[SI-LIST] Re: 50 Ohm Via?

The pad/anti-pad capacitance also seem to increase the effective 
propagation delay.  I get better results using transmission line models 
with 190 ps/in for 1mm pitch BGA vias and 210 ps/in. for older backplane 
connector vias on FR4 boards.
Thanks,
Vinu

Scott McMorrow wrote:
> Joel
> As along as the via is short w.r.t. the signal bandwidth, the excess 
> capacitance of the pads can be lumped into the transmission line 
> approximation.  You could break apart a via, layer by layer, with 
> accurate PEEC RLC modeling, but it would not buy you anything for  
> modeling of most signals.  It is only when you are concerned about 
> energy injected into the planes, via electrical lengths that approach 
> 1/5 of the signal bandwidth, or via stub lengths that approach about 
> 1/10 of the signal bandwidth, that more detailed modeling is generally 
> necessary.
>
> As a first approximation, compute your via and via stub delay, and then 
> simulate the via with 30 ohm single-ended transmission lines.  If the 
> simulation works, you're probably good to go, as long as you don't have 
> some awful via coupling going on.  Then do a frequency sweep on the 
> circuit to determine where the worst-case quarter wave resonance cutoff 
> is. Once you find the quarter wave resonant frequency, you'll find that 
> at about 1/2 of that frequency your circuit has about -3 to -6 dB of 
> extra loss.  If you're operating within one to two octaves of the 
> quarter wave stub resonance, it's a good idea to do more detailed 
> modeling, redesign your vias, or drill them out.
>
> regards,
>
> Scott
>
> Scott McMorrow
> Teraspeed Consulting Group LLC
> 121 North River Drive
> Narragansett, RI 02882
> (401) 284-1827 Business
> (401) 284-1840 Fax
>
> http://www.teraspeed.com
>
> Teraspeed® is the registered service mark of
> Teraspeed Consulting Group LLC
>
>
>
> Joel Brown wrote:
>   
>> Scott,
>>
>>  
>>
>> I like that approach because it is simple and easy to understand and 
>> simulate.
>>
>> The question I have is does it take into account the capacitance of 
>> the via?
>>
>> I know that greater capacitance translates to lower impedance, so does 
>> varying the impedance in effect include the effects of the via 
>> capacitance or does it have to be considered as a separate lumped 
>> element from the via transmission line model?
>>
>>  
>>
>> Thanks -- Joel
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Scott McMorrow [mailto:scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, January 10, 2008 8:07 PM
>> *To:* wolfgang.maichen@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> *Cc:* Joel Brown; Aubrey_Sparkman@xxxxxxxx; luant@xxxxxxxxxxx; 
>> si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> *Subject:* [SI-LIST] Re: 50 Ohm Via?
>>
>>  
>>
>> In general, I agree with Wolfgang. 
>>
>> If you want a good approximation for the time domain behavior of a 
>> via, just do a simple transmission line simulation and substitute a 
>> short transmission line for the via and the via stub.  For thin 
>> boards, like the 0.09" board mentioned, try your simulations with a 
>> 30,35,40,45 and 50 ohm.  A via in an 0.090" FR4 board will have a 
>> total length of around 15-16 ps.  (prop delay of a signal in FR4 with 
>> an Er = 4.0 is approximately 170ps/in). The trace to trace path 
>> through the via is modeled as an in-line transmission line, and the 
>> stub is modeled as an open stub transmission.  Both will have the same 
>> impedance, with their delay computed by multiplying the section length 
>> in inchs by 170ps (for FR4). 
>>
>> This type of model will correctly show the stub quarter wave 
>> resonances, any ringing due to impedance discontinuity, and half-wave 
>> resonances that occur between the via and other vias, connectors, 
>> trace mismatches ... etc.  Although the model is approximate, it will 
>> give you a good feel for how vias affect signal transmission.  
>> Transient simulations will show ISI effects, whereas frequency sweeps 
>> will show the more critical frequency domain behavior.
>>
>> Some engineers get hung up on how a via may respond to a particular 
>> edge rate.  However, signal edges are quickly filtered by package and 
>> trace losses.  What I find generally more important is how the via 
>> structure attenuates a propagating signal at the minimum bandwidth 
>> needed to receive the signal on the far end.  This will usually be at 
>> a frequency of 1/2 the bit rate.  In that case, for PCI Express Gen 2, 
>> the frequency of interest is 2.5 GHz, which is far below the bandwidth 
>> required to support a 30 ps signal edge.
>>
>> If signaling period/2 >> via delay, then very little full wave signal 
>> leakage into the planes will occur, and there will be insignificant 
>> impact on the insertion loss of a single trace/via combination.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>>
>>
>> Scott McMorrow
>> Teraspeed Consulting Group LLC
>> 121 North River Drive
>> Narragansett, RI 02882
>> (401) 284-1827 Business
>> (401) 284-1840 Fax
>>  
>> http://www.teraspeed.com
>>  
>> Teraspeed® is the registered service mark of
>> Teraspeed Consulting Group LLC
>>
>>
>>
>> wolfgang.maichen@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:wolfgang.maichen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Joel,
>> actually your numbers are borderline for being concerned. Keep in mind, 
>> the 6x rule is really just a rough rule of thumb. For example, I did a 
>> quick simulation for a signal with 40ps rise time (T10/90), your 7.5 ps 
>> via, assuming the via impedance is 25 Ohms (i.e. it is too capacitive). 
>> Looking at the simulated TDR shows a reflection of about 10%. Now is that 
>> something to be concerned? Depends on your situation.
>>  
>> First, a 10% reflection can cause data dependent jitter of (again, rough 
>> rule of thumb) +/-(Tr x 10%/100) = +/-4 ps. That means your data eye 
>> opening will shrink by 8ps. That assumes the reflection bounces oof the 
>> driver and eventually  makes it to the receiver. If that is an issue will 
>> depend on how large the timing margins in your design are.
>>  
>> Second, you may have more than one via in your path. If you are really 
>> unlucky, then the reflections from both vias just coincide (e.g. 
>> relfection from previous edge coming back from one via, and reflection 
>> from two edges before from second via). If that happens or not will be 
>> highly sensitive to your data rate and to the location of those vias. In 
>> this worst case your eye degradation would now be 16ps.
>>  
>> One the other hand, reflection may not matter too much if your driver is 
>> impedance matched to 50 Ohms (or 100 Ohms differential). That's the case 
>> for many CML drivers, but not for PECL driver (they are around 7 Ohms). In 
>> this case the driver will swallow the reflection.
>>  
>> Similar simple estimates and simulations can be done for e.g. rise time 
>> degradation, or for the stub (e.g. approximate stub and surrounding planes 
>> as a cylindrical capacitor). 
>>  
>>  
>> The way I usually decide how much effort to put into simulation, I usually 
>> start out like this:
>>  
>>  
>> (1) use rough rulse of thumb, order-of-magnitude-estimates, or experience 
>> from previous similar situations to get a feeling where I am. Three 
>> possible outcomes:
>>  
>> - E.g. if the via has 7.5ps prop delay and I am using a signal from a 
>> Microcontroller with 5ns rise time, I can already tell I won't have a 
>> problem. Done. No need to spend a lot of time simulating this, the answer 
>> would stay the same.
>>  
>> - On the other hand, if my rise time is 15ps I can already tell I will 
>> have a big issue. Done. No need to run a lot of simulations to find that 
>> out. Instead spend the effort on figuring out fundamental improvements to 
>> the design: maybe use controlled impedance vias (this may take some field 
>> solver work); maybe I can reduce the board thickness. Maybe I should try 
>> to avoid vias on this critical path, keep it a surface trace. And so on.
>>  
>> - Finally, if it's borderline (like the case above), that's the situation 
>> where I feel a good model and a good simulator adds most value, because 
>> only this can tell me beforehand if I should change my design or if I am 
>> fine.
>>  
>>  
>> (2) once I decided that I have to do more modeling and simulation, I still 
>> wouldn't go straight to the most powerful, complicated, expensive piece of 
>> software I can find. Oftentimes you can get very far with simple, 
>> easy-to-use tools to improve your understanding. Personally I particularly 
>> like the Student version of PSpice (because it can deal with differential 
>> transmission lines), the TNT field solver (from Sourceforge, for 2D 
>> simulations of impedance, crosstalk), and recently Gore's TLineSim (online 
>> tool, http://www.tlinesim.com - lossy lines, eye diagrams and much more). 
>> Other people will have different preferences, and it also depends what you 
>> have access to. Note that the tools I mentioned here are all free, so you 
>> don't have to go to your manager to get budget approval to start playing 
>> around with. I just think that starting out simple helps understand the 
>> basic issues before diving into more sophisticated tools (otherwise you 
>> may spend a lot of time and effort in a top-notch tool just to find out 
>> that your model bears little resemblance to real life).
>>  
>> (3) finally, there are cases when you have to use more sophisticated 
>> tools, but in my experience for most of us that happens less often than 
>> you may think. Of course this is changing when you move to faster and 
>> faster speeds. Also, I believe that understanding of the basic behavior 
>> should come before going to a lot of math (or modeling). Simple tools and 
>> rules of thumb will help you sanity-check any results you get back from 
>> e.g. your high-end 3D simulator. A simple tool combined with good 
>> understanding of your design goes much further than a complicated tool 
>> that you have to trust blindly. E.g. if that full-blown 3D model predicts 
>> 0.01% reflection for the via example above, that would make me highly 
>> suspicious of the result, and I'd immediately go looking for the bug in my 
>> model setup... which wouldn't happen if I had never estimated the rough 
>> effect in the first place.
>>  
>> Wolfgang
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> "Joel Brown" <joel@xxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:joel@xxxxxxxxxx> 
>> 01/10/2008 03:43 PM
>>  
>> To
>> <wolfgang.maichen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:wolfgang.maichen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
>> <Aubrey_Sparkman@xxxxxxxx> <mailto:Aubrey_Sparkman@xxxxxxxx>
>> cc
>> <luant@xxxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:luant@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
>> <mailto:si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
>> <si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject
>> RE: [SI-LIST] Re: 50 Ohm Via?
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Wolfgang,
>>  
>> So I crunched some numbers. Assuming a PCB thickness of .09 inches and the
>> signals travels through the via from top to bottom the prop delay is 7 ps..
>> 6 times this is 42 ps. The minimum rise time for PCI express gen 1 is 50 
>> ps
>> so the via impedance should not be a factor. The minimum rise time for gen 
>> 2
>> is 30 ps so now whether the impedance is a factor is border line. If the
>> signal only travels half way through, now the prop delay is 3.5 ps for the
>> signal with a stub length of 3.5 ps. Does this sound right?
>>  
>> Joel
>>  
>>  
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
>> [mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
>> On
>> Behalf Of wolfgang.maichen@xxxxxxxxxxxx 
>> <mailto:wolfgang.maichen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 3:09 PM
>> To: Aubrey_Sparkman@xxxxxxxx <mailto:Aubrey_Sparkman@xxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: joel@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:joel@xxxxxxxxxx>; luant@xxxxxxxxxxx 
>> <mailto:luant@xxxxxxxxxxx>; si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>> <mailto:si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
>> si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
>> wolfgang.maichen@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:wolfgang.maichen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: 50 Ohm Via?
>>  
>> Aubrey,
>> what I tried to say is, if the transition time through your via (or 
>> through the stub hanging off) is small (rule of thumb < 16/th) of your 
>> signal rise time, then in most cases the impedance of the via structure 
>> does not matter much, and the reflection (and rise time degradation) from 
>> the stub does not matter much (i.e. they have negligiblke influence on 
>> your signal integrity). Of course there are cases when this simple rule 
>> breaks down. E.g. assume a short stub with VERY small clearance to 
>> surrounding planes - this will add a lot of capacitance, so even though 
>> the physical length of the stub may be very short, it's parasitic 
>> capacitance in combination with the transmission line impedance will 
>> create an untolerably large time constant - i.e. a strong reflection, and 
>> strong bandwidth degradation. But in practice such extreme cases are .
>>  
>> If the via impedance is not 50 Ohms, and the transition time through the 
>> via gets into the order of magnitude of your signal rise time, then you 
>> will see the effects of those reflections. In this case it is necessary to 
>>  
>> get the via transition close to 50 Ohms as well so the reflections are 
>> small.
>>  
>> Wolfgang
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> <Aubrey_Sparkman@xxxxxxxx> <mailto:Aubrey_Sparkman@xxxxxxxx> 
>> 01/10/2008 11:56 AM
>>  
>> To
>> <wolfgang.maichen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:wolfgang.maichen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
>> <joel@xxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:joel@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> cc
>> <luant@xxxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:luant@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
>> <mailto:si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
>> <si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject
>> RE: [SI-LIST] Re: 50 Ohm Via?
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> All,
>> I have not been paying close attention to this thread, so feel free to
>> blast me if I'm off base or missed something, but my reaction on what
>> I've read:  If all you have to worry about is the time through the via,
>> then you probably don't have to worry about the via.  My $0.02 on when
>> you really have to worry about vias is when you do a layer transition
>> that causes a dangling stub that causes a resonance in your frequencies
>> of interest.  The thicker the board, the lower the frequency.
>>  
>>  
>> Aubrey Sparkman 
>> Enterprise Engineering Signal Integrity Team 
>> Dell, Inc. 
>> Aubrey_Sparkman@xxxxxxxx <mailto:Aubrey_Sparkman@xxxxxxxx> 
>> (512) 723-3592 
>> "A Measurement for every Model and a Model for every Measurement.
>> Without Correlation, I don't believe either." - Aubrey Sparkman
>>  
>>  
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
>> [mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> On Behalf Of wolfgang.maichen@xxxxxxxxxxxx 
>> <mailto:wolfgang.maichen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 1:02 PM
>> To: Joel Brown
>> Cc: luant@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:luant@xxxxxxxxxxx>; si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>> <mailto:si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
>> si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
>> wolfgang.maichen@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:wolfgang.maichen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: 50 Ohm Via?
>>  
>> Joel,
>> a good estimate for the prop delay is simply
>>  
>> T_prop = length / (speed_of_light x eps_r)
>>  
>> where length is the length of the via, speed_of_light is 30cm/ns (or 6
>> inches/ns) - make sure lengths has the same dimension (cm or inches),
>> and eps_r is the dielectric constant (2.5 ... 4.5 for typical PCB
>> materials). 
>> For example, for a board made out of FR-4 (eps_r approx 4), Of course
>> that does not take into account where the signal traces attach to the
>> via, on the other hand you wouldn't want to have any stubs hanging off
>> that are even close to 1/6th of your signal rise time.
>>  
>> As for loosely vs. closely coupled, that depends. I would NOT recommend
>> leaving out the return vias simply because you have a closely coupled
>> differential pair. That would make your design very sensitive to any
>> common mode component on your signal - causing e.g. excessive EMI. There
>> have benn quite a few threads on this duscussion list in the past.
>>  
>> Regards,
>>  
>> Wolfgang
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> "Joel Brown" <joel@xxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:joel@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> 01/09/2008 08:30 PM
>>  
>> To
>> <wolfgang.maichen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:wolfgang.maichen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
>> <luant@xxxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:luant@xxxxxxxxxxx> cc
>> <si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
>> <si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject
>> RE: [SI-LIST] Re: 50 Ohm Via?
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> Wolfgang,
>>  
>> Your point about how much simulation is worthwhile is well taken.
>> I work for a small company and wear a lot of hats, I am not a full time
>> SI engineer. We do have some tools such as Hyperlynx and Hspice which in
>> my opinion have been under utilized. I know Hyperlynx claims to have
>> some GHz via modeling capability but I am not sure how accurate it is
>> and I don't think it takes the return path such as stitching vias into
>> account. I have been trying to do more simulation as time allows and
>> learning along the way.
>> It's certainly not easy to learn multiple simulation environments and
>> all the pitfalls. I have yet to get to the point to where I can
>> correlate measurements against simulations.
>>  
>> How would I know what the prop delay through a via will be?
>>  
>> To Chris:
>>  
>> I have been reading several places that recommend using loosely coupled
>> differential pairs, that is why I mentioned 50 ohms. I know there are
>> religious beliefs about tightly coupled vs loosely coupled pairs. The
>> material I read regarding loosely coupled pairs mentioned advantages
>> such as wider trace widths for a given impedance and avoiding
>> degradation of rise time caused by coupling between signals within a
>> pair.
>>  
>> Thanks - Joel
>>  
>>  
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
>> [mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> On
>> Behalf Of wolfgang.maichen@xxxxxxxxxxxx 
>> <mailto:wolfgang.maichen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 7:19 PM
>> To: luant@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:luant@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; 
>> si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: 50 Ohm Via?
>>  
>> As a simple rule of thumb:
>> Usually not very important if the prop delay through the via is less
>> than about 1/6th of your signal rise time (you may be able to get away
>> with 1/4th). Rise time is much more important than bit rate or clock
>> frequency. 
>>  
>> As to the number of vias - this can of course aggravate the problem; but
>> on the other hand, I wouldn't attempt to design a 10 Gb/s channel and
>> put in more than maybe two vias...
>>  
>> just my 2 cents
>>  
>> Wolfgang
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> "Tony Luan" <luant@xxxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:luant@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent by: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> 01/09/2008 07:06 PM
>> Please respond to
>> luant@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:luant@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>  
>>  
>> To
>> <si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> cc
>>  
>> Subject
>> [SI-LIST] Re: 50 Ohm Via?
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> How critical the characteristic impedance of via transition is? It
>> depends on the bit rate, channel insertion loss and the number of vias
>> on each channel.=20
>>  
>> BR
>> Tony
>>  
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
>> [mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> On Behalf Of Harry Selfridge
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 6:50 PM
>> To: 'SI LIST'
>> Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: 50 Ohm Via?
>>  
>> There was an article written about controlled impedance vias several=20
>> years ago by Thomas Neu of Texas Instruments.  I haven't seen any=20
>> followup articles by anyone on the subject since.  You can read Neu's=20
>> article online at:
>>  
>> http://www.edn.com/index.asp?layout=3Darticle&articleid=3DCA324403 
>> <http://www.edn.com/index.asp?layout=3Darticle&articleid=3DCA324403> .
>>  
>> Others may have experienced different results, but I've never found=20
>> controlled impedance vias to be necessary or useful.  The distances=20
>> involved in a via are so short that any pretense of matching=20
>> impedance is negligible compared with other variations that you might=20
>> encounter over the full length of a signal path.  One board we built=20
>> for a customer provided two signal paths, one with Neu's controlled=20
>> impedance vias, and duplicates without.  Testing of the loaded board=20
>> showed no appreciable difference in performance, and the loss of=20
>> board space to the structure necessary to achieve the controlled=20
>> impedance vias was considerable.
>>  
>> Regards - Harry
>>  
>> At 05:51 PM 1/9/2008, you wrote:
>>   
>>     
>>> Is there such a thing as a design methodology for designing a PCB via
>>>     
>>>       
>> with
>>   
>>     
>>> 50 ohm impedance, or does it have to be done iteratively using a 3D
>>>     
>>>       
>> field
>>   
>>     
>>> solver?
>>> Are controlled impedance vias necessary, worthwhile or helpful for
>>> multi-gigabit serial links running at 1 to 5 Gbps?
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>> Thanks - Joel
>>>     
>>>       
>>  
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from si-list:
>> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> with 
>> 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field
>>  
>> or to administer your membership from a web page, go to:
>> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
>>  
>> For help:
>> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> with 
>> 'help' in the Subject field
>>  
>>  
>> List technical documents are available at:
>>                 http://www.si-list.net
>>  
>> List archives are viewable at:    =20
>>  
>> http://www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
>> or at our remote archives:
>>  
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages
>> Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
>>                                  http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
>>  =20
>>  
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from si-list:
>> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> with 
>> 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field
>>  
>> or to administer your membership from a web page, go to:
>> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
>>  
>> For help:
>> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> with 
>> 'help' in the Subject field
>>  
>>  
>> List technical documents are available at:
>>                 http://www.si-list.net
>>  
>> List archives are viewable at: 
>>  
>> http://www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
>> or at our remote archives:
>>  
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages
>> Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
>>                                  http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from si-list:
>> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> with 
>> 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field
>>  
>> or to administer your membership from a web page, go to:
>> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
>>  
>> For help:
>> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> with 
>> 'help' in the Subject field
>>  
>>  
>> List technical documents are available at:
>>                 http://www.si-list.net
>>  
>> List archives are viewable at: 
>>  
>> http://www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
>> or at our remote archives:
>>  
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages
>> Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
>>                                  http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from si-list:
>> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> with 
>> 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field
>>  
>> or to administer your membership from a web page, go to:
>> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
>>  
>> For help:
>> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> with 
>> 'help' in the Subject field
>>  
>>  
>> List technical documents are available at:
>>                 http://www.si-list.net
>>  
>> List archives are viewable at: 
>>                                  http://www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
>> or at our remote archives:
>>  
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages
>> Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
>>                                  http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from si-list:
>> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> with 
>> 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field
>>  
>> or to administer your membership from a web page, go to:
>> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
>>  
>> For help:
>> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> with 
>> 'help' in the Subject field
>>  
>>  
>> List technical documents are available at:
>>                 http://www.si-list.net
>>  
>> List archives are viewable at: 
>>                                  http://www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
>> or at our remote archives:
>>                                  
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages
>> Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
>>                                  http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from si-list:
>> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> with 
>> 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field
>>  
>> or to administer your membership from a web page, go to:
>> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
>>  
>> For help:
>> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> with 
>> 'help' in the Subject field
>>  
>>  
>> List technical documents are available at:
>>                 http://www.si-list.net
>>  
>> List archives are viewable at:     
>>                http://www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
>> or at our remote archives:
>>                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages
>> Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
>>                http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
>>   
>>  
>>  
>>   
>>     
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from si-list:
> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field
>
> or to administer your membership from a web page, go to:
> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list
>
> For help:
> si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field
>
>
> List technical documents are available at:
>                 http://www.si-list.net
>
> List archives are viewable at:     
>               http://www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
> or at our remote archives:
>               http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages
> Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
>               http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
>   
>
>
>   



------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from si-list:
si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field

or to administer your membership from a web page, go to:
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list

For help:
si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field


List technical documents are available at:
                http://www.si-list.net

List archives are viewable at:     
                http://www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
or at our remote archives:
                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages
Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
                http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu

Other related posts: