We have no ax to grind in this matter. All we have done is present some
objective measurements comparing the two styles of capacitors.
We are not selling anything. The other set of measurements is clearly selling
something.
All of you can do what you will with the information. It is your engineering
choice.
Debating small changes in the layout isn't going to materially change the
results.
When you mount an 8 leaded IDC capacitor and connect it to its power planes the
same thing happens. The mounting inductance swamps out the intrinsic
inductance of the capacitor and it performs little better than a well mounted
0402 capacitor.
-----Original Message-----
From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of Elliott Martinson
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 11:16 AM
To: 'SI-LIST' <si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: X2Y equivalent circuit model
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1ZIPP8EPBVaQVlIMmVPT01vT0U/view?usp=sharing
I took a screen capture the layout from the .pdf linked to below, and put it
next to the x2y recommended layout, which also includes the Zasio paper land
pattern. This way it's very easy to compare.
Elliott Martinson
-----Original Message-----
From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of Lee Ritchey
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 12:00 PM
To: x2y@xxxxxxx; sg-listas@xxxxxxxxxxxx; 'SI-LIST' <si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: 'John Zasio' <zasio@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: X2Y equivalent circuit model
Just a series of closing comments on this topic.
Someone from Johanson responded on this forum that the layout used on John
Zasio's test PCB was never recommended by the vendor. I refer the reader to
this document on their web site.
http://www.johansondielectrics.com/downloads/jdi-x2y-2014-10.pdf
It clearly shows this mounting pattern John used as the alternative to a 2 via
mounting for an 0402 capacitor.
As to the testing that Steve Weir did for the X2Y capacitor, one must bear in
mind that Steve did this under contract to Johanson and, so cannot be
considered as an independent, objective test.
The tests that John Zasio did were intended to see if, when used in a power
delivery system, the X2Y capacitor delivered superior performance over a simple
0402 capacitor. The improved performance would need to be significant to
warrant its extra cost and single sourcing. Clearly, this is not so in spite
of the claims made by the vendor. The same is true for IDC capacitors.
The reason is that the mounting inductance, mostly the inductance of the vias
needed to reach into the planes to which they connect are made, dominate over
the inductance of the capacitor itself.
This is true for nearly all capacitors used in a PDS. This had been documented
in several papers including some authored by responders on this forum.
Nuff said.
Lee RItchey
-----Original Message-----
From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of David Anthony
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 9:31 PM
To: leeritchey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; sg-listas@xxxxxxxxxxxx; 'SI-LIST'
<si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: 'John Zasio' <zasio@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: X2Y equivalent circuit model
No disparaging comments here, just a clean Engineering discussion about
inductance and John's results:
https://www.freelists.org/post/si-list/6-layers-stackup,31 ;
-Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of Lee Ritchey
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 1:00 PM
To: sg-listas@xxxxxxxxxxxx; 'SI-LIST'
Cc: John Zasio
Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: X2Y equivalent circuit model
Todd,
Well said.
As to the tests that John Zasio did, they were done on a 16 layer PCB with
plane capacitance designed into it as one would do for a high performance
design.
The testing was done as one would do to see how the PDS impedance looks with
either of the two capacitors connected. The results show that, in this
configuration, there is little difference with respect to PDS performance.
From a PDS point of view, they don't offer anything more than an 0402 as you
point out.
It has been a long time since I looked at the way Steve did his tests. I'll
have another look and see if I can find how he gets different answers.
Lee
-----Original Message-----
From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of Sebastian Garcia
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 9:23 AM
To: SI-LIST <si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: X2Y equivalent circuit model
Well said, Todd. No more black magic, please, just well done Engineering.
Without solid engineering documents describing repeatable tests, it turns to be
a battle of professional egos spiced with commercial interests.
Sebas.
Todd Hubing wrote:
I think what Sebastian and others would like to see is a paperconfiguration.
describing the board and the measurements that were made. The slide
presentations on the website are interesting, but they do not describe
the board stackup or the measurements that were made to justify the
conclusions. In fact, in the 10 years since this work was done, it has
been effectively demonstrated that the conclusions related to
capacitor ratio and via ratio are not justified. The impedance of the
board in this study was not significantly affected by the connection
inductance of the decoupling capacitors above about 200 MHz. Also, the
extra vias on the 0402 capacitors have relatively little effect on the
mounting inductance and do not represent a typical or recommended
mounting
I don't mean to disparage Steve's work or X2Y capacitors. I talked tothan to say "always" or "never"
Steve when he exhibited this at the IEEE EMC Symposium. His board does
a great job of presenting X2Y capacitors in a favorable light, which
is exactly what it was designed to do. It's actually a very clever design.
Also, the X2Y capacitors themselves represent a well thought-out
design with many useful applications.
My point is that an optimum decoupling strategy depends on many
factors including the board stackup, active device requirements and
the intended application. 0402 MLCC capacitors do an excellent job of
high-frequency decoupling in most situations if they are properly
configured for the given application. If lower inductance is called
for, there are other options including embedded capacitance, IDC
capacitors, and 0201 capacitors. I have not seen an application where
X2Y capacitors, are the best option for power bus decoupling.
Nevertheless, I've been in this business long enough that I know
better
and I would be very interested to review any published paper thatwebsite:
describes measurements and/or simulations on this topic.
Todd
-----Original Message-----
From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of David Anthony
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 11:24 PM
To: tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; sg-listas@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'SI-LIST' <si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: X2Y equivalent circuit model
Sebastian, the design papers Tom referenced showing system
measurements by Steve can be found here:
http://www.x2y.com/bypass.htm#examples
Dave Anthony
X2Y
-----Original Message-----
From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Tom Dagostino
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2016 10:52 PM
To: sg-listas@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: SI-LIST
Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: X2Y equivalent circuit model
Sebastian. I'm traveling right now and don't have access to those
archives. But look at the work by Steve on the X2Y web page. I think
you will find what you are looking for there.
Tom Dagostino
Teraspeed LabsOn Mar 13, 2016 8:13 PM, Sebastian Garcia
<sg-listas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tom,
Could you shed some light on this, providing the specific Steve
Weir's documents you mention, please?
Best regards,
Sebas.
Sebastian Garcia
Slabs Electronics
Buenos Aires - Argentina
+54 911 3865 1770
Tom Dagostino wrote:
Joelinformation?
The layout I saw and Steve Weir commented on had the vias so far
away from the capacitor that the measured inductance was dominated
by circuit board traces. Steve fitted about 8 proper layouts
within the confines of the layout that Lee mentioned.
I asked Lee about this and he said the layout was something he
found on the X2Y web site I think it was in about 2007.
Since then X2Y has updated the layout and the Work Steve Weir did
has shown that with fewer X2Y caps the power supply noise was lower
compared to 0402 caps. This was shown with two layouts of FPGAs
running the same code and differing only in the caps used.
My issue here is the dragging out of data that does not represent
current recommended applications as proof anything.
I think I still have one of Steve's boards. His method was well
documented with measurements. He set up unused I/O cells high and
low and attached SMAs to them for ease of measurement. So he
showed the supply as the chip saw it.
Regards
Tom Dagostino
Tom Dagostino
Teraspeed LabsOn Mar 13, 2016 11:42 AM, Todd Hubing
<hubing@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I wouldn't characterize the Zasio paper as bad information. It is
a rare (on this mail list) example of someone supporting an
argument with actual data from a test described well enough that
anyone else could repeat it. Yuriy Shlepnev's app note is
another example of this. Both of these studies demonstrate that,
for the configurations evaluated, two
0402 capacitors are probably a better choice than an X2Y cap. Of
course, it is possible to come up with configurations or test
criteria that favor the X2Y also.
For printed circuit board decoupling, the X2Y via configuration is
not optimum. The two capacitors share a pair of ground vias that
must be relatively close to each other. If the power planes are
more than about
0.5 mm from the board surface, an IDC capacitor or a pair of
two-terminal capacitors can achieve better flux cancelation by
alternating closely spaced power and ground vias. That said, if
you're REALLY concerned about high-frequency decoupling, take
Scott McMorrow's advice and use 0201 caps.
Todd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Todd H. Hubing
LearnEMC.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----Original Message-----
From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Tom Dagostino
Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2016 7:00 PM
To: leeritchey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; Charles.Grasso@xxxxxxxxxxxx;
vrbanacm@xxxxxxxxxx; joel@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: X2Y equivalent circuit model
Lee
What was the date was that recommended mounting? Do we still
believe Saturn is the furthest planet from the sun? Has X2Y
changed their recommendations since John did his measurements?Â
Has Steve Weir's work contradicted John's because Steve used the
correct layout? Why are you basing you argument on known bad
instructions given by the vendor.
Tom Dagostino
Teraspeed LabsOn Mar 12, 2016 2:27 AM, Lee Ritchey
<leeritchey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On our web site, www.speedingedge.com you can download the
article by John Zasio showing comparison of X2Y to 0402
capacitors mounted on the same test PCB following the mounting
You can decide for yourself which to use from that data.
This should be the detail that some of you have requested.
Lee Ritchey
-----Original Message-----
From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Joel Brown
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 10:05 AM
To: Charles.Grasso@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: vrbanacm@xxxxxxxxxx; si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: X2Y equivalent circuit model
I thought one of the things that make X2Y capacitors lower
inductance is that the current in each terminal flows in
opposite directions causing a cancellation effect. This is from
X2Y
http://www.x2y.com/bypass/X2Y%20Equivalent%20Circuit%20for%20Models.practices.measurements.
  - Low inductance due to cancellation effect
I used them on some boards back when they came out. I can't say
they worked better than 0402 capacitors because I did not do any
detailed
You really need to consider the whole PDN system including the
mounting inductance, spreading inductance, IC package
parasitics, frequency spoectrum of IC switching current, any
decoupling that might be inside the IC package which is often an
unknown. I think this detailed kind of analysis would be nice to
do but is rarely done. IME I have never had a problem just
following good design
anyone became concerned about PDN performance.
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Grasso, Charles <
Charles.Grasso@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello,
Current thinking has it that the PDN performance is only as
good as the first pwb resonance (typically in the few hundreds
of MHZ - I have seen 300 as a commonly used
number) and
that the BGA decoupling is (for the most part) taken care of
by the substrate capacitance.
In other words - it is my understanding that the board
decouplers don't really need to be "high" performers are the
frequencies of interest are (relatively) low.
I'd appreciate the communities thoughts on this.
[Hello Mike - Good to "see" you again!]
Best Regards
Charles Grasso
Compliance Engineer
Echostar Communications
(w) 303-706-5467
(c) 303-204-2974
(t) 3032042974@xxxxxxxxx
(e) charles.grasso@xxxxxxxxxxxx
(e2) chasgrasso@xxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Michael Vrbanac
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 9:42 AM
To: si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: X2Y equivalent circuit model
I agree that Steve had this correct. I had some offline
discussions w/Steve back in that timeframe and between that
and the decoupling capacitor/PDN performance optimization
research studies we did at in my EMC design research lab at
Compaq on this topic back in the early 90's, also considering
"side mounted decoupling capacitors" (yes, that format was
around back then) because we were already seeing EMC issues
long before
'recommendations'parameters.Anyway, Steve and I were in agreement that they worked wellScott's recent input on this re:
enough but that the layout and placement were absolutely
critical which agrees with
spreading inductance and placement distance. If it matters, we
had the test boards micro-sectioned after the fact to make
absolutely sure that we made no assumptions about mounting
dimensional
practice.IIRC, someone on that team later wrote a paper on part of that
study (not all) but I have since forgotten its title and the
name of fe llow who wrote it. Sorry I cannot remember who but
that was back in the days when my head was handed to me daily
for saying what this forum has rightly understood these days
as good engineering
It was heresy back then. BTW, as you might guess, the resultshelps.
of that study back then were in good agreement with most of
what has been posted on here as good design practice for quite
some time. I hope that
Michael E. Vrbanac
EMC Forensics, President
On 03/11/2016 10:00 AM, David Anthony wrote:
Lee, the vendors dimensionally detail land pad
Anderson''poor'forX2Y, but stay away from dimensioning specific via layouts.
Scroll down to Johanson's 'PCB mounting' tab at this link:
http://www.johansondielectrics.com/x2y-filter-decoupling-capin the PDN Bypass applications section, notice the
a
citor
s#
pcb
Below the land pad dimensions, Johanson shows 'stick' figure
via layouts
'recommended' and
layout depictions, no dimensions. If any vendor sent you, orpreached:
you downloaded a vendor document specifying the poor layout
please send it to me. Steve would not specify that poor layout
as you suggest, these early 2004-05 papers are just a few
examples of the low inductance he
http://www.ipblox.com/pubs/DesignConEast_2005/DesignCon%20East
Bypass Capacitor Inductance, Data Sheet Simplicity to
Practical Reality
%
20200
5%
20TF2_ipb.pdf
On Behalf Of Lee Ritchey
Considerations for Capacitor Selection in FPGA Designs
http://www.x2y.com/publications/decoupling/mar21-05.pdf
-Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 1:07 AMCharles.Grasso@xxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Ray Anderson'
To: tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Ray Anderson';
cristian.gozzi@xxxxxxxxx;
Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: X2Y equivalent circuit modelvendor. I believe that that layout was specified by
The board layout complied exactly with what was specified by
the
Steve. IT looks like what is on his test PCB.
On Behalf Of Tom Dagostino
-----Original Message-----
From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2016 10:19 AMcristian.gozzi@xxxxxxxxx; Charles.Grasso@xxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Ray
To: leeritchey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'Ray Anderson' <raya@xxxxxxxxxx>;
Anderson'< ray.anderson@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: X2Y equivalent circuit modelwas incorrect.
Lee you know that board was not the optimal layout. Steve
told you it
Tom Dagostinoleeritchey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Tom Dagostino
Teraspeed LabsOn Mar 9, 2016 8:30 AM, Lee Ritchey <
We mounted the X2Y capacitors exactly as specified in the
applications notes provided by the vendor.
-----Original Message-----
From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Grasso, ;
Charles
Sent: Monday, March 7, 2016 7:46 AM
To: leeritchey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; cristian.gozzi@xxxxxxxxx;
'Ray
OK).<ray.anderson@xxxxxxxxxx>; si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Ray Anderson' <raya@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: X2Y equivalent circuit model
Hello Lee - What method is used for a capacitor to be
properly mounted? So, if an X2Y capacitor is properly
mounted the <insert metric here> will not improve?
Best Regards
Charles Grasso
Compliance Engineer
Echostar Communications
(w) 303-706-5467
(c) 303-204-2974
(t) 3032042974@xxxxxxxxx
(e) charles.grasso@xxxxxxxxxxxx
(e2) chasgrasso@xxxxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Lee ;
Ritchey
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2016 5:44 AM
To: cristian.gozzi@xxxxxxxxx; 'Ray Anderson';
si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: 'Ray Anderson'
Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: X2Y equivalent circuit model
Our tests show that the X2Y capacitor is no better than a
properly mounted
0402 capacitor.
-----Original Message-----
From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Cristian ;
Gozzi
Sent: Friday, March 4, 2016 10:57 AM
To: Ray Anderson <ray.anderson@xxxxxxxxxx>;
si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Ray Anderson <raya@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [SI-LIST] Re: X2Y equivalent circuit model
Thanks
it worked ;-)
Regards
Cristian
Il giorno gio 3 mar 2016 alle ore 10:04 Ray Anderson <
ray.anderson@xxxxxxxxxx> ha scritto:
Cristian-
Johanson Dielectrics has downloadable spice models
available from this web
page:
http://www.johansondielectrics.com/x2y-filter-decoupling-c
a
pacit
or
s
download link:
http://www.johansondielectrics.com/downloads/JDI_X2Y_H-Spi
c
e_Fil
es
.z
ip
They should be usable in ADS using the ADS 'Hspice
Compatibility Component' Wizard. (in fact I just confirmed
that they import
-Ray Anderson
Xilinx Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Cristian Gozzi
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 9:07 AM
To: si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [SI-LIST] X2Y equivalent circuit model
Hi Si expert
I was looking for a good circuit model for X2Y capacitor
to be used in my ADS circuit simulation
on internet I found this
------------------------------------------------------------------http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpufor?pd
f
but when I tried to implemented it, something was wrong
The impedance vs freq. shapes on log/log scale does not
seem correct
can someone give to me any feedback or good reference to
look
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list
thanks in advance
Regards
Cristian
----------------------------------------------------------
-
-----
--
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 forum is accessible at:
               Â
//www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
List archives are viewable at:
                Â
Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
                Â
Date:http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/si-listattachments immediately.
This email and any attachments are intended for the sole
use of the named
recipient(s) and contain(s) confidential information that
may be proprietary, privileged or copyrighted under
applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, do
not read, copy, or forward this email message or any
attachments. Delete this email message and any
-----------------------------------------------------------
-
-----
-
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 forum is accessible at:
               Â
List archives are viewable at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.6176 / Virus Database: 4537/11744 - Release
http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpuhttp://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list03/04/16
-----------------------------------------------------------
-
-----
-
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 forum is accessible at:
               Â
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list
List archives are viewable at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
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 forum is accessible at:
               Â
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list
List archives are viewable at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
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 forum is accessible at:
               Â
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list------------------------------------------------------------
List archives are viewable at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
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 forum is accessible at:
               Â
//www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
List archives are viewable at:
             Â
Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
             Â
Date:
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.6176 / Virus Database: 4540/11792 - Release
http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpuhttp://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list03/11/16
------------------------------------------------------------
-
----- 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 forum is accessible at:
               Â
//www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
List archives are viewable at:
             Â
Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
             Â
http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpuhttp://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list
------------------------------------------------------------
-
----- 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 forum is accessible at:
               Â
//www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
List archives are viewable at:
             Â
Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
             Â
http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpuhttp://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
---
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 forum is accessible at:
              Â
//www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
List archives are viewable at:
               Â
Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
               Â
http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpuhttp://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list
--------------------------------------------------------------
-
---
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 forum is accessible at:
              Â
//www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
List archives are viewable at:
               Â
Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
               Â
------------------------------------------------------------------http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list
----------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
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 forum is accessible at:
             Â
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list
List archives are viewable at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
Â
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.6176 / Virus Database: 4540/11800 - Release Date:
03/12/16
----------------------------------------------------------------
-
-
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 forum is accessible at:
             Â
------------------------------------------------------------------
List archives are viewable at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
Â
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 forum is accessible at:
             Â
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list
List archives are viewable at:Â Â Â Â
//www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
Â
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 forum is accessible at:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list
List archives are viewable at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
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 forum is accessible at:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list
List archives are viewable at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
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 forum is accessible at:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list
List archives are viewable at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
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 forum is accessible at:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list
List archives are viewable at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
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 forum is accessible at:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list
List archives are viewable at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/si-list
Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at:
http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu
