Subject: Q: OTEC - Any Experiences out there ??

From: [email-masked] (Roland R Clarke)
Date: 9 May 1995 00:09:49 GMT

Hello to All ...

Would someone share with me and the group,
any *experience* with OTEC ??
Are there any references available ??

with appreciaton
Roland

---

From: [email-masked] (David Coote)
Date: Wed, 10 May 95 11:41:47 PST

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] 
says...
>Are there any references available ??

"Sun Traps" by John Elkington (Penguin, 1984) has a section describing 
this technology. I saw a video some years ago which showed a plant 
actually working and generating real live power in Hawaii. The 
representative of the plant when interviewed seemed most upset that 
given the success (technical and economic) of his there wasn't a rush to 
implement similar plants.

WRT "Sun Traps" I have found this an excellent - and exhaustive in range 
reference - for renewable technologies. I believe there is also a more 
recent edition.

---

From: [email-masked] (Jim Michael)
Date: Wed, 10 May 1995 23:05:11 GMT

>>Are there any references available ??
The ocean engineering trade journal _Sea Technology_ (used to be UnderSea
Technology_) had a few articles about the Hawaii plant (sort of before, during
and after articles).  If you can find ST for the appropriate time (late '70s?),
they might have information and other references.  I think ST is a Compass
publication.  Good luck.

				Jim Michael
				[email-masked]

---

From: Kevin Eber <[email-masked]>
Date: 10 May 1995 21:47:53 GMT

The plant in Hawaii was a Department of Energy-operated prototype.  
Here's some text I wrote about it some time ago:

"The only operating ocean thermal power plant is a prototype open-cycle 
plant in Hawaii.  Called the Net Power Producing Experiment, the plant 
is designed to produce 210 kilowatts of electricity.  Since it started
operating in 1992, the plant has generated as much as 255 kilowatts of
electricity20 percent more than design.  Because the plant uses 
152 kilowatts to keep running, its net power production has been as 
high as 103 kilowatts.  

"Located on shore, the plant uses warm surface water from near the 
shore and cold water pumped up from a depth of 670 meters (2200 feet).  
The vacuum tank, where the warm seawater is boiled, is a concrete 
structure 7.6 meters (25 feet) in diameter and 9.4 meters (31 feet) 
high.  The plant is expected to operate until early 1995."

You're probably asking, "What is open-cycle?"  Here's a quick 
explanation:

"Open-cycle systems operate at pressures so low that warm seawater 
actually boils.  The system sucks in warm seawater near the surface 
and rapidly lowers its pressure to make it boil.  The steam passes
through a turbine generator, producing electricity, and is then 
cooled and condensed by cool water from the ocean depths.  The 
seawater isn't recycled in this systemwarm seawater is sucked in and
cool water comes outso it forms an open cycle.  This system has a 
big advantage:  when the seawater boils, the salts and impurities 
are left behind, and the steam is essentially pure water.  So the
open-cycle system produces power while it also produces distilled 
potable watera valuable commodity in some parts of the world."

If you need more info, try contacting the Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy Clearinghouse (EREC) at 1-800-DOE-EREC, or their
WWW page at http://www.eren.doe.gov

---

From: [email-masked] (Bryan Cort)
Date: 12 May 1995 20:40:01 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] says...
>152 kilowatts to keep running, its net power production has been as 

	A couple of questions concerning this plant and the different 
OTEC systems.  I am not familiar with the particular system in Hawaii 
except for what I have read in this group.  

	1.  How do they lower the pressure to boil the water? (ie. vacuum 
	pump or venturii effect?)
 
	2.  How do they utilize what must be extremly low pressure steam 
	to turn a turbine?  The pressure on the boiler side of the 	
	turbine must be less than one atmosphere or the water would cease 
	to boil.

	3.  Does anyony have a schematic of the system that shows the 
	operation?

	4.  I have seen another OTEC system that worked by utilizing the 
	temp differential above and below the thermocline in the ocean to 
	move cold water up a pipe turning a turbine.  This water moves 
	out an outflow pipe and sinks beacuse it is denser than the 
	surface water which is warmer.  This causes a partial vacuum in 
	the pipe which allows air pressure on the ocean surface to push 
	more water up the pipe from below the thermocline.  As long as 
	the surface water is warmer than the deeper water the reaction is 
	self sustaining.  Does anyone know of any research into this type 
	of OTEC system?

Thanks for any info.

Bryan Cort
[email-masked]

p.s.  I believe that there was a pilot plant for the system described in 
question 4 way back in the 20's or 30's in the carribien that produced 
50kW.

p.p.s.	Most of my info on the OTEC system in question 4 came from the 
book "A step farther out" by Jerry Pournelle.

---

From: [email-masked] (Bryan Cort)
Date: 22 May 1995 18:33:20 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] says...
>Is that book fiction?  I would hope so.  Cold water below warm water is
>stable.  (As long as we are talking about water above 4 degrees C).
>Thus one cannot get energy by just pumping it around as suggested
>above.  Cold water above warm water is unstable, and one could get
>energy out of it.  But such a situation would not occur in the ocean;
>the cold water would sink to the bottom.
>

	Maybe I didn't explain this well enough.  I have attached an ASCII 
diagram of the system and will try to give a better explanation.  Also no 
one said anything about pumps.  What about thermal inversions and 
upwellings?

>I hope there has been no research on that type of OTEC system, but one
>never can tell what might get funded these days.
>

	I hope there has.

>Norman Yarvin                                           [email-masked]
> "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that
>  they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly,
>  and one by one." -- Charles Mackay

	OK here goes the explanation again.  The process is initiated by 
cooling the water in the outflow pipe.  this causes the water to become 
denser and therefor unstable.  The water flowing out of the outflow pipe 
sinks to below the thermocline.  The water that is sinking from the outflow 
pipe causes a partial vacuum and water will flow from a higher pressure to 
fill this space.  Now the water can come from either the outflow pipe or the 
feed pipe, but the outflow pipe is "blocked" by the cold water falling from 
the outflow pipe so the water comes from the air preasure on the oceans 
surface pushing the water up the feed pipe.  Before a lot of people start 
screaming this is the same principle that a soda straw works on.  If there 
is no air preasure on the surface of the liquid a straw won't work (the 
liquid would also boil).  If you continue this until cold water from below 
the thermocline is moved up and into the outflow pipe it will become self 
sustaining *as long as* the surface water is warmer than the water below the 
thermocline.  This is not perpetual motion or magic.  It relies on the sun 
warming the surface of the ocean so that the temp above the thermocline is 
warmer than below, and the earth retaining an atmosphere.  If both  
conditions are not met the system does not work.  Personally if the second  
of these conditions were not to be met I think OTEC units would be the least 
of our worries. 

	Basically what this system does is create an artificial upwelling 
and harnessed the power.  Besides power generation this system would bring 
nutrients up from below the thermocline.  This could possibly make fish 
farming near the outflow pipes economicaly feasible.

                                                     ///// <- SUNLIGHT
  ||             ||  ||  ||  ||  AIR PRESSURE      //////
  \/    |--|     \/  \/  \/  \/                  //////
        |  | <-- ALTENATOR                     ///////     OCEAN SURFACE
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         |  <--- TURBINE SHAFT
       ------
       | |  ------------\  OUTFLOW PIPE
       | |  ----------\  \
       | |  |          \  |                                   <--- CURRENT
       | |  |           |X|    X=COOLING SYSTEM TO
       |----|           | |      INITIATE SYSTEM
       | -- | <- TURBINE
       |    |
       |    |                                               THERMOCLINE
------ |    |---------------------------------------------------------------
       |    |
       |    |
       |    |
       |    |
       |    |
       |    |
       |    |  <-- FEED PIPE
       |    |
       |    |
       |    |
       |    |

---

From: [email-masked] (David Coote)
Date: Mon, 22 May 95 15:51:31 PST

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] 
says...
[snip, snip]

Since we both agree we're talking about currents caused by energy
transfer systems using insolation as the driving force, I'm not entirely 
sure why Mr Yarvin's previous post focuses on tidal systems. Tidal 
systems depend on the gravitational bulge of water following the Moon 
and/or the Sun.

Anyway, Mr Yarvin has requested data on the Gulf Stream. Luckily "Sun 
Traps" gives details on just such a scheme.

32 km east of Miami, the Gulf Stream whips past at about 2.5 m/s. One 
scheme proposed to exploit this energy source can be summarised thus:
        - 230 turbines on the ocean floor.
        - Each turbine 168m across.
        - Vertical axis machines.
        - Total system to produce 10 GW.
        - Price, at the time, of about $1/watt.
        
Let's look at some criticisms of this kind of scheme.

Difficult to build underwater. At the depths proposed the off-shore oil
drilling industry has developed the required construction techniques.

Large unsightly structures. Underwater so not visible.

Bad for marine life. Slow moving blades.

Hazard to shipping. Build 'em so the top is below the keel depth and/or 
post details of the system as a shipping hazard.  

No light. Only relevant during construction and maintenance. Underwater 
lighting systems available for these purposes.

Extreme pressures. Don't put them too deep.

Now this scheme wasn't built for some reason or other. I would be 
interested if anyone knows why. One reason may be that the proposed 
turbines - which were of an innovative design - didn't work out as 
expected.

On another note, Mr Yarvin's previous post contained the word 
"fraudulent" scattered liberally about referring to my figure for the 
total energy of a 4-knot current. A quick check of my Shorter OED reveals 
that "fraudulent" implies an attempt to deceive. It is not "fraudulent" 
to quote the total energy contained in a system. How much of this energy 
is available for useful work is then an engineering matter. For instance, 
a chemistry text reports the total energy liberated from C + O2 -> CO2. 
How much of this energy is used depends on whether the reaction occurs in 
a fuel-cell, candle or steam engine and then whether secondary extraction 
techniques are used.

---

From: [email-masked] (Norman Yarvin)
Date: 22 May 1995 05:44:39 -0400

[email-masked] (Norman Yarvin) wrote:

>>>Actually there's one situation where one could get energy from this
>>>sort of thing.  Cold water gets generated at the poles, and destroyed
>>>in the tropics.  Thus there are underwater 'rivers' of cold water
>>>running along the bottom of the ocean, away from the poles.  One could
>>>do all the usual hydroelectric stuff to these rivers.  However before
>>>going gaga over this notion, one must consider the difficulties such
>>>as: 1. one would have to build stuff at the bottom of the ocean where
>>>there is (a) no light, (b) extreme pressures, and (c) lots of corrosive
>>>salt water; 2. the energy density is extremely low so that one would
>>>have to build truly immense installations, meaning about a thousand
>>>times bigger than an above-water dam to give the same amount of power.
>>>(The thousand times is my crude estimate of how much the density is
>>>different between hot and cold water.)

David Coote's postings prompted me to think a bit more about the above.
First of all, though tapping 'rivers' of cold water does indeed require
that one operate on the bottom of the ocean, there's also of course hot
water going in the other direction; it's on the top of the ocean, thus a
lot easier to reach.  One faces only the normal difficulties of
operating underwater, rather than the obscene depths of mid-ocean.

My top-of-the-head estimate of the density difference between hot and
cold water was wrong.  I'd been remembering some figures for thermal
expansion of solids.  But looking it up in Halliday and Resnick, I find
that instead of my estimate of less than one part in a thousand, the
change of density of water (between 4 and 30 degrees C) is more like
one part in two hundred.  The computation that's based on this goes as
follows.  Suppose you have a dam of height h, holding back a heavier
fluid of density A; on the other side of the dam, there is a lighter
fluid of density B.  Then the pressure difference at the bottom of the
dam will be h*g*(A-B), where g is the gravitational constant.  In dams
of rivers, the second fluid is air, so the density B is zero.  In dams
of hot and cold water, the density B is very close to the density A;
they differ by the factor of one part in two hundred which I mentioned
above.  Thus the height of the dam has to be two hundred times greater
to get comparable pressures.  The energy available from tides is
comparable by the same method.  The height difference available is only
the height of the tides, generally six feet or so, but the working
fluids are again water and air.  In some rare places the tides are
greater: as much as 40 feet in the Bay of Fundy.

Lacking comparable pressures, one can try using immense amounts of
turbine.  Still, to get halfway reasonable pressures, one needs to dam
up the flow somehow.  How does the entire southern coast of the US
sound as a dam?  The hot water is trying to go north, but North America
is in the way.  On the top and on the left side this dam is complete.
On the right side the dam was extended downwards a bit (that place
called "Florida") but then left unfinished.  Thus hot water can spill
out of the dam on the right; but since it's still something of a dam,
the water spills out with a speed which vaguely approaches being useful.
Of course I didn't think of this myself, just realized that it was what
was happening in the following scheme:

>        - Price, at the time, of about $1/watt.

That's pi*(168/2)^2 square meters of area that each turbine sweeps out,
for a total of 5.1 square kilometers of turbine area.  A square
kilometer is rather large.

The water speed quoted is 2.5 meters/second.  From the above-mentioned
geography I'd guess that this is the fastest the Gulf Stream goes
anywhere, and that in most places it's considerably slower.  But we'll
see what could be done with 2.5 meters/second.  The figure I'd computed
previously for a water speed of 2.1 meters/second, was a recoverable
energy density of 1.6 kilowatts per square meter.  Multiplying it by
(2.5/2.1)^3, we get 2.7 kilowatts per square meter.  The quoted figures
claim that the net electrical power out of the system is about 2
kilowatts per square meter.  That's an efficiency of about 75%, which
has to account for all of the losses including losses in the turbines,
in the gearboxes, and in the generators.

>drilling industry has developed the required construction techniques.

Drilling rig construction mainly involves building the structure on
land, floating it out, then sinking it.  Naturally the sunken part of
the structure is designed to just sit there and require no
maintenance.  (Structures don't always work as designed, even those
with no moving parts, so some maintenance is occasionally necessary.)

Aside from the structure, there's also the shaft which goes down to
support the drill and then later to suck the oil up.  This is also
built on land, assembled above-water, then lowered into the water.
It's assembled piece by piece as it is lowered.  The drilling head is
pretty complex, so it can be lifted up above water when necessary for
inspection and repair.

I suppose we could float out a 168 meter turbine after building it on
land.  168 meters is about the length of a battleship.  The battleship
is a lot less than 168 meters wide, but then the turbine doesn't need
16-inch cannons or armor plate.  The bearings for this turbine need to
be sealed against salt water and also easily replaceable, but that's
not an insurmountable problem -- just a very hard one.  The generator
can be above water, like with oil rigs' machinery.  

>Bad for marine life. Slow moving blades.

The blades would move on the order of 2.5 meters/second, since that's
the water speed.  Seems to me that in addition to producing electricity,
this would be a fine defense against Russian missile submarines.  :-)

>turbines - which were of an innovative design - didn't work out as 

Seeing as the expected efficiency of the turbines was so unreasonably
high, this would not be surprising.

>to quote the total energy contained in a system.

The interesting quantity in discussions of power plants is always the
amount of energy that can be recovered.  To quote some other figure and
call it the energy, with no other comment given, cannot be regarded as
anything less than a deliberate attempt to deceive; though the
deception is not necessarily on your part or even on the part of the
quoted book.  There's a lot of nonsense floating around; detecting it
all is sufficiently difficult as to be beyond human ability, though one
can certainly make an effort.

> How much of this energy 

What I derived was (if I did not make an error) the proportion of the
energy that is extractable by any technique whatsoever.  That is to
say, some techniques may extract even less, but none can exceed it.  If
I made an error in this, I would welcome hearing about it; it would not
be the first error I've made.

--

 "I defy anyone to trick me. Men would have to be exceptional rascals to be
  as bad as I assume them to be." -- Emperor Napoleon I [conversation, 1816]

---

From: Paul Dietz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 May 1995 08:41:26 -0500

In article <[email-masked]> Bill Smythe wrote:

>  In southern California,
> desalinization of seawater is economically infeasible not
> because of the power needed to desalinize the water but
> the power needed to pump it uphill to the users.

I don't believe this.  Desalinization by reverse osmosis currently
uses around 20 watt-hours/kilogram of water.  This is enough energy to
lift the water more than seven kilometers straight up.

Communities near oceans, such as Santa Barbara, have not gone for
desalination (although S.B. was thinking about it during the last
drought).

Perhaps you are thinking of the theoretical limit for the energy
required by desalination (around 1 Wh/kilogram, I understand).

	Paul

---

From: [email-masked] (Norman Yarvin)
Date: 22 May 1995 20:21:30 -0400

[email-masked] writes:
|	OK here goes the explanation again.  The process is initiated by 
|cooling the water in the outflow pipe.  this causes the water to become 
|denser and therefor unstable.  The water flowing out of the outflow pipe 
|sinks to below the thermocline.  The water that is sinking from the outflow 
|pipe causes a partial vacuum and water will flow from a higher pressure to 
|fill this space.  Now the water can come from either the outflow pipe or the 
|feed pipe, but the outflow pipe is "blocked" by the cold water falling from 
|the outflow pipe so the water comes from the air preasure on the oceans 
|surface pushing the water up the feed pipe.  Before a lot of people start 
|screaming this is the same principle that a soda straw works on.  If there 
|is no air preasure on the surface of the liquid a straw won't work (the 
|liquid would also boil).  If you continue this until cold water from below 
|the thermocline is moved up and into the outflow pipe it will become self 
|sustaining *as long as* the surface water is warmer than the water below the 
|thermocline.  This is not perpetual motion or magic.  It relies on the sun 
|warming the surface of the ocean so that the temp above the thermocline is 
|warmer than below, and the earth retaining an atmosphere.  If both  
|conditions are not met the system does not work.  Personally if the second  
|of these conditions were not to be met I think OTEC units would be the least 
|of our worries. 
|
|	Basically what this system does is create an artificial upwelling 
|and harnessed the power.  Besides power generation this system would bring 
|nutrients up from below the thermocline.  This could possibly make fish 
|farming near the outflow pipes economicaly feasible.
|
|
|
|                                                     ///// <- SUNLIGHT
|  ||             ||  ||  ||  ||  AIR PRESSURE      //////
|  \/    |--|     \/  \/  \/  \/                  //////
|        |  | <-- ALTENATOR                     ///////     OCEAN SURFACE
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|         |  <--- TURBINE SHAFT
|       ------
|       | |  ------------\  OUTFLOW PIPE
|       | |  ----------\  \
|       | |  |          \  |                                   <--- CURRENT
|       | |  |           |X|    X=COOLING SYSTEM TO
|       |----|           | |      INITIATE SYSTEM
|       | -- | <- TURBINE
|       |    |
|       |    |                                               THERMOCLINE
|------ |    |---------------------------------------------------------------
|       |    |
|       |    |
|       |    |
|       |    |
|       |    |
|       |    |
|       |    |  <-- FEED PIPE
|       |    |
|       |    |
|       |    |
|       |    |
|

It still doesn't work, but the part that you got wrong was the part
where you told us not to start screaming.  Which means you can probably
figure out yourself what's wrong.  Anyway, I'll comply with your
request and remain silent.

--
Norman Yarvin						[email-masked]
 "People say I am like Captain Bligh.  I am disappointed.  I considered
  myself more like Attila the Hun." - H. G. Rickover

---

From: [email-masked] (Bryan Cort)
Date: 23 May 1995 13:52:16 GMT

>request and remain silent.
	Your reply was quite civil and appreciated.  If this really 
doesn't work I would like to learn why.  The part where I was talking 
about the it working like a soda straw is based on (and I may not have 
this quite correct) Pascals theories of fluid pressure.  This is what 
describes the basic reason a straw and hydraulics work among other 
things.  If you have an explanation of why this system wouldn't work I 
would appreciate knowing what it is.

thanks in advance
Bryan Cort

---

From: [email-masked] (Norman Yarvin)
Date: 23 May 1995 20:17:19 -0400

>would appreciate knowing what it is.

What you said about fluid pressure was correct, as far as it went;
it just didn't go far enough.  I am going to be cruel and drag you
through the detailed physics of the thing. :-)  Let's look at the
pressure everywere in and around the system, that is, on the
points marked P1, P2, P3, P4, P5 on your diagram:

|
|  ||             ||  ||  ||  ||  AIR PRESSURE
|  \/    |--|     \/  \/  \/  \/    
|        |  | <-- ALTENATOR		-->P1<--
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|         |  <--- TURBINE SHAFT
|       ------
|       | |  ------------\  OUTFLOW PIPE
|       | |P3----------\  \
|       |____|          \  |                                   <--- CURRENT
|       | __ |<- TURBINE |X|    X=COOLING SYSTEM TO
|       | P5 |           | |      INITIATE SYSTEM
|       |    |            -->P2<--
|       |    |
|       |    |
|       |    |
|       |    |                                               THERMOCLINE
|------ |    |---------------------------------------------------------------
|       |    |
|       |    |
|       |    |
|       |    |
|       |    |
|       |    |
|       |    |  <-- FEED PIPE
|       |    |
|       |    |
|       |    |
|       | P4 |
|

	1. Air pressure on the surface of the ocean, call this Patm.

	2. Pressure at the end of the outflow pipe.  This is provided
	   by a combination of atmospheric pressure and the pressure of
	   the ocean water above the end of the outflow pipe.  This
	   latter pressure is Ho*g*Rhot, where Rhot is the density of
	   hot water, and Ho is the height of the outflow pipe.  Call
	   this P2; it is given by
		P2 = Patm + Ho*g*Rhot.

	3. Pressure at the top of the outflow pipe.  This is the
	   pressure at the bottom of the outflow pipe, minus the
	   pressure of the column of cold water in the outflow
	   pipe.  The pressure of the latter is Ho*g*Rcold, where
	   Rcold is the density of the cold water.  Call this P3;
	   it is given by
		P3 = Patm + Ho*g*Rhot - Ho*g*Rcold
	   which reduces to
		P3 = Patm + Ho*g*(Rhot-Rcold)

Since the density of hot water is less than that of cold water,
this is a partial vacuum.  So far everything is going fine.  But
now by the same methods we compute:

	4. Pressure at the bottom of the feed pipe.  This is
	atmospheric pressure, plus the weight of the hot water
	above the thermocline, plus the weight of some of the cold
	water below the thermocline.  Call the height of the
	thermocline Ht, and the height of the part of the feed
	pipe which is below the thermocline Hf.  Call this
	pressure P4; it is given by
		P4 = Patm + Ht*g*Rhot + Hf*g*Rcold

	5. Pressure in the feed shaft just below the turbine.  It
	doesn't matter where the turbine is in the system, so I'll
	put it at the very top of the feed shaft.  This way the
	pressure on one side of the turbine is P3, and the
	pressure on the other side is P5, which is gotten in much
	the same way we got P3: by subtracting off the pressure of
	the cold water in the feed pipe. 
		P5 = P4 - (Ht*g*Rcold + Hf*g*Rcold)
	which reduces to
		P5 = Patm + Ht*g*Rhot + Hf*g*Rcold - (Ht*g*Rcold + Hf*g*Rcold)
		P5 = Patm + Ht*g*Rhot - Ht*g*Rcold
		P5 = Patm + Ht*g*(Rhot - Rcold)

The pressure to pump the turbine is then P5-P3, which is:

	P5-P3 = Patm + Ht*g*(Rhot - Rcold) - (Patm + Ho*g*(Rhot-Rcold))

	      = Ht*g*(Rhot - Rcold) - Ho*g*(Rhot-Rcold)

	      = (Ht-Ho)*g*(Rhot - Rcold)

In this equation , Ht (the height of the thermocline) is greater
than Ho, so that part is positive, and Rhot is less than Rcold, so
that part is negative.  The constant g is positive, so the end
result is that P5-P3 is negative.  Whoops!  Our turbine will be
turning backwards.  Hot water will be sucked in the outflow pipe, go
through the turbine, and go down the feed pipe, until it reaches the
thermocline where it'll stop, since at that point there will be no
cold water above hot water and thus no energy available from piping
water around.

--
Norman Yarvin						[email-masked]
 "The weeping philosopher too often impairs his eyesight by his woe, and
  becomes unable from his tears to see the remedies for the evils which
  he deplores.  Thus it will often be found that the man of no tears is
  the truest philanthropist, as he is the best physician who wears a
  cheerful face, even in the worst of cases." -- Charles Mackay

---

From: [email-masked] (Bryan Cort)
Date: 24 May 1995 17:19:27 GMT

I am off till monday so I'll check the math this weekend.  I dug 
out the book last night to double check what I remembered.  The diagram 
is the same as the one I reproduced but there was a mention in the 
article of a "working fluid" system that uses ammonia that doesn't show 
on the diagram.  I think I may have put my foot in it this time.  Let you 
know monday after a little research.

Bryan Cort