adds most of the charge > see http://www.powerstream.com/lithuim-ion-charge-voltage.htm >(the average force required to get an ion into a crystal location is >different) > >- they have different (slow) discharge voltage curves (LFP flat at about >3.2V, LCO steadily decreasing from 3.9V) > >I could be wrong. > >Jan de Jong > > ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 08:25:14 AM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts At 07:31 2014-11-08, you wrote: The lithium data that Bob N. is testing for has probably already been generated and reported but is proprietary and/or classified. I doubt it. Given the ease with which I have acquired more knowledge demonstrates that the data is not the the least bit 'secret'. Simple-ideas I've discovered for myself are alluded if not specifically addressed in Isador Buccmann's missives cited earlier. I think it a certainty that any supplier who fails to included 'my' discoveries in their promotional/disclosure literature are either ignorant of such information, don't see why their customer would have an interest in such esoteric knowledge or they're not eager to reveal information that is counter-productive to a marketing effort. I'm reluctant to believe that anything is being deliberately withheld for dishonorable reasons . . . there's more tort lawyers per capita in the US than in any other nation. Perfectly honorable suppliers are already at considerable risk from this source of cultural misery . . . deliberate obfuscation of hazards by any suppler puts them at 1000x the risk. I'm also speculating the reason Boeing has had bad luck with lithium batteries in their Dreamliner is they either didn't do enough testing, or the naysayers were overridden by the politicians who wanted to cut weight everywhere. Throw out a piece of failed test data here and there, and you're good to go thinking. They were probably in a hurry to leap frog the Frogs and Airbus. All speculation, mind you. I think the Boeing story is exceedingly complicated and yes, fraught with some unhappy trade-offs. The testing was extensive but went mostly toward the notion of assessing risk based on failure rates which in turn were based on things not known to be poor assumptions. This is why my teachers encouraged me to assume the worst - assume a failure rate of 1 per flight hour then mitigate the risks of that failure. This is the approach ultimately adopted by Boeing and friends. It's the approach adopted by True Blue and has become the regulatory modus operandi as well. The BIG difference between the Boeing experience and the OBAM (or True Blue) experience is chemistry. The products of intense interest to us exploit LiFePO couples common to what now must be billions of examples ranging from the tiniest of consumer electro-whizzies up to the hybrid automobiles. The Tesla uses THOUSANDS of AA sized, LiFePO cells in parallel. The True Blue is a similarly complex array of cylindrical cells produced in the millions per week. I'll respond to Jim's generous sharing of experience and insights in depth . . . but right now, there are two car-loads of children and grand-children on their way to M.L. help grandma and grandpa take down a dying tree . . . and trim up some others. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 09:07:54 AM PST US From: Henador Titzoff Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts This is rather unusual, Bob, that you responded to my email to the AE list, yet my two previous emails have not made it to the list. If you are filtering my emails to the list, then it's okay with me, but you've never told me why you are filtering them. If you want me off your list, why not simply take me off the email roster? Henador Titzoff >________________________________ > From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" >To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >Sent: Saturday, November 8, 2014 11:25 AM >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts > > > >At 07:31 2014-11-08, you wrote: >The lithium data that Bob N. is testing for has probably already been >generated and reported but is proprietary and/or classified. > > > I doubt it. Given the ease with which I have acquired > more knowledge demonstrates that the data is not the > the least bit 'secret'. Simple-ideas I've discovered > for myself are alluded if not specifically addressed > in Isador Buccmann's missives cited earlier. > > I think it a certainty that any supplier who fails to included > 'my' discoveries in their promotional/disclosure literature > are either ignorant of such information, don't see > why their customer would have an interest in such > esoteric knowledge or they're not eager to reveal > information that is counter-productive to a marketing > effort. > > I'm reluctant to believe that anything is being deliberately > withheld for dishonorable reasons . . . there's more > tort lawyers per capita in the US than in any other > nation. Perfectly honorable suppliers are already at > considerable risk from this source of cultural misery . . . > deliberate obfuscation of hazards by any suppler > puts them at 1000x the risk. > >I'm also speculating the reason Boeing has had bad luck with lithium >batteries in their Dreamliner is they either didn't do enough >testing, or the naysayers were overridden by the politicians who >wanted to cut weight everywhere. Throw out a piece of failed test >data here and there, and you're good to go thinking. They were >probably in a hurry to leap frog the Frogs and Airbus. All >speculation, mind you. > > I think the Boeing story is exceedingly complicated and > yes, fraught with some unhappy trade-offs. The testing > was extensive but went mostly toward the notion of > assessing risk based on failure rates which in turn > were based on things not known to be poor assumptions. > > This is why my teachers encouraged me to assume the > worst - assume a failure rate of 1 per flight hour > then mitigate the risks of that failure. This is > the approach ultimately adopted by Boeing and friends. > It's the approach adopted by True Blue and has become > the regulatory modus operandi as well. > > The BIG difference between the Boeing experience and > the OBAM (or True Blue) experience is chemistry. The > products of intense interest to us exploit LiFePO couples > common to what now must be billions of examples ranging > from the tiniest of consumer electro-whizzies up to > the hybrid automobiles. The Tesla uses THOUSANDS of > AA sized, LiFePO cells in parallel. The True Blue > is a similarly complex array of cylindrical cells > produced in the millions per week. > > I'll respond to Jim's generous sharing of experience > and insights in depth . . . but right now, there are > two car-loads of children and grand-children on their > way to M.L. help grandma and grandpa take down a > dying tree . . . and trim up some others. > > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 11:28:57 AM PST US From: Lyle Peterson Subject: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts I have been looking at lithium battery packs and find there is a wide variation in the per-cell voltage. Some are as low as 1.2V and up to 1.8V and 3.7V. The discussion here indicates that 3.7V is the standard for lithium cells. Were there or are there lithium cells of lower voltage? -- Lyle Sent from my Gateway E4610D desktop ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 11:53:36 AM PST US From: Bill Watson Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts On 11/8/2014 8:31 AM, Henador Titzoff wrote: > Jim, > > You sound like a man of real world experience with the batteries > mentioned below. I'm guessing the following: > > * Much of your RC model airplane experience with lithium batteries > is based on what you've been doing in the military world > I would guess not. Rather that the RC model community is, and has been, deep into lithium battery technology for some time. Perhaps leaders in the field, at least from an OBAM standpoint. My brother has been in RC competitively for decades. As many other have, he has converted 100% to lithium (probably LiPo) battery power for his competition aircraft. They buy them, use them, abuse them, measure them and fail them. I'm sure there's a wealth of real world experience AND DATA there, but I have no idea whether it would be useful in our environment. > > * You and your military friends have been exposed to more > information about lithium battery testing than us civilians have, > especially as applied to aviation. > * This is probably why your military friends have not converted to > lithium; instead, they went SVLA. > * The lithium data that Bob N. is testing for has probably already > been generated and reported but is proprietary and/or classified. > > I'm also speculating the reason Boeing has had bad luck with lithium > batteries in their Dreamliner is they either didn't do enough testing, > or the naysayers were overridden by the politicians who wanted to cut > weight everywhere. Throw out a piece of failed test data here and > there, and you're good to go thinking. They were probably in a hurry > to leap frog the Frogs and Airbus. All speculation, mind you. > > I could be wrong about all this, but it's my hunch. > > Henador Titzoff > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Jim Kale > *To:* aeroelectric-list@matronics.com > *Sent:* Saturday, November 8, 2014 2:16 AM > *Subject:* RE: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts > > > > > I have been studying lithium batteries for several years, when and > where I > can find information. I am not a chemist, or electrical battery > engineer. > Just a guy who uses lots of lithium batteries. I use them to > power large > radio control models aircraft. Common RC models these days use > batteries > similar to the type you would use in a homebuilt airplane. The RC > models I > fly typically use 4 cell, 14.4 nominal volt batteries. They are > discharged > at the rate of about 30 to 150 amps and get totally drained in > about 10 > minutes. Us modelers have also found that stopping the discharge > at about > 20 to 30 percent capacity remaining helps keep the cells cool and > increases > their life substantially. > > I have seen some lithium batteries catch fire in flight and the RC > model > (normally fairly expensive - a few hundred dollars and normally > built from > wood or plastic) goes down in flames. > > All of the multi cell lithium batteries I use are charged with > each cell in > the battery pack getting charged individually from a very special > charger > normally called a balancing charger. That means if you have 4 > cells, there > are 5 wires coming from a balancing charger that independently > charges and > monitors each cell while it is charging. I believe that some of > the high > end lithium batteries in use today have some balancing technology > built into > each cell and these special batteries may be charged form a common > source > like an alternator, with a single total charge voltage, sort of > like the > lead acid battery charging we are all familiar with . Inside each > cell or > these special lithium batteries, the automatic circuitry keeps each > individual cell at a controlled charge current and the proper > float voltage > when the cell is topped off at the proper voltage for the > chemistry being > used. All of this automatic control inside each cell, just means > there are > many potential failure points. If any individual cell, or its > automatic > charge circuitry goes bad, the whole battery may fail in a mild > manor (just > quits working) or catastrophic manor (fire). > > All of this automatic cell monitoring is very expensive. Failures > may be > dangerous, or just very expensive. > > The bottom line is if you want to switch to lithium batteries, you > should > have your charge system designed by some highly qualified folks. Just > buying and installing a lithium battery can be very expensive at > best, or > very dangerous at worst. Let the home builder beware. You can bet > Boeing > spent some very large sums of money for that lithium battery that > caught > fire in their 787 Dreamliner. Catastrophic failure is always > possible no > matter how much you spend for hardware. > > I work as a flight training systems instructor for a USAF squadron > that > flies helicopters. For the past 50 years or so, the military > forces used > Nickel Cadmium batteries in their aircraft. These batteries costs > about 8 > times as much as lead acid batteries, and required many man hours > of service > and tests every 4 months. Recently we switched to sealed lead acid > batteries (Gel Cells). Now we pay about 5 times less than the > NICADs costs, > and they don't need any regular maintenance. We just use them > till they > don't come up to standards, and replace them. Much like you > maintain your > car. A giant leap backwards, and we save lots of money and get better > reliability and performance, not to mention improved safety (those > NICADs > had a tendency to melt down every now and then.) It doesn't get > much better > than that. Of course, the quality and performance of sealed lead acid > batteries has improved by leaps and bounds over the last 50 years. > > Jim Kale > ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 12:49:39 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts At 11:03 2014-11-08, you wrote: >This is rather unusual, Bob, that you responded to my email to the >AE list, yet my two previous emails have not made it to the list. If >you are filtering my emails to the list, then it's okay with me, but >you've never told me why you are filtering them. If you want me off >your list, why not simply take me off the email roster? > >Henador Titzoff I have no ability nor inclination to 'filter' anyone. I've had to ask several individuals to quit the list over the years but I've not advocated for any form of 'firewall' against anyone. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 12:50:14 PM PST US From: Jan de Jong Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts Tesla does not use LiFePO4, but something more energetic, I believe: http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/safety_of_lithium_ion_batteries > > The BIG difference between the Boeing experience and > the OBAM (or True Blue) experience is chemistry. The > products of intense interest to us exploit LiFePO couples > common to what now must be billions of examples ranging > from the tiniest of consumer electro-whizzies up to > the hybrid automobiles. The Tesla uses THOUSANDS of > AA sized, LiFePO cells in parallel. The True Blue > is a similarly complex array of cylindrical cells > produced in the millions per week. > ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 02:15:54 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts At 14:48 2014-11-08, you wrote: > >Tesla does not use LiFePO4, but something more energetic, I believe: >http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/safety_of_lithium_ion_batteries here is one of several articles I see that prompted my assertion . . . http://tinyurl.com/pqo59cr Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 02:36:41 PM PST US From: rayj Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts Greetings Mr. Titzoff, I have been on this list for a number of years and have seen several glitches that resulted in my and other's emails not showing up. Sometimes it was something that the sender changed, sometimes it was a change made by the sender's ISP, and sometimes it was something Matt D. did. I don't really have any helpful suggestions, just wanted to mention all the possible places where things can go awry. If I can be of assistance in helping sort this out, please let me know. do not archive Raymond Julian Kettle River, MN The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty, understanding and feeling are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness, egotism and self-interest are the traits of success. And while men admire the quality of the first they love the produce of the second. -John Steinbeck, novelist, Nobel laureate (1902-1968) On 11/08/2014 02:48 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > > At 11:03 2014-11-08, you wrote: >> This is rather unusual, Bob, that you responded to my email to the AE >> list, yet my two previous emails have not made it to the list. If you >> are filtering my emails to the list, then it's okay with me, but >> you've never told me why you are filtering them. If you want me off >> your list, why not simply take me off the email roster? >> >> Henador Titzoff > > I have no ability nor inclination to 'filter' anyone. > I've had to ask several individuals to quit the list > over the years but I've not advocated for any form > of 'firewall' against anyone. > > > Bob . . . > > ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 04:38:30 PM PST US From: Henador Titzoff Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts Raymond, I appreciate your offer to troubleshoot my problem, but I've already input a trouble ticket to my ISP. Let me see what they have to say about this first, then I'll contact you if they or I don't resolve the problem. Thank you very much. do not archive Henador Titzoff >________________________________ > From: rayj >To: aeroelectric-list@matronics.com >Sent: Saturday, November 8, 2014 5:34 PM >Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts > > > >Greetings Mr. Titzoff, > >I have been on this list for a number of years and have seen several >glitches that resulted in my and other's emails not showing up. >Sometimes it was something that the sender changed, sometimes it was a >change made by the sender's ISP, and sometimes it was something Matt D. >did. I don't really have any helpful suggestions, just wanted to >mention all the possible places where things can go awry. If I can be >of assistance in helping sort this out, please let me know. > >do not archive > >Raymond Julian >Kettle River, MN > >The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, honesty, >understanding and feeling are the concomitants of failure in our system. >And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness, >egotism and self-interest are the traits of success. And while men >admire the quality of the first they love the produce of the second. >-John Steinbeck, novelist, Nobel laureate (1902-1968) > >On 11/08/2014 02:48 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >> >> >> At 11:03 2014-11-08, you wrote: >>> This is rather unusual, Bob, that you responded to my email to the AE >>> list, yet my two previous emails have not made it to the list. If you >>> are filtering my emails to the list, then it's okay with me, but >>> you've never told me why you are filtering them. If you want me off >>> your list, why not simply take me off the email roster? >>> >>> Henador Titzoff >> >> I have no ability nor inclination to 'filter' anyone. >> I've had to ask several individuals to quit the list >> over the years but I've not advocated for any form >> of 'firewall' against anyone. >> >> >> >> Bob . . . >> >> >> >> >> > > ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 06:47:51 PM PST US From: Charlie England Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: lithium facts I would 2nd Raymond's observations. Over the last 6 or 8 months, I've sent numerous emails to various unrelated lists (not all Matt's) that never appeared as an email from the list back to me, but have seen others' replies to those emails. When checking the archives, the original email appears there. If you're saying that you didn't get your own email but saw a reply to it on the list, then it obviously went to the rest of the list, but wasn't returned to you by the (automated) list. Or, according to some googling, it might be related to your own ISP or email provider. FWIW, Charlie On 11/8/2014 4:34 PM, rayj wrote: > > Greetings Mr. Titzoff, > > I have been on this list for a number of years and have seen several > glitches that resulted in my and other's emails not showing up. > Sometimes it was something that the sender changed, sometimes it was a > change made by the sender's ISP, and sometimes it was something Matt > D. did. I don't really have any helpful suggestions, just wanted to > mention all the possible places where things can go awry. If I can be > of assistance in helping sort this out, please let me know. > > do not archive > > Raymond Julian > Kettle River, MN > > The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openness, > honesty, understanding and feeling are the concomitants of failure in > our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, > acquisitiveness, meanness, egotism and self-interest are the traits of > success. And while men admire the quality of the first they love the > produce of the second. -John Steinbeck, novelist, Nobel laureate > (1902-1968) > > On 11/08/2014 02:48 PM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: >> >> >> At 11:03 2014-11-08, you wrote: >>> This is rather unusual, Bob, that you responded to my email to the AE >>> list, yet my two previous emails have not made it to the list. If you >>> are filtering my emails to the list, then it's okay with me, but >>> you've never told me why you are filtering them. If you want me off >>> your list, why not simply take me off the email roster? >>> >>> Henador Titzoff >> >> I have no ability nor inclination to 'filter' anyone. >> I've had to ask several individuals to quit the list >> over the years but I've not advocated for any form >> of 'firewall' against anyone. >> >> >> >> 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.