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: >> //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 >> >> //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: >> //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: >> >> //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: >> //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: >> >> //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: >> //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: >> //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: >> //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: >> //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: >> //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: >> //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: > //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: > //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: //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: //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