[R-390] frequency counter project is working!!
Drew P.
drewrailleur807 at yahoo.com
Sat Dec 26 13:36:37 EST 2009
On his connection of a DRO to his R-390A, Frank wrote:
"Thanks to all for curing my acute senility, here is how the project
turned out:
http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x257/fish1_07/displays.jpg
I bought the counter from Ron:
http://electronicspecialtyproducts.com/dd103.html"
Very nice.
The only improvement I would make is to modify the display to nixie tubes, remove the Veeder-Root, and put the nixies where the Veeder-Root was.
That would be beautiful, simply beautiful...
Drew
--- On Sat, 12/26/09, r-390-request at mailman.qth.net <r-390-request at mailman.qth.net> wrote:
> From: r-390-request at mailman.qth.net <r-390-request at mailman.qth.net>
> Subject: R-390 Digest, Vol 68, Issue 18
> To: r-390 at mailman.qth.net
> Date: Saturday, December 26, 2009, 7:55 AM
> Send R-390 mailing list submissions
> to
> r-390 at mailman.qth.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help'
> to
> r-390-request at mailman.qth.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> r-390-owner at mailman.qth.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
> specific
> than "Re: Contents of R-390 digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Best approach for SSB mod on
> R-390A (David Wise)
> 2. Re: frequency counter connection point
> (2002tii)
> 3. Re: Best approach for SSB mod on
> R-390A (2002tii)
> 4. A R-390A carrier level defective
> -Happy New Year for all !
> (samuel rocha)
> 5. frequency counter project is working!!
> (frankshughes at aim.com)
> 6. Re: Best approach for SSB mod on
> R-390A (Cecil Acuff)
> 7. Re: frequency counter project is
> working!! (JAMES BRANNIGAN)
> 8. Re: Best approach for SSB mod on
> R-390A (2002tii)
> 9. Re: Best approach for SSB mod on
> R-390A (Les Locklear)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 10:00:02 -0800
> From: David Wise <David_Wise at Phoenix.com>
> Subject: Re: [R-390] Best approach for SSB mod on R-390A
> To: "r-390 at mailman.qth.net"
> <r-390 at mailman.qth.net>
> Message-ID:
> <339D67D3FFE9984AADF43212D53D0ED810757DD5F0 at hil-exch2k7.phoenix.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> My SE-3's oscillator is very steady.
> I wonder if there are good ones and bad ones.
>
> Also, without manual controls, the detector has to
> guess the operator's intentions, based on, say,
> tuning rate. I don't like machines trying to
> read my mind, because they usually get it wrong.
> For me it's better to have direct hands-on control.
>
> My only complaints have been the lack of a noise
> limiter and lack of a 5kHz notch filter in addition
> to the 10kHz filter.
>
> I've bookmarked your recommendations.
> Sometime I'll build one or more and report my
> experience using them vs the SE-3. Or if anyone
> local has built one, let's get get together and try
> it out next to my SE-3.
>
> Dave Wise
> SWL in Hillsboro Oregon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: r-390-bounces at mailman.qth.net
> [mailto:r-390-bounces at mailman.qth.net]
> On Behalf Of 2002tii
> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 5:06 PM
> To: r-390 at mailman.qth.net
> Subject: Re: [R-390] Best approach for SSB mod on R-390A
>
> Cecil wrote:
>
> >I would love to hear from anyone that might own some of
> these outboard
> >devices...I know there were several of the earlier
> PD-1's out there and
> >a few SE-3's as well....
>
> I have an SE-3 and frankly, in my view, it's not worth the
> time it would take to toss it into the trash. Anyone
> who has used a properly designed synchronous detector would
> just laugh at it. IMO, the esteem in which it seems to
> be held in some quarters shows how few hams and SWLs have
> used a properly designed synchronous detector.
>
> The SE-3 oscillator is not temperature compensated, and it
> drifts beyond the ability of the frequency trim capacitor to
> center it as the temperature changes. I had to drill a
> hole in the top cover above the tuning coil and leave a
> tuning tool poking out the top to tweak it. The
> capture and lock-in ranges and behaviors were also not well
> chosen, necessitating that the user manually "guide" the PLL
> into lock. All in all, a very poor effort, IMO.
> PLL design is just not that difficult.
>
> NOTE: the above comments pertain primarily to using an SE-3
> as an AM synchronous detector. It's OK as a
> BFO/product detector, but far from state of the art even for
> that use. The SE-3 does not have IF filtering or AGC
> -- it depends on the host radio for those functions.
>
> For anyone interested in constructing a properly working
> synchronous detector, here are three of the many references
> you will find through a web search:
>
> http://www.premium-rx.org/ref/amsynchronous.pdf
>
> http://webpages.charter.net/wa1sov/technical/sync_det.html
>
> http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/pdf/9307028.pdf
>
> Best regards,
>
> Don
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 13:26:21 -0500
> From: 2002tii <bmw2002tii at nerdshack.com>
> Subject: Re: [R-390] frequency counter connection point
> To: R-390 at mailman.qth.net
> Message-ID: <20091225182631.D60D0157544 at karen.lavabit.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii";
> format=flowed
>
> Tom wrote:
>
> >The other problem, as we all well know, are the minor
> variations in
> >the crystals in the first and second mixer. So in
> the end, the
> >accuracy would depend on the other mixers.
>
> You should be able to program one of the programmable
> readouts to
> account for these variations, if you have the patience and
> either
> know the actual crystal frequencies or can determine the
> band error
> accurately by receiving a reference signal.
>
> Alternatively, as long as one is adding stuff to the radio,
> one could
> use a good, stable oscillator -- HP 10811 OXO, rubidium
> standard,
> GPS-disciplined OXO, cesium clock, hydrogen maser, whatever
> -- and
> build a synthesizer to generate all of the oscillators for
> the
> crystal-controlled mixers. ;-)
>
> Best regards,
>
> Don
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 13:57:41 -0500
> From: 2002tii <bmw2002tii at nerdshack.com>
> Subject: Re: [R-390] Best approach for SSB mod on R-390A
> To: "r-390 at mailman.qth.net"
> <r-390 at mailman.qth.net>
> Message-ID: <20091225185751.52D3D11B84E at karen.lavabit.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii";
> format=flowed
>
> Dave wrote:
>
> >Also, without manual controls, the detector has to
> guess the
> >operator's intentions, based on, say, tuning rate.
>
> For this reason, it's better to have the SAM detector in
> the box with
> the tuning -- you can then either turn the oscillator off
> and revert
> to an envelope detector for tuning around, or (my
> preference) just
> center the oscillator during tuning so one hears the
> carrier
> heterodynes. I prefer to hear the carrier heterodynes
> while tuning,
> and have found with my SAM designs that it's not difficult
> to adjust
> the PLL characteristics so that the action is invisible
> while tuning,
> even if the SAM demodulator is external and doesn't know
> when you're
> tuning. IMO, the need for manual guidance into lock
> is a design of
> necessity (because the loop characteristics were ill-chosen
> and the
> PLL therefore did not exhibit benign behavior while
> tuning), not an
> original ergonomic specification.
>
> >Sometime I'll build one or more and report my
> experience using them
> >vs the SE-3. Or if anyone local has built one,
> let's get get
> >together and try it out next to my SE-3.
>
> One I didn't mention in that post because I don't know of
> an on-line
> copy of the manual: the Drake R8B has a truly excellent
> SSSAM
> detector. If you're going to build, a study of that
> schematic and
> the accompanying discussion of the theory of operation will
>
> undoubtedly be very rewarding. Drake chose to turn
> the oscillator
> off and revert to an envelope detector for tuning around,
> so the PLL
> loop dynamics would probably need to be tweaked to use it
> in "tuning
> with the oscillator on" mode. (I keep meaning to
> convert mine, but
> haven't gotten around to it.) Of the links I posted,
> my expectation
> from a not very thorough design review is that the Surrey
> Electronics
> unit may be quite good, but I have never used one.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Don
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 20:25:38 -0200
> From: samuel rocha <battcharger at gmail.com>
> Subject: [R-390] A R-390A carrier level defective -Happy
> New Year for
> all !
> To: R-390 at mailman.qth.net
> Message-ID:
> <56e523900912251425g1eec0dc9q888cfc220959877d at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> R-390A, Stewart Warner serial #4338
>
> I had already made the R390A basic maintenance tips by Don
> Reaves,W5OR -
> Changed all the bad capacitors and weak tubes and I got the
> receiver working
> with a few problems, so I need help from the Group. I also
> made the R390-A
> Carrier Meter Zero Adjust Modification, but the carrier
> level meter only
> moves slightly with a very strong signal. Would like to
> wish all of you a
> Happy New Year! Sam Rocha, PY1 DKW, Brazil.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 20:41:52 -0500
> From: frankshughes at aim.com
> Subject: [R-390] frequency counter project is working!!
> To: r-390 at mailman.qth.net
> Message-ID: <8CC53E3BBB16328-4428-546CF at webmail-m020.sysops.aol.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii";
> format=flowed
>
> Hi,
> Thanks to all for curing my acute senility, here is how the
> project
> turned out:
>
> http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x257/fish1_07/displays.jpg
>
> I bought the counter from Ron:
> http://electronicspecialtyproducts.com/dd103.html
>
> I understand that as it only detects the PTO frequency,
> accuracy is not
> ideal w/o the other inputs
> properly accounted for.
>
> I might experiment with this other unit (Thanks Bob)
> http://www.aade.com/dfd2.htm
>
> to see if I can adapt it to the R-390A for more accuracy.
>
> If not, I'll put it on the 32S-3.
>
> What I am trying to accomplish, (other than collect more
> piles of
> lights, displays, knobs, buttons...)
> is to find a way to use the 32S-3 to transmit on a known
> frequency for
> SSB, and be able to easily
> tune the R-390A to receive on that frequency.
>
> There is probably a better way, but as I am new to this
> hobby,
> collecting more piles of gear seems indicated.
>
> 73's
> Frank
> KJ4OLL
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:42:51 -0600
> From: "Cecil Acuff" <chacuff at cableone.net>
> Subject: Re: [R-390] Best approach for SSB mod on R-390A
> To: "David Wise" <David_Wise at Phoenix.com>,
> <r-390 at mailman.qth.net>
> Message-ID:
> <E34B92C205FA4B2A9DF2A067C0FEA0F8 at acuffmain>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed;
> charset="iso-8859-1";
> reply-type=original
>
> Somehow I didn't get Don's post...
>
> Don I would say yours is broken...that is not at all the
> experience I have
> seen nor heard from a local that used one for a very long
> time.
>
> Sherwood is also very particular about his designs and
> would probably invite
> it to be sent to him for evaluation.
>
> Cecil...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Wise" <David_Wise at Phoenix.com>
> To: <r-390 at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Friday, December 25, 2009 12:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [R-390] Best approach for SSB mod on R-390A
>
>
> > My SE-3's oscillator is very steady.
> > I wonder if there are good ones and bad ones.
> >
> > Also, without manual controls, the detector has to
> > guess the operator's intentions, based on, say,
> > tuning rate. I don't like machines trying to
> > read my mind, because they usually get it wrong.
> > For me it's better to have direct hands-on control.
> >
> > My only complaints have been the lack of a noise
> > limiter and lack of a 5kHz notch filter in addition
> > to the 10kHz filter.
> >
> > I've bookmarked your recommendations.
> > Sometime I'll build one or more and report my
> > experience using them vs the SE-3. Or if anyone
> > local has built one, let's get get together and try
> > it out next to my SE-3.
> >
> > Dave Wise
> > SWL in Hillsboro Oregon
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: r-390-bounces at mailman.qth.net
> [mailto:r-390-bounces at mailman.qth.net]
>
> > On Behalf Of 2002tii
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 5:06 PM
> > To: r-390 at mailman.qth.net
> > Subject: Re: [R-390] Best approach for SSB mod on
> R-390A
> >
> > Cecil wrote:
> >
> >>I would love to hear from anyone that might own
> some of these outboard
> >>devices...I know there were several of the earlier
> PD-1's out there and
> >>a few SE-3's as well....
> >
> > I have an SE-3 and frankly, in my view, it's not worth
> the time it would
> > take to toss it into the trash. Anyone who has
> used a properly designed
> > synchronous detector would just laugh at it.
> IMO, the esteem in which it
> > seems to be held in some quarters shows how few hams
> and SWLs have used a
> > properly designed synchronous detector.
> >
> > The SE-3 oscillator is not temperature compensated,
> and it drifts beyond
> > the ability of the frequency trim capacitor to center
> it as the
> > temperature changes. I had to drill a hole in
> the top cover above the
> > tuning coil and leave a tuning tool poking out the top
> to tweak it. The
> > capture and lock-in ranges and behaviors were also not
> well chosen,
> > necessitating that the user manually "guide" the PLL
> into lock. All in
> > all, a very poor effort, IMO. PLL design is just
> not that difficult.
> >
> > NOTE: the above comments pertain primarily to using an
> SE-3 as an AM
> > synchronous detector. It's OK as a BFO/product
> detector, but far from
> > state of the art even for that use. The SE-3
> does not have IF filtering
> > or AGC -- it depends on the host radio for those
> functions.
> >
> > For anyone interested in constructing a properly
> working synchronous
> > detector, here are three of the many references you
> will find through a
> > web search:
> >
> > http://www.premium-rx.org/ref/amsynchronous.pdf
> >
> > http://webpages.charter.net/wa1sov/technical/sync_det.html
> >
> > http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/pdf/9307028.pdf
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Don
> >
> ______________________________________________________________
> > R-390 mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> > Post: mailto:R-390 at mailman.qth.net
> >
> > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 22:57:04 -0500 (EST)
> From: JAMES BRANNIGAN <jbrannig at optonline.net>
> Subject: Re: [R-390] frequency counter project is
> working!!
> To: frankshughes at aim.com
> Cc: r-390 at mailman.qth.net
> Message-ID:
> <18080972.664071.1261799824816.JavaMail.jbrannig at mail.srv.hcvlny2.cv.net>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed;
> delsp=no
>
> Frank,
> You are going to have the same issues with the 32S-3.
> It is also a heterodyne unit.
>
> I don't know if "spot" or "sync" on the 32S-3 will put out
> enough RF to
> hear on the R-390A, so
> put a dummy load in the circuit, put the 32S-3 in tune and
> tune the
> R-390A for zero beat.
>
> Jim
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 25, 2009 at 8:41 PM, frankshughes at aim.com
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > Thanks to all for curing my acute senility, here is
> how the project
> > turned out:
> >
> > http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x257/fish1_07/displays.jpg
> >
> > I bought the counter from Ron:
> > http://electronicspecialtyproducts.com/dd103.html
> >
> > I understand that as it only detects the PTO
> frequency, accuracy is
> > not ideal w/o the other inputs
> > properly accounted for.
> >
> > I might experiment with this other unit (Thanks Bob)
> > http://www.aade.com/dfd2.htm
> >
> > to see if I can adapt it to the R-390A for more
> accuracy.
> >
> > If not, I'll put it on the 32S-3.
> >
> > What I am trying to accomplish, (other than collect
> more piles of
> > lights, displays, knobs, buttons...)
> > is to find a way to use the 32S-3 to transmit on a
> known frequency for
> > SSB, and be able to easily
> > tune the R-390A to receive on that frequency.
> >
> > There is probably a better way, but as I am new to
> this hobby,
> > collecting more piles of gear seems indicated.
> >
> > 73's
> > Frank
> > KJ4OLL
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2009 23:51:11 -0500
> From: 2002tii <bmw2002tii at nerdshack.com>
> Subject: Re: [R-390] Best approach for SSB mod on R-390A
> To: r-390 at mailman.qth.net
> Message-ID: <20091226045256.4B82011B852 at karen.lavabit.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii";
> format=flowed
>
> Regarding my comments about the SE-3, Cecil wrote:
>
> >that is not at all the experience I have seen nor heard
> from a local
> >that used one for a very long time.
>
> All the ones I've seen perform similarly. Some folks
> may have
> tighter temperature control in their shacks than I do, so
> the lack of
> temperature compensation may not be a practical problem for
> some
> users. However, the need for manual guidance
> (intolerable in a PLL
> demodulator, IMO) is no secret -- it is described on the
> manufacturer's web site.
>
> I've designed and built more than a few different PLL
> detectors over
> the last 30 years, and the worst of the bunch performed a
> lot
> better. There are also commercial designs that
> perform well. I
> think the folks who sing the SE-3s praises do so simply
> because they
> haven't used a PLL detector that works as one could (and
> should). Horse-drawn buggies must seem really fast to
> someone who
> hasn't ever seen a car. If an SE-3 fills someone's
> needs, fine --
> but it is far from the best that can be done, and the price
> is
> outlandish (IMO) in light of this shortfall.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Don
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 06:54:58 -0600
> From: "Les Locklear" <leslocklear at cableone.net>
> Subject: Re: [R-390] Best approach for SSB mod on R-390A
> To: "Cecil Acuff" <chacuff at cableone.net>,
> "David Wise"
> <David_Wise at Phoenix.com>,
> <r-390 at mailman.qth.net>
> Message-ID: <E467F7B70EF74558B3CB3B083C10B576 at zion>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> I have owned three over thje years in two different
> configurations. Never a drift problem. Unlesss you have it
> in a glass greenhouse or an unheated garage in International
> Falls, Minnesota in winter there should be any drift
> problem. I sed one with a Drake R-7A which is in itself
> drifty. A R-390a which drifted maybe 200 hz on a bad day.
> The last was a SP-600 which drifted 1-2 khz depending which
> band it was on. The SE-3 that Don has has to have a faulty
> component.
>
> Les Locklear
> Hammarlund HQ-180A
> Hammarlund SP-600 Re-Engineered by John R. Leary
> JRC NRD-545
> Ten Tec RX-350
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Cecil Acuff
> To: David Wise ; r-390 at mailman.qth.net
>
> Sent: Friday, December 25, 2009 9:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [R-390] Best approach for SSB mod on
> R-390A
>
>
> Somehow I didn't get Don's post...
>
> Don I would say yours is broken...that is not at all
> the experience I have
> seen nor heard from a local that used one for a very
> long time.
>
> Sherwood is also very particular about his designs
> and would probably invite
> it to be sent to him for evaluation.
>
> Cecil...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Wise" <David_Wise at Phoenix.com>
> To: <r-390 at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Friday, December 25, 2009 12:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [R-390] Best approach for SSB mod on
> R-390A
>
>
> > My SE-3's oscillator is very steady.
> > I wonder if there are good ones and bad ones.
> >
> > Also, without manual controls, the detector has
> to
> > guess the operator's intentions, based on,
> say,
> > tuning rate. I don't like machines trying
> to
> > read my mind, because they usually get it
> wrong.
> > For me it's better to have direct hands-on
> control.
> >
> > My only complaints have been the lack of a
> noise
> > limiter and lack of a 5kHz notch filter in
> addition
> > to the 10kHz filter.
> >
> > I've bookmarked your recommendations.
> > Sometime I'll build one or more and report my
> > experience using them vs the SE-3. Or if
> anyone
> > local has built one, let's get get together and
> try
> > it out next to my SE-3.
> >
> > Dave Wise
> > SWL in Hillsboro Oregon
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: r-390-bounces at mailman.qth.net
> [mailto:r-390-bounces at mailman.qth.net]
>
> > On Behalf Of 2002tii
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 5:06 PM
> > To: r-390 at mailman.qth.net
> > Subject: Re: [R-390] Best approach for SSB mod
> on R-390A
> >
> > Cecil wrote:
> >
> >>I would love to hear from anyone that might
> own some of these outboard
> >>devices...I know there were several of the
> earlier PD-1's out there and
> >>a few SE-3's as well....
> >
> > I have an SE-3 and frankly, in my view, it's
> not worth the time it would
> > take to toss it into the trash. Anyone
> who has used a properly designed
> > synchronous detector would just laugh at
> it. IMO, the esteem in which it
> > seems to be held in some quarters shows how few
> hams and SWLs have used a
> > properly designed synchronous detector.
> >
> > The SE-3 oscillator is not temperature
> compensated, and it drifts beyond
> > the ability of the frequency trim capacitor to
> center it as the
> > temperature changes. I had to drill a
> hole in the top cover above the
> > tuning coil and leave a tuning tool poking out
> the top to tweak it. The
> > capture and lock-in ranges and behaviors were
> also not well chosen,
> > necessitating that the user manually "guide"
> the PLL into lock. All in
> > all, a very poor effort, IMO. PLL design
> is just not that difficult.
> >
> > NOTE: the above comments pertain primarily to
> using an SE-3 as an AM
> > synchronous detector. It's OK as a
> BFO/product detector, but far from
> > state of the art even for that use. The
> SE-3 does not have IF filtering
> > or AGC -- it depends on the host radio for
> those functions.
> >
> > For anyone interested in constructing a
> properly working synchronous
> > detector, here are three of the many references
> you will find through a
> > web search:
> >
> > http://www.premium-rx.org/ref/amsynchronous.pdf
> >
> > http://webpages.charter.net/wa1sov/technical/sync_det.html
> >
> > http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/pdf/9307028.pdf
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Don
> >
> ______________________________________________________________
> > R-390 mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> > Post: mailto:R-390 at mailman.qth.net
> >
> > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> R-390 mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:R-390 at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.724 / Virus Database: 270.14.120/2587 -
> Release Date: 12/26/09 02:27:00
> -------------- next part --------------
>
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.724 / Virus Database: 270.14.120/2587 -
> Release Date: 12/26/09 02:27:00
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> R-390 mailing list
> R-390 at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/r-390
>
>
> End of R-390 Digest, Vol 68, Issue 18
> *************************************
>
More information about the R-390
mailing list