From: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com (skunk-works-digest) To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V8 #50 Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com Sender: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Errors-To: owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Precedence: bulk skunk-works-digest Thursday, April 8 1999 Volume 08 : Number 050 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: F-117 vs. Red radar Re: Stealth debate (long) Re: *just* a Canadian Disk problems RE: *just* a Canadian Re: Stealth debate (long) Re: *just* a Canadian Re: *just* a Canadian RE: (SW) B-52 losses over North Vietnam [was Stealth debate] RE: FWD: (UASR) F-111 and F-117 comments [was Stealth Crash in RE: FWD: (UASR) F-111 and F-117 comments [was Stealth Crash in Re: FWD: (SK) A depleted Uranium argument F-111 Sources Re: *just* a Canadian RE: (SK) A depleted Uranium argument *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 07:36:39 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: F-117 vs. Red radar >> >> The wreckage videos do not support that theory. But hey, we won't get >> into that. I let you find your own experts on SAMs. >> I was quite interested earlier when several contributors here offered what seemed like expert witness testimony on the video and the photos of 806 after it crashed. I assume no one actually examined the wreckage. I of course have had no training or experience in aircraft crash investigation of any kind of airplanes let alone those possibly struck in mid flight by an explosive object. Would those people be willing to explain to me how they were able to make all the conclusions that were posted in here? patrick ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Apr 99 11:53:53 EDT From: keller@eos.ncsu.edu Subject: Re: Stealth debate (long) Real briefly, since my time to post to the list is currently extremely limited, Jim Stevenson, in response to my challenge to produce to peer-reviewed article in some field of science or engineering which used a double test, produced a web article on the somewhat publicized article on the somewhat infamous DKL LifeGuard testing fiasco, which I have heard about before. To which I will reply, nice try, but, no cigar, since, no, it doesn't meet my challenge. I'd be willing to consider it somewhat further if Mr. Stevenson will explain how it helps his case in favor of double blind LO testing, which he has so far failed to do. In response to my comments about the use of the B-2 over Yugoslavia, Jim Stevenson wrote: >The logic I infer from this statement is that the Air Force would not >have risked the B-2 if it knew it could get shot down. Why does that >follow if the military was willing to lose over 6,000 helicopters in >Vietnam? Coming from someone who has been ranting and raving all over this list over the Pentagon's failure to follow "the scientific method", I find this to be a disingenuous, unscientific, and thus hypocritical, selective use of data & insights. First of all, that was a different era. If Mr. Stevenson claims to be a professional author on military affairs, he should be aware of this. Secondly, while helicopters in Vietnam were considered expendable, the B-2s are, by now, essentially, if not nearly completely, irreplaceable, since the supplier chain has been shutdown for several years. Certainly someone else can elaborate on the difficulty, if not impossibility, of restarting the B-2 line. That's all I have time for 'til Monday. - --Paul Keller ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 10:29:45 -0700 From: Larry Smith Subject: Re: *just* a Canadian >> Personally, and I realize I'm *just* a Canadian >Canadians are great people. Hell, yes! We ought to have an AVRO Arrow day here someday. Not because it's a product of the Skunk Works of course, but because of its greatness (not to pour salt in an obviously still open wound for all Canadians and many high speed aircraft lovers such as myself). I'd still like to obtain a copy of that show on the Arrow that ran some time ago (was it a year or so ago?) on Canadian TV. I only bring that up in case it's easy to obtain in Canada (it should be sold here in the U.S. as well) and all I would have to do is call up some video store or something. The Arrow also had the most unusual way of climbing into it. I have an excellent book on it at home, and the photos show the canopy splitting down the middle, where it seems like the pilot kind of has to climb up on the spine of the aircraft and then squeeze past the clamshell-like canopy halves to get into the cockpit. But what a BEAUTIFUL airplane! The book I have also shows line drawings of the proposed Mach 3 mods. Are there any good WEB sites with Arrow pictures? Regards, Larry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 13:37:11 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Disk problems To all who have been so kind to comment on my comments. I have had a hard disk problem which wiped out about the last 30 Skunk works messages. Anyone who did not receive a response but feels one is due, please resend. Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 13:53:28 -0400 From: "Waller, Jay" Subject: RE: *just* a Canadian The April/May '98 issue of Air & Space Smithsonian had a pretty good article on the Arrow. After I first read it, I realized what a loss the Arrow was. I tried their web site, but they do not have any pictures up (at least none I could readily find). They do have a supplemental article at http://www.airspacemag.com/asm/mag/supp/am98/floyd1.html > -----Original Message----- > From: Larry Smith [SMTP:larry@ichips.intel.com] > Sent: Thursday, April 08, 1999 1:30 PM > To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com > Subject: Re: *just* a Canadian > > > >> Personally, and I realize I'm *just* a Canadian > > >Canadians are great people. > > Hell, yes! > > We ought to have an AVRO Arrow day here someday. Not because it's > a product of the Skunk Works of course, but because of its greatness > (not to pour salt in an obviously still open wound for all Canadians > and many high speed aircraft lovers such as myself). > > I'd still like to obtain a copy of that show on the Arrow that ran > some time ago (was it a year or so ago?) on Canadian TV. I only bring > that up in case it's easy to obtain in Canada (it should be sold here > in the U.S. as well) and all I would have to do is call up some > video store or something. > > The Arrow also had the most unusual way of climbing into it. I have > an excellent book on it at home, and the photos show the canopy splitting > down the middle, where it seems like the pilot kind of has to climb up > on the spine of the aircraft and then squeeze past the clamshell-like > canopy halves to get into the cockpit. > > But what a BEAUTIFUL airplane! The book I have also shows line drawings > of the proposed Mach 3 mods. > > Are there any good WEB sites with Arrow pictures? > > Regards, > > Larry ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 14:29:35 -0400 From: "James P. Stevenson" Subject: Re: Stealth debate (long) > Real briefly, since my time to post to the list is currently extremely > limited, Jim Stevenson, in response to my challenge to produce to > peer-reviewed article in some field of science or engineering which > used a double test, produced a web article on the somewhat publicized > article on the somewhat infamous DKL LifeGuard testing fiasco, which I > have heard about before. To which I will reply, nice try, but, no > cigar, since, no, it doesn't meet my challenge. I'd be willing to > consider it somewhat further if Mr. Stevenson will explain how it > helps his case in favor of double blind LO testing, which he has so > far failed to do. I was not responding to your comment about providing peer review requests for double blind studies. I was responding to your comment that "double blind testing is pretty much limited to testing of drugs on human subjects, whether it's necessary to separate psychological effects from physiological effects." What I provided was an example where a double blind test would have avoided a problem that could have been present in the testing of the F-117. The inability to find a peer review group that has asked for a double blind study does not mean it would not have prevented the problem as presented in the example I submitted. > > In response to my comments about the use of the B-2 over Yugoslavia, > Jim Stevenson wrote: > >>The logic I infer from this statement is that the Air Force would not >>have risked the B-2 if it knew it could get shot down. Why does that >>follow if the military was willing to lose over 6,000 helicopters in >>Vietnam? > > Coming from someone who has been ranting and raving all over this list > over the Pentagon's failure to follow "the scientific method", I find > this to be a disingenuous, unscientific, and thus hypocritical, > selective use of data & insights. First of all, that was a different > era. Are you saying human nature has changed since Vietnam? What is the implication of a different era? >If Mr. Stevenson claims to be a professional author on military > affairs, he should be aware of this. I am aware this is a different era. But what of it? What is there about this era that I should be aware of? >Secondly, while helicopters in > Vietnam were considered expendable, the B-2s are, by now, essentially, > if not nearly completely, irreplaceable, since the supplier chain has > been shutdown for several years. Certainly someone else can elaborate > on the difficulty, if not impossibility, of restarting the B-2 line. In other words, people are expendable but $2+ billion B-2s are not? Jim Stevenson ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 21:01:32 +0200 From: Christoph Subject: Re: *just* a Canadian Larry Smith asked >Are there any good WEB sites with Arrow pictures? As I'm not an Arrow expert I won't value the sites at least they've some pretty impressive images... Avro Arrow Picture Archive http://www.totavia.com/arrow/Arrow/picts.html The CF-105 Avro Arrow http://www.maverick2.com/ArrowMain.htm Canadian Military Aviation Photographic Archives http://wabakimi.carleton.ca/~gdawson/milpics2.html or go for The Avro Arrow Web Ring http://www.webring.org/cgi-bin/webring?home;ring=avroarrowring Regards, Christoph ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 20:56:03 From: win@writer.win-uk.net (David) Subject: Re: *just* a Canadian Larry wrote: >Are there any good WEB sites with Arrow pictures? http://www.maverick2.com/ArrowMain.htm And just because I'm a helluva guy, here's a link to the CBC site with details of how to buy the video ! http://www.tv.cbc.ca/movies/specials/arrow/ Fantastic a/c. Best David ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 21:38:58 +0100 From: gavin.payne@cleancrunch.demon.co.uk Subject: RE: (SW) B-52 losses over North Vietnam [was Stealth debate] > > At 09:28 PM 4/7/99 -0700, you wrote: > >I remember something like 10 B-52s lost during the Christmas > offensive > >to force progress at the Paris peace talks. Anyone have the > final count > >and/or source of information? 10 of them big buggers is a hell of a lot to lose. What was the main cause of them being downed? Gavin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 08:55:11 +0930 From: Dennis Lapcewich Subject: RE: FWD: (UASR) F-111 and F-117 comments [was Stealth Crash in > > > > > >I doubt if F-111s are still in the operational inventory, > > > > I'm not sure about that. According to Jane's Defence (see below) no > > F-111 is in use over Kosovo. > > > > The only operational F-111s in the world are Australian. > > > Art > Check out http://www.raafmuseum.com.au/research/aircraft/a3series/f111.htm for information on the F-111 in Australia. BTW - The RAAF F-18s will perform today over Adelaide as part of the Sensational Adelaide 500 touring car championships. When we have a party, we always invite the petrolheads and air jockeys to see who does better. Dennis ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 09:22:10 +0930 From: Dennis Lapcewich Subject: RE: FWD: (UASR) F-111 and F-117 comments [was Stealth Crash in > Check out > http://www.raafmuseum.com.au/research/aircraft/a3series/f111.h tm for information on the F-111 in Australia. BTW - The RAAF F-18s will perform today over Adelaide as part of the Sensational Adelaide 500 touring car championships. When we have a party, we always invite the petrolheads and air jockeys to see who does better. Update - Ah spoke too soon - we're also have F16s and KC-135s from the USA, P3's from RAAF and Apache choppers in a large air show. I don't think the Aussie Serb population in Adelaide will make an appearance, though. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 21:49:40 -0400 From: "Russel O'Neal" Subject: Re: FWD: (SK) A depleted Uranium argument Terry, DU is primarily used in armor piercing rounds, i.e. anti tank rounds. DU is harmless, in that it doesn't emit radiation. DU is harmful to humans if the DU dust or fumes are inhale when it burns, usually the resulting from DU burning. The Abrams M1A1 common tank has DU armor packages installed in cavities at critical locations. Around the crew compartment and frontal areas. The only way to dispose of DU is to encase it in concrete and bury it. During the Gulf war several Abrams and Bradley Fighting Vehicles were damaged in a fire at a vehicle park. The Bradleys were total losses due the their aluminum hulls and turrets. The Abrams were all decontaminated, repaired and returned to service. The job took almost four years. It took us two years just to build a special facility to decontaminate them. The DU contamination was residue from DU rounds cooking off in both the Abrams and Bradley vehicles. The fire was started then the batteries shorted out on one of the Abrams. This was a major problem with the early M1 and M1A1 tanks. The Battery bus bars have scence been modified and a automatic battery disconnect installed. Fixed the problem. If clinton uses DU rounds in his little war, we'll have to go back when its over and police up all the spent rounds from the battle fields. Russ "Terry W. Colvin" wrote: > > > She went further to warn of the impending use of B-1 and A-10 > >bombers, "carrying missiles with depleted uranium previously used in Iraq > >and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Their use will bring about dangerous consequences > >to the health not only of soldiers, but also the whole population. As you > >know, toxins and radioactivity know no nationality or borders." > > Rather than invest actual effort rewriting it, here's a post I sent to the > Healthfraud list last year on the subject of depleted uranium: > > At 08:17 AM 5/3/98 -0500, Ed Uthman wrote: > > >Depleted uranium has always intrigued me. All the materials available for > >making shells, and the DOD decides to use an expensive, radioactive one! I > > According to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, who are of course in > cahoots with the Greys and the Masons to keep the populace ignorant of the > details of their diabolical plots and have ingeniously enlisted the > assistance of the whole of the scientific world, DU is: > > "Uranium having a percentage of uranium-235 smaller than the 0.7 percent > found in natural uranium. It is obtained from spent (used) fuel elements or > as byproduct tails, or residues, from uranium isotope separation." > > (they've got a glossary of terms at > http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/EDUCATE/GLOSSARY/index.html) > > Because of its excellent impermeability to radiation, as well as its > hardness, DU is apparently used as _shielding_ around radioactive waste. > It's too expensive to be used in this role as solid metal for most > applications, but Lockheed Martin seem rather proud of figuring out a way > to incorporate it into concrete for waste dumps (see > http://www.lmco.com/press-releases/pr082996.html). > > >From a Deja News search I found a mention of DU being less radioactive than > lead, but I'd want confirmation from someone qualified before I believed > that. If it's true, that's a wonderful argument-stopper right there :-). > > >wonder how much each shell costs. Also, I wonder what the cost of the ammo > >expended to kill one Iraqi main battle tank is. Does the ammo cost more > >than its target? :) > > According to the Lockheed press release, there's more than half a million > tonnes of depleted uranium hexaflouride stored around the US, but > processing it into metal isn't cheap (hence its unpopularity for bulk > applications). By military standards, the processing can probably be said > to cost, in round numbers, nothing :-). > > The Gulf War Syndrome fans say DU is handed out free by the Government to > defence contractors. Again, I'd want confirmation - I bet it's the > hexaflouride, if anything, that's made available, with processing the > contractors' problem. > > >Actually I do have a few serious questions about DU: > > > >1. Is it used in any munition other than the big 30mm gun (GAU-37?)carried > >by the A-10 Thunderbolt II? > > Oh, yeah. Because it's really heavy and really hard, it's used in the cores > of all sorts of armour piercing munitions. And as armour. > > >2. Someone mentioned earlier that DU is not used for its density (actually > >osmium and iridium share the honor of being the densest elements under > >standard conditions), but for its "refractory" properties. Does this mean > >it doesn't vaporize and burn as easily as other materials? Why is this > > No, it means it burns BETTER. You've got to start thinking like Colonel > Killcrazy here, Ed. Uranium is pyrophoric; flakes burn spontaneously in > air. So when your poor old ex-Soviet tank gets hit by a DU round, the > penetrator flakes apart inside and lights you up. Ain't technology grand? > > >3. What is depleted uranium depleted _of_? I thought that when uranium > >decayed, it was no longer uranium at all, but lead. So, it must be depleted > >of something other than its radioactivity. > > Just the high-radioactivity U-235. > > Correct me if I'm wrong here, folks - U-235 has a half-life of 7.0 x 10^8 > years, and U-238 has a half-life of 44.6 x 10^8 years, so U-235 is about > six times more radioactive, but neither is very radioactive, anyway. Pu-239 > has a half-life of only 24,000 years. > > >4. Did anyone at the Pentagon consider that using a radioactive element, no > >matter how innocuous its radioactivity is, in a munition is not such a good > >idea in a nucleophobic world? Weren't there alternative materials that > >would be almost as effective and a lot more politically correct? Could > >Saddam launch a propaganda campaign and say, truthfully, that the US used > >"nuclear weapons" against his people? > > Why should he? There's plenty of Americans doing it for him :-)! > > Essentially, based on this data, the dangerous thing about a DU bullet is > not its trivial radiation, but the fact that it's hurled at you at several > times the speed of sound, and probably has a lot of friends. Lying around > on the sand, it would seem to be about as dangerous as a fishing sinker. > > [end repost] > > Incidentally, I never did find out whether the "less radioactive than lead" > line was correct or not. Anyone know? > > -- > Daniel Rutter - DNRC Gadget Wrangler > http://www.fromorbit.com/drutter/ > Visit http://www.dansdata.com/! > > -- > Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean@primenet.com > > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/8832 > > Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * > U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program > ------------ > Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List > TLCB Web Site: < http://www.seacoast.com/~jsweet/brotherh/index.html > > Southeast Asia (SEA) service: > Vietnam - Theater Telecommunications Center/HHC, 1st Aviation Brigade > Long Binh, Can Tho, Danang (Jan 71 - Aug 72) > Thailand/Laos > - Telecommunications Center/U.S. Army Support Thailand > (USARSUPTHAI), Camp Samae San (Jan 73 - Aug 73) > - Special Security/Strategic Communications - Thailand > (STRATCOM - Thailand), Phu Mu (Pig Mountain) Signal Site > (Aug 73 - Jan 74) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 22:00:11 -0400 From: Jim Rotramel Subject: F-111 Sources My write-up on the F-111 was based on the article I did under a nom de plume for World Air Power Journal Volume 14. Over time, I've continued to update it as more information has become available. I also have over 1,100 hours of right seat time in F-111Ds and F-111Fs. As an aside, we never had to shut down an engine when I was in the airplane (no thanks to me!). I was driving a couple of GD reps to catch a train in Cambridge (UK) in the mid-80s and mentioned to them that it might be a good idea to re-engine F-16s with F110s and take their F100s and put them in the F-111s. They surprised me by saying that the TF30 was actually the best engine available for our low level mission, with a specific fuel consumption that was superior to that of the newer engine. Because we didn't have cause to yank the throttles around like the air-to-air guys, the TF30 didn't give us nearly the problems it did the F-14s. Not that it was trouble free. I can think of four accidents off the top of my head that were caused directly or indirectly by engine problems. Of course there was the engine that kept running even after swallowing about a quarter of the radome after a bird strike... Never underestimate pilot technique either. It was interesting how some pilots always seemed to be having engine problems while others never had any. Jim ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 Apr 1999 19:32:50 -0700 From: patrick Subject: Re: *just* a Canadian At 10:29 AM 4/8/99 -0700, Larry wrote: > > >The Arrow also had the most unusual way of climbing into it. I have >an excellent book on it at home, and the photos show the canopy splitting >down the middle, where it seems like the pilot kind of has to climb up >on the spine of the aircraft and then squeeze past the clamshell-like >canopy halves to get into the cockpit. > Oh you mean like an A-26 Invader?? *G* patrick ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 22:41:40 -0400 From: "jhenthorn" Subject: RE: (SK) A depleted Uranium argument It is also my understanding that due to its high density it carries more of its inertial energy longer than a lead round and weights more than a lead round of comparable size. Which means of course that it hits harder, an important point when you shoot at tanks. Dusty, Jim Henthorn 21st S.O.S. Nov. '67 - May '69 Knife/Dusty NKP RTAFB; China Post #1, AL, In Exile ACA L2850; VHCMA 1117; VVA 168776 jhenthorn@bayserve.net ICQ #2144451 Visit my site at http://www.nexus.net/~911gfx/vietnam.html - -----Original Message----- From: owner-tlc-brotherhood@NoPostage.com [mailto:owner-tlc-brotherhood@NoPostage.com] On Behalf Of Terry W. Colvin Sent: Thursday, April 08, 1999 12:29 AM To: Skunk Works Subject: FWD: (SK) A depleted Uranium argument > She went further to warn of the impending use of B-1 and A-10 >bombers, "carrying missiles with depleted uranium previously used in Iraq >and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Their use will bring about dangerous consequences >to the health not only of soldiers, but also the whole population. As you >know, toxins and radioactivity know no nationality or borders." Rather than invest actual effort rewriting it, here's a post I sent to the Healthfraud list last year on the subject of depleted uranium: At 08:17 AM 5/3/98 -0500, Ed Uthman wrote: >Depleted uranium has always intrigued me. All the materials available for >making shells, and the DOD decides to use an expensive, radioactive one! I According to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, who are of course in cahoots with the Greys and the Masons to keep the populace ignorant of the details of their diabolical plots and have ingeniously enlisted the assistance of the whole of the scientific world, DU is: "Uranium having a percentage of uranium-235 smaller than the 0.7 percent found in natural uranium. It is obtained from spent (used) fuel elements or as byproduct tails, or residues, from uranium isotope separation." (they've got a glossary of terms at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/EDUCATE/GLOSSARY/index.html) Because of its excellent impermeability to radiation, as well as its hardness, DU is apparently used as _shielding_ around radioactive waste. It's too expensive to be used in this role as solid metal for most applications, but Lockheed Martin seem rather proud of figuring out a way to incorporate it into concrete for waste dumps (see http://www.lmco.com/press-releases/pr082996.html). >From a Deja News search I found a mention of DU being less radioactive than lead, but I'd want confirmation from someone qualified before I believed that. If it's true, that's a wonderful argument-stopper right there :-). >wonder how much each shell costs. Also, I wonder what the cost of the ammo >expended to kill one Iraqi main battle tank is. Does the ammo cost more >than its target? :) According to the Lockheed press release, there's more than half a million tonnes of depleted uranium hexaflouride stored around the US, but processing it into metal isn't cheap (hence its unpopularity for bulk applications). By military standards, the processing can probably be said to cost, in round numbers, nothing :-). The Gulf War Syndrome fans say DU is handed out free by the Government to defence contractors. Again, I'd want confirmation - I bet it's the hexaflouride, if anything, that's made available, with processing the contractors' problem. >Actually I do have a few serious questions about DU: > >1. Is it used in any munition other than the big 30mm gun (GAU-37?)carried >by the A-10 Thunderbolt II? Oh, yeah. Because it's really heavy and really hard, it's used in the cores of all sorts of armour piercing munitions. And as armour. >2. Someone mentioned earlier that DU is not used for its density (actually >osmium and iridium share the honor of being the densest elements under >standard conditions), but for its "refractory" properties. Does this mean >it doesn't vaporize and burn as easily as other materials? Why is this No, it means it burns BETTER. You've got to start thinking like Colonel Killcrazy here, Ed. Uranium is pyrophoric; flakes burn spontaneously in air. So when your poor old ex-Soviet tank gets hit by a DU round, the penetrator flakes apart inside and lights you up. Ain't technology grand? >3. What is depleted uranium depleted _of_? I thought that when uranium >decayed, it was no longer uranium at all, but lead. So, it must be depleted >of something other than its radioactivity. Just the high-radioactivity U-235. Correct me if I'm wrong here, folks - U-235 has a half-life of 7.0 x 10^8 years, and U-238 has a half-life of 44.6 x 10^8 years, so U-235 is about six times more radioactive, but neither is very radioactive, anyway. Pu-239 has a half-life of only 24,000 years. >4. Did anyone at the Pentagon consider that using a radioactive element, no >matter how innocuous its radioactivity is, in a munition is not such a good >idea in a nucleophobic world? Weren't there alternative materials that >would be almost as effective and a lot more politically correct? Could >Saddam launch a propaganda campaign and say, truthfully, that the US used >"nuclear weapons" against his people? Why should he? There's plenty of Americans doing it for him :-)! Essentially, based on this data, the dangerous thing about a DU bullet is not its trivial radiation, but the fact that it's hurled at you at several times the speed of sound, and probably has a lot of friends. Lying around on the sand, it would seem to be about as dangerous as a fishing sinker. [end repost] Incidentally, I never did find out whether the "less radioactive than lead" line was correct or not. Anyone know? - -- Daniel Rutter - DNRC Gadget Wrangler http://www.fromorbit.com/drutter/ Visit http://www.dansdata.com/! - -- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean@primenet.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/8832 > Sites: Fortean Times * Northwest Mysteries * Mystic's Cyberpage * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program - ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.seacoast.com/~jsweet/brotherh/index.html > Southeast Asia (SEA) service: Vietnam - Theater Telecommunications Center/HHC, 1st Aviation Brigade Long Binh, Can Tho, Danang (Jan 71 - Aug 72) Thailand/Laos - Telecommunications Center/U.S. Army Support Thailand (USARSUPTHAI), Camp Samae San (Jan 73 - Aug 73) - Special Security/Strategic Communications - Thailand (STRATCOM - Thailand), Phu Mu (Pig Mountain) Signal Site (Aug 73 - Jan 74) ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V8 #50 ******************************** To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe in the body of a message to "majordomo@netwrx1.com". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-skunk-works": subscribe local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe in the body. Administrative requests, problems, and other non-list mail can be sent to georgek@netwrx1.com. A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "skunk-works-digest" in the commands above with "skunk-works". Back issues are available for viewing by a www interface located at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works If you have any questions or problems please contact me at: georgek@netwrx1.com Thanks, George R. Kasica Listowner