---------------------------------------------------------- AeroElectric-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Fri 06/29/18: 11 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 03:39 AM - Ignitions harness chafe repair W/ pic (matt9923) 2. 06:47 AM - Re: Z-14 Question (Rocketman1988) 3. 07:06 AM - Re: Re: Z-14 Question (Kelly McMullen) 4. 07:59 AM - Re: Z-14 Question (Bill Watson) 5. 08:08 AM - Re: Re: Z-14 Question (Charlie England) 6. 08:18 AM - Re: Z-14 Question (Charlie England) 7. 08:26 AM - Re: Z-14 Question (Bill Watson) 8. 09:43 AM - Re: Z-14 Question (Bill Watson) 9. 02:32 PM - Re: Z-14 Question (Charlie England) 10. 03:43 PM - Re: Z-14 Question (Robert L. Nuckolls, III) 11. 08:49 PM - Re: Paint question (Matt Prather) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 03:39:45 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Ignitions harness chafe repair W/ pic From: "matt9923" Found some chafing on the ignition harness the other day. I plan to move the harness so it wont continue. My question is the best product to cover the shielding. I have some PTFE film tape p422 i was going to use. Also have f4 tape and spiral wrap. Any guidance would be helpful. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481269#481269 Attachments: http://forums.matronics.com//files/260729c5_3a95_4ecb_a1cf_50df33cb72ba_302.jpeg ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 06:47:38 AM PST US Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Z-14 Question From: "Rocketman1988" Kelly, Thanks for your opinion. I hesitate posting on these forums due to the nay sayers when anything other than the simplest tech from the 50s is suggested. I have chosen to use a full EFII system and fully accept the additional complexities. I do appreciate your insight on things... As for the previous post about the B lead current limiters, I would disagree with putting the fuse at the other end as that would place it between the battery and starter. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481273#481273 ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 07:06:40 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Z-14 Question From: Kelly McMullen As I said, it is all about the builder's choices. I have too many years working on type certified airplanes as well as homebuilts, fixing self induced errors, etc. to be very enamored of new-fangled EFII. My experience in automotive arena tells me that the incremental improvements from continuous flow fuel injection that arrived in the late '50s to single cylinder electronic fuel injection of all but the latest cars is fairly small..while the current direct injection into the cylinder has had a much bigger improvement than anything since the switch from carburetors to fuel injection. I applaud your willingness to take on the challenge of EFII. When it all works as advertised, it certainly will make starting easier and may also help reduce maintenance. However, I don't believe it justifies having two separate systems of equal capacity. Still, your choice. Kelly On 6/29/2018 6:46 AM, Rocketman1988 wrote: > > Kelly, > > Thanks for your opinion. I hesitate posting on these forums due to the nay sayers when anything other than the simplest tech from the 50s is suggested. I have chosen to use a full EFII system and fully accept the additional complexities. I do appreciate your insight on things... > > As for the previous post about the B lead current limiters, I would disagree with putting the fuse at the other end as that would place it between the battery and starter. > > > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=481273#481273 > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 07:59:55 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z-14 Question From: Bill Watson Help me here Charlie, I'm not quite following you. The B-lead protection (current limiters) are installed between the Alternator B-lead terminal and main bus line. The battery is not 'behind' the protection and the bus. Rather the battery has no protection between it and the bus fuse block(s). What am I missing? Bill On 6/28/2018 9:56 PM, Charlie England wrote: > Bill, > > Your install is obviously working, but it should be noted that your > alternator B lead protection should be on the other end. If there's a > fault in that wire, it should be big enough to handle everything the > alternator can throw at it, but it'll never be big enough to handle > everything the battery(s) can throw at it. > > FWIW, > > Charlie > > > Virus-free. www.avast.com > > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________ Message 5 _____________________________________ Time: 08:08:38 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Z-14 Question From: Charlie England On 6/29/2018 8:46 AM, Rocketman1988 wrote: > > Kelly, > > Thanks for your opinion. I hesitate posting on these forums due to the nay sayers when anything other than the simplest tech from the 50s is suggested. I have chosen to use a full EFII system and fully accept the additional complexities. I do appreciate your insight on things... > > As for the previous post about the B lead current limiters, I would disagree with putting the fuse at the other end as that would place it between the battery and starter. > > I guess I should have been more specific. The other end of the *wire*; not the entire path. Look at the wire protection for the main alt, which is at the hot side of the starter contactor end of the 8 ga wire (correct). Now look at the protection on the aux alt B lead, at the alternator end, instead of at the source end, which is the cross-tie contactor. When I took another look for this email, I also noticed that the 8 ga wires feeding both fuse blocks don't have any protection. 'Conventional wisdom' is that the battery contactor protects the 'fat wires', but smaller wires need protection. What I see is 2 ga wires stepping down in size to 8 ga wires, with no switching (disconnect) and protection at the start of the 8 ga wires. That's not a problem, as long as there isn't a problem. :-) Charlie --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________ Message 6 _____________________________________ Time: 08:18:00 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z-14 Question From: Charlie England Protection devices are to protect *wires*. In our aircraft environments the source of damage to wires is always the battery. Alternator B leads should be sized big enough to handle the max that the alternator can deliver, so they need no protection from the alternator. But the battery can deliver hundreds of amps (sometimes *many hundreds* of amps). The 4 ga and larger stuff can survive long enough to use the master contactor as protection, but smaller stuff runs a big risk of lighting up the insulation if there's no circuit protection. No protection device on a wire is there to protect the battery. Charlie On 6/29/2018 9:58 AM, Bill Watson wrote: > Help me here Charlie, I'm not quite following you. The B-lead > protection (current limiters) are installed between the Alternator > B-lead terminal and main bus line. The battery is not 'behind' the > protection and the bus. Rather the battery has no protection between > it and the bus fuse block(s). > > What am I missing? > > Bill > > On 6/28/2018 9:56 PM, Charlie England wrote: >> Bill, >> >> Your install is obviously working, but it should be noted that your >> alternator B lead protection should be on the other end. If there's a >> fault in that wire, it should be big enough to handle everything the >> alternator can throw at it, but it'll never be big enough to handle >> everything the battery(s) can throw at it. >> >> FWIW, >> >> Charlie >> >> >> Virus-free. www.avast.com >> >> >> >> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________ Message 7 _____________________________________ Time: 08:26:53 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z-14 Question From: Bill Watson I think Bob refers to my Z-14 in an RV-10 as 'everything including the kitchen sink'. I other words, a bit too much. Ten years ago when I started laying out my electrical system, I went through the Z-schematics and frankly struggled to understand the various backup scenarios. At one point I started sketching the Z-14 out and everything became simple and symmetrical (I may have an excess of the symmetry gene or something). More important, my desire coming into this project was to have a state of the art panel which I could run for 10-15 even 30 minutes on the ground without worrying about a subsequent engine start. The need for this was driven home by 2 previous incidents; one being flying in to New Orleans less than a year after the big hurricane and finding myself sitting in my Maule staring at my Garmin 396 waiting for a break in the usual gulf coast cu-nims. Why couldn't I sit in the FBO and watch a Nexrad screen? Because it was still under reconstructions, it lacked resources, and required a longish sprint to get to the tiedowns. The other involved the Bahamas. As my design came together, I ended up with (3) GRT HX EFIS screens and assorted accessories. The GRTs did not have an integrated on/off switch (or backup batts) and I wasn't interested in adding any. Main power on, EFISs on; no accidental power-offs or reboots in the soup. Turned out that those (3) screens are real power hogs, even dimmed down. Even now, to run them for 30 mins on one Odyssey 680 suggests pulling a fuse on 1 or 2 might be a good idea (not really necessary). It made me question the need for 3 screens but after encountering a couple of failures after 6 years of operation, it's cool to be able to swap out one of the 2 pilot oriented screens on the ramp at a remote location and fly with 100% of your normally used panel working. The Z-14 has turned out to be a simple solution for me. I have 2 mags and no electrically dependent ignition. I have 2 Odyssey 680s. Either will start the engine, both guarantee it (I was happy to get rid of the light weight starters in favor of the slow turning but stronger standard starter). I can run my panel as long as I wish with the engine off. Came in handy after the Breezy crash at Oshkosh a few years ago caused a conga line of epic proportions. Etc etc. I recently lost a voltage regulator. What did it require me to do? Nothing except keep the x-feed switch on and turn off the non-working side. No blip in the air, no shortened trip, no precautionary landing. Flew 2 more legs like that with the same redundancy that most pilots fly with most of the time. Bill "I go what I wanted" Watson On 6/28/2018 10:19 PM, Kelly McMullen wrote: > > > Having a flying IFR RV-10 myself I question the benefits of dual > batteries along with dual alternators, etc. Almost all EFIS panels > these days offer a backup battery, good for 1 hour or more. I have one > for each of my EFIS screens. Most ship's batteries these days are good > for an hour or more of minimized current. An Ipad can provide hours of > moving map and GPS, and with some extras a nearly full EFIS screen. > I can see if you choose to have dual electronic ignition systems that > then you are vulnerable to lack of electrons for at least one. It > seems to me that the SD-20 alternator for a backup source of power, > with a small, Odessey 680 or less mounted on the firewall should > handle any of those needs. You only need one good sized battery, such > as the Odessey 925 mounted in stock rear location, for starter > operation.s Or just keep one magneto for the backup, and eliminate > need for dual electric power sources. You get 85% of the electronic > ignition by replacing one mag. > Just my opinion, but I would strive to keep the design as simple as > possible, and avoid having totally dual everything just because you can. > Just thinking your goals might be achieved with a simpler system. > Kelly > > On 6/28/2018 6:56 PM, Charlie England wrote: > >>>> >>> I have a Z-14 in an RV10. Bob's approach sounds great. I like the >>> symmetry. Not having asked the question 10 years ago when laying >>> my Z-14 out, I took a different approach. >>> >>> I have the Xfeed mounted with the other two contactors back on the >>> battery tray. 2 AWG links them all up. Then I have a single 2AWG >>> lead going to the starter Contactor. The other side has an 8AWG >>> link going forward to one fuse panel (bus) and an 8AWG link going >>> from the starter contactor to the other fuse panel (bus). >>> >>> The current limiters on mounted on the firewall and protect the >>> lines going from the 2 alternators to the 2 main bus feeds. >>> >>> I've attached a schematic with the locations of devices implied. >>> >>> Bill "I love my Z-14" Watson >>> >> Bill, >> >> Your install is obviously working, but it should be noted that your >> alternator B lead protection should be on the other end. If there's a >> fault in that wire, it should be big enough to handle everything the >> alternator can throw at it, but it'll never be big enough to handle >> everything the battery(s) can throw at it. >> >> FWIW, >> >> Charlie >> > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________ Message 8 _____________________________________ Time: 09:43:01 AM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z-14 Question From: Bill Watson I guess I didn't understand the fat wire versus the less-than-fat wire exposure. My take on unprotected main power lines was that they can be run and terminated in robust and simple ways with minimal exposure to chafing, breaching of their insulation or shorting at the terminal ends. With that view in mind, I was thinking of my 8AWG wires as 'fat wires' just as my 2AWG wire is. So I view the 8AWG on the Aux side as a 'fat wire' with robust and simple terminations at the contactor and the fuse block.... with a firewall stud in the path which happens to be part of the current limiter unit. I'm quite confident that those 8AWG runs are simple and safe. I should note that the 8AWG runs from the current limiter firewall studs to the fuse panels by the copilot's leg are quite short. Putting the current limiter on the Aux side near the x-feed contactor behind the luggage area would have required 2 long runs of 8AWG instead of 1. I never considered the contactors as any kind of circuit protection. I thought of them as simply switches, switches for high current loads that can conveniently be thrown remotely by small switches. They enable you to manually disconnect a high current line but there's no automatic protection. Bill On 6/29/2018 11:18 AM, Charlie England wrote: > Protection devices are to protect *wires*. In our aircraft > environments the source of damage to wires is always the battery. > Alternator B leads should be sized big enough to handle the max that > the alternator can deliver, so they need no protection from the > alternator. But the battery can deliver hundreds of amps (sometimes > *many hundreds* of amps). The 4 ga and larger stuff can survive long > enough to use the master contactor as protection, but smaller stuff > runs a big risk of lighting up the insulation if there's no circuit > protection. > > No protection device on a wire is there to protect the battery. > > Charlie > > On 6/29/2018 9:58 AM, Bill Watson wrote: >> Help me here Charlie, I'm not quite following you. The B-lead >> protection (current limiters) are installed between the Alternator >> B-lead terminal and main bus line. The battery is not 'behind' the >> protection and the bus. Rather the battery has no protection >> between it and the bus fuse block(s). >> >> What am I missing? >> >> Bill >> >> On 6/28/2018 9:56 PM, Charlie England wrote: >>> Bill, >>> >>> Your install is obviously working, but it should be noted that your >>> alternator B lead protection should be on the other end. If there's >>> a fault in that wire, it should be big enough to handle everything >>> the alternator can throw at it, but it'll never be big enough to >>> handle everything the battery(s) can throw at it. >>> >>> FWIW, >>> >>> Charlie >>> >>> >>> Virus-free. www.avast.com >>> >>> >>> >>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >> >> > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________ Message 9 _____________________________________ Time: 02:32:01 PM PST US Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z-14 Question From: Charlie England Ah, the joys of trying to communicate via the interwebs. :-) I'd agree that really short runs (the Aeroelectric 'gold standard' seems to be 6", but I've probably fudged that in a place or two) are low risk. But if that #8 from the right side of the x-feed contactor to the current limiter runs the length of the plane, I'd want protection at the source end. Not sure why moving the protection would require two runs. If the protection is at the contactor, the #8 could run to either fuse block #2, or to the aux alternator B lead, as 'geographically convenient'. Then it would continue to the other component. Electrically identical to what you have now, except the long run (and the short run) of #8 would be protected from the battery. If the current limiter is now on the firewall, the only #8 in that run that's actually protected is between the limiter and the alternator B lead. I'm not trying to tell you what to do; just wanted to mention a potential vulnerability. If you're comfortable with the design, then run with it. It's obviously been working ok so far. I know I've done a few things that others wouldn't be comfortable with, but I am, with my plane. FWIW, I have a similar arrangement for my engine bus (electrically dependent alternative engine) to your fuse block #1, with the bus being fed off the hot terminal of the contactor. In my case, it's the master because everything's on the firewall in my plane, but same risk of unprotected #8 wire. I protected it, and both my #8 alternator B leads, by using #12 fuse link wire on the 'battery end' of each #8 wire. Just a 4"-6" long piece of the fuse link wire soldered on the end, with the joint insulated with heat shrink. Then the fuse link gets the terminal that connects to the contactor. The fuse link wire is an 'off the shelf' item available from automotive supply houses; it has built-in insulation to contain the heat if the protection is 'tripped'. Charlie On 6/29/2018 11:36 AM, Bill Watson wrote: > I guess I didn't understand the fat wire versus the less-than-fat wire > exposure. My take on unprotected main power lines was that they can > be run and terminated in robust and simple ways with minimal exposure > to chafing, breaching of their insulation or shorting at the terminal > ends. With that view in mind, I was thinking of my 8AWG wires as 'fat > wires' just as my 2AWG wire is. So I view the 8AWG on the Aux side as > a 'fat wire' with robust and simple terminations at the contactor and > the fuse block.... with a firewall stud in the path which happens to > be part of the current limiter unit. I'm quite confident that those > 8AWG runs are simple and safe. > > I should note that the 8AWG runs from the current limiter firewall > studs to the fuse panels by the copilot's leg are quite short. > Putting the current limiter on the Aux side near the x-feed contactor > behind the luggage area would have required 2 long runs of 8AWG > instead of 1. > > I never considered the contactors as any kind of circuit protection. > I thought of them as simply switches, switches for high current loads > that can conveniently be thrown remotely by small switches. They > enable you to manually disconnect a high current line but there's no > automatic protection. > > Bill > > On 6/29/2018 11:18 AM, Charlie England wrote: >> Protection devices are to protect *wires*. In our aircraft >> environments the source of damage to wires is always the battery. >> Alternator B leads should be sized big enough to handle the max that >> the alternator can deliver, so they need no protection from the >> alternator. But the battery can deliver hundreds of amps (sometimes >> *many hundreds* of amps). The 4 ga and larger stuff can survive long >> enough to use the master contactor as protection, but smaller stuff >> runs a big risk of lighting up the insulation if there's no circuit >> protection. >> >> No protection device on a wire is there to protect the battery. >> >> Charlie >> >> On 6/29/2018 9:58 AM, Bill Watson wrote: >>> Help me here Charlie, I'm not quite following you. The B-lead >>> protection (current limiters) are installed between the Alternator >>> B-lead terminal and main bus line. The battery is not 'behind' the >>> protection and the bus. Rather the battery has no protection >>> between it and the bus fuse block(s). >>> >>> What am I missing? >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> On 6/28/2018 9:56 PM, Charlie England wrote: >>>> Bill, >>>> >>>> Your install is obviously working, but it should be noted that your >>>> alternator B lead protection should be on the other end. If there's >>>> a fault in that wire, it should be big enough to handle everything >>>> the alternator can throw at it, but it'll never be big enough to >>>> handle everything the battery(s) can throw at it. >>>> >>>> FWIW, >>>> >>>> Charlie >>>> >>>> >>>> Virus-free. www.avast.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> >>> >>> >> > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ________________________________ Message 10 ____________________________________ Time: 03:43:51 PM PST US From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Z-14 Question At 11:36 AM 6/29/2018, you wrote: >I guess I didn't understand the fat wire versus the less-than-fat >wire exposure. My take on unprotected main power lines was that >they can be run and terminated in robust and simple ways with >minimal exposure to chafing, breaching of their insulation or >shorting at the terminal ends. With that view in mind, I was >thinking of my 8AWG wires as 'fat wires' just as my 2AWG wire >is. So I view the 8AWG on the Aux side as a 'fat wire' with robust >and simple terminations at the contactor and the fuse block.... with >a firewall stud in the path which happens to be part of the current >limiter unit. I'm quite confident that those 8AWG runs are simple and safe. Agreed. >I should note that the 8AWG runs from the current limiter firewall >studs to the fuse panels by the copilot's leg are quite >short. Putting the current limiter on the Aux side near the x-feed >contactor behind the luggage area would have required 2 long runs of >8AWG instead of 1. > >I never considered the contactors as any kind of circuit >protection. I thought of them as simply switches, switches for >high current loads that can conveniently be thrown remotely by small >switches. They enable you to manually disconnect a high current >line but there's no automatic protection. Correct . . . powers-that-be consider them 'crew controlled protection', i.e. they're used to disconnect sources of energy to smallest practical footprint in times of stress . . . like smoke or . . . short approach to the rocks. B-lead protection is needed ONLY for the exceedingly rare instance of shorted alternator diodes so any such protection is located as close to the bus/distribution node as practical. Properly sized b-lead protection CANNOT be opened by alternator energy. Having recited the legacy philosophy I'll note that all three of the vehicles in my driveway ranging from 87GMC to 2006KIA ALL connect the b-lead directly to the battery . . . not even fusible links. In over 50 years of driving alternators, never had diodes short . . . I have had two instances of diodes opening . . . one just two weeks ago . . . but no shorts. Of course, smoke from the b-lead in a car is no big deal . . . as long as it doesn't set the engine grease on fire. Airplanes not so much. Current limiters scattered around the bus structures are very low return on investment . .. probably zero. Bob . . . ________________________________ Message 11 ____________________________________ Time: 08:49:00 PM PST US From: Matt Prather Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Paint question Good point about the surface tension effect causing the conductive particles to be completely covered and surrounded... And, any detuning effect is probably limited - can=99t lower the reson ant frequency of particles from GHz (?) to MHz... How about capacitive coupling of one particle to the next? Capacitance has A rea in the numerator and distance in the denominator... Probably not much t here - the A is to small and the d too large. Hmm. Regards, Matt Prather > On Jun 21, 2018, at 8:59 AM, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote: > > At 09:46 AM 6/20/2018, you wrote: >> At 07:56 AM 6/20/2018, you wrote: >>> Hi Bob, >>> Long time no contact... I=99m happy you=99re still in this g ame! >>> >>> Regarding this topic, I wonder how much the the conductive bits are in c ontact with each other. I don=99t know how isolated each bit of conduc tive material is in such a paint, but I could imagine there could be billion s of contacts between neighboring bits of flake or powder such that there wo uld be a random resistive path across the painted surface. > > I've been doing some 'asphalt contemplation' on a simple > test setup to evaluate the effects of various paints/coatings > on antenna performance. > > I was trying to imagine how conductive particles suspended > in a non-conductive 'solution' would achieve a > microscopic version of the gas-tight contact needed > for reliable connection between conductors. It seems > that surface tension would cause each particle to > be totally enveloped, thus prevented from making > physical contact with other particles. > > Not sure about what happens as the solution becomes > a solid when solvents evaporate and the paint dries. > I've seen volume resistivity measurements on some > coatings/fillers, like potting compounds. These > are always VERY high . . . including those designed > for thermal conductivity. > > I'm thinking that there are three potential effects > of paint . . . the dielectric effects you hypothesized > which would probably be limited to a lowering of > resonant frequency, the shielding effects which > block and or re-direct the wave fronts of interest > and attenuation/dissipation effects that simply > turn the RF energy into heat. > > I'm recalling a bit of a fire drill on the ELT > transmitters for Beechjets where a new version > of the ELT kept tripping off due to high SWR > on the VHF antenna. Seems the older version happily > existed with a pair of antennas tucked under > the fairing at the root of vertical fin leading > edge. > > <25ac6ff7.jpg> > > Oookkaaay . . . > > Now, let's lay the VHF antenna back so that it > sorta conforms to the inside of the fairing . . . > except . . . > > Fairing was also part of an air-intake ductwork > for the A/C . . . so the antennas wound up > looking like this: > > <25ac7006.jpg> > > There were metallic braces inside the > fairing along with bond straps that tied > the braces to airframe . . . for lighting > effects. Added on top of all this was a > composite fairing material . . . > capped off with paint often chosen by > the customer hence of uncontrolled pedigree. > > What's a poor ELT transmitter to do? > > <25ac7016.jpg> > > > I couldn't find anywhere in the archives where > this installation had been measured for > performance . . . a condition that didn't > raise its ugly head until a new ELT complained > about an 'unsatisfactory' antenna. > > I suggested we design a new, top loaded vertical > for the VHF antenna that remained vertical with > better separation from the effects of overhead > structures. > > <25ac7026.jpg> > > Further, we could fine tune the antenna to accommodate > any residual effects from proximity of other structures. > > This got the flying fuzz all in a dither . . . a new > antenna would violate the TSO on the ELT . . . but > abusing the TSO'd antenna did not . . . go figure. > I think they wound up widening the SWR trip tolerances > on the ELT transmitter. > > Not one of my happier experiences with the bureaucracy. > > 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.