From owner-skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Fri Oct 19 01:50:50 2001 Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 17:00:09 -0500 From: skunk-works-digest Reply-To: skunk-works@netwrx1.com To: skunk-works-digest@netwrx1.com Subject: skunk-works-digest V10 #34 skunk-works-digest Tuesday, October 16 2001 Volume 10 : Number 034 Index of this digest by subject: *************************************************** Re: F-22 Inlet movements NATO Speech:Worth reading.WDB Tax money(off topic) TEST MESSAGE Re: Skunk-Works Subscribe Re: Skunk-Works Subscribe Re: TEST MESSAGE Re: TEST MESSAGE Re: TEST MESSAGES? Re: Protocol *************************************************** ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 20 Sep 2001 14:09:12 EDT From: Stickmaker Subject: Re: F-22 Inlet Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 15:41:58 -0700 From: Larry Smith > Just because an inlet is 'fixed' doesn't mean that it can't work quite >well > at high supersonic or even hypersonic speeds. > Also, there has been at least one quite successful and efficient >supersonic > inlet with a fixed spike, and fixed throat attached to a manned M2+ >supersonic > Fighter/Interceptor. The XF8U-3's! The F-104 has been doing Mach 2+ with fixed half-cone inlet ramps since the mid-Fifties. Another plane not appreciated by the US Air Force. (Speed limit is Mach 2.2 (2.3 for planes with the J79-19 engine) at altitude due to heat in the compressor section, not lack of thrust. Canopy limit is around Mach 2.6. The airframe is probably stable to 2.8, depending on variant.) Rod (Stickmaker) Smith A bureaucracy's success is determined by its rebels. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 10:41:34 GMT0BST From: "S M Bishop" Subject: movements Hello List, This is the first time I have posted, although I have been lurking for a while (so please be nice!!) First of all, condolences to all US listmembers at this time of tragedy and heartache. A couple of questions, Does anyone know (or are you all avidly looking!) if any of the remaining SR's have made any "unscheduled" moves over the past week?. Would this be at all likely in the near future (I suppose the commentary would be "er, you know those nice black aeroplanes we gave you to play with, can we have them back please!") I know that several of the SIGINT and imaging satellites have now been retasked over Afghanistan, but we all know the limitations of orbits and timings. If there aren't any obvious movements, does this finally mean that there IS a SR replacement flying from Groom or Nellis (or anywhere else!!), seeing as the comment of "All available resources" has been made. Oh for some Afghan radar tapes!!! (sorry, forgot that the new ones are totally invisible to everything ;-) Regards Mark BishopM@cf.ac.uk ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 17:50:37 From: "wayne binkley" Subject: NATO Speech:Worth reading.WDB wayne d.binkley >From: NATO Integrated Data Service >Reply-To: NATO Integrated Data Service >To: NATODATA@LISTSERV.CC.KULEUVEN.AC.BE >Subject: NATO Speech: SecGen NPC - Washington, 10 October 2001 >Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 15:01:48 +0200 > > An Attack on Us All: NATO's Response to Terrorism > > NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson's Remarks > at the Atlantic Council of the United States, > National Press Club, Washington, > 10 October 2001 > >Ladies and Gentlemen, > >The events of September 11 have changed the world. Like the attack on >Pearl Harbor 60 years ago, they have seared deeply and unforgettably into >our consciousness. > >Let me at the outset pay tribute to those who died or were injured in the >three attacks that took place one month ago tomorrow; to the rescue workers >in New York and Washington; and to the service men and women who have >already started to take the fight back to Osama Bin Laden and his Taleban >backers. > >But unlike Pearl Harbor, it was not just America that suffered. On >September 11, the entire civilised word was transformed. > >In Paris, the headlines read, "We are all Americans now." In Oslo, Brussels >and Rome, our hearts now miss a beat when a passenger jet passes >overhead. In Berlin, London and Madrid, we see in our mind's eye the >terrible images of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center whenever we >enter a tall building. > >And on both sides of the Atlantic, pundits are writing epitaphs for the >"post-Cold-War era" and birth notices for "the age of terrorism." > >Horrifying as September 11 undoubtedly was, it does not in my view warrant >this bleak analysis. We do those who lost their lives no service at all by >adopting a victim mentality. > >Yes, we have suffered a great blow. But we have not lost our ability - or >our will - to shape events. If this is indeed to become the "age of >terrorism", then we will be as much at fault as Osama Bin Laden. > >I say this because I have been enormously heartened by events since >September 11, in NATO and beyond. And because it is already possible to >identify a strategy not only to defeat Bin Laden, but to ensure that any >terrorist successors remain confined to the margins of history. > >Let me deal with NATO first. The Alliance's historic decision on September >12 to invoke Article 5 of the Washington Treaty underscored the profound >link between two continents and among 19 nations. And it underlined our >collective determination not to stand idly by, but to act. > >When the Washington Treaty was written in 1949, the drafters wanted clear >and simple language. As one of them put it, a "milkman in Omaha" should be >able to understand the Treaty. > >They succeeded. Article 5 states clearly that "an armed attack against one >^E shall be considered an attack against them all". This is the strongest >commitment sovereign nations can give to each other. > >Of course, in 1949 that commitment appeared one-sided: a unilateral >security guarantee given by the United States to a Europe devastated and >demoralised by war. And, like some US lawmakers, the milkman from Omaha >may have wondered whether Article 5 was simply a means to drag a reluctant >US into another conflict in Europe. Would his son have to fight again >"over there"? He could have never guessed that this commitment would >actually be invoked only 52 years later, after an attack on US soil. > >Our milkman would, I hope, be gratified by this reciprocity. He might also >have been surprised by the speed of NATO's response. > >There was no equivocation or delay. This extraordinary decision, without >historic precedent, took not weeks or days, but six hours. > >Not bad as the Omaha milkman would undoubtedly say. > >And we did not leave it at that. NATO's 27 Partner countries, ranging from >Europe to Central Asia, quickly joined the 19 Allies in a statement >condemning the events and offering their solidarity with the United States. > >Similar statements were issued jointly by NATO and Russia and >Ukraine. Determination and purpose, not fatalism, have been the order of >the day. > >Since then, the US has kept its allies fully abreast of the political and >military picture, and confirmed that the attack did indeed come from >abroad. And in the past few days, it has moved to operationalise the >Article 5 commitment. > >The United States has asked for, and the Allies have agreed, to provide >enhanced intelligence support, air transit for military aircraft, and >access to ports and airfields. Elements of NATO's Standing Naval Forces >are to be deployed to the Eastern Mediterranean. And some US assets in the >Balkans will be replaced by European capabilities. > >Most significant - and symbolic - is the move of NATO AWACS airborne early >warning aircraft from their base in Europe to replace US aircraft now being >transferred to Asia. This is NATO's first operational deployment in the >United States: the old world coming to the aid of the new, to reverse the >words of Winston Churchill. > >In all of this, the US government is setting a strong example by its >measured determination. No retreat. No knee-jerk quick fixes. No revenge >attacks. > >Instead, there is a deep awareness that this is going to be a long >struggle, a struggle in which patience and persistence will be key. Those >who expected US unilateralism have witnessed instead a masterpiece of >multilateralism - rallying the world behind a common purpose in a way only >the US can. > >This has been coalition-building at its very best. > >NATO will of course be one of the key pillars of that coalition. > >No one I know would expect the Alliance to lead the military action against >bin Laden and the Taleban. But NATO is the world's largest and most >effective permanent coalition. We will be central to the collective >response of the international community to terrorism, both now and in the >longer-term. > >Some in Europe are asking whether NATO can cope with this new challenge. > >Can an Alliance that is already involved in three simultaneous crisis >management operations in the Balkans focus more strongly on terrorism? > >Can an Alliance that faces a long queue of membership applicants, that has >to invest so much energy into its relations with Russia, and into its many >other partnerships - can such an Alliance tackle yet another challenge? > >Will the NATO Allies, who are already struggling with defence >modernisation, find the extra money required to improve our means of >protection - and indeed our means of response? > >The answer to these questions can only be an unequivocal "Yes". NATO has >the experience, the procedures and the people to do all of these things, >and to do them exceptionally well. > >And that is a very good thing, because for the moment, NATO is the best - >indeed the only - game in town. Europe's Security and Defence Identity is >still in its early stages. And the structures and functions of the UN and >OSCE are different and certainly do not mirror the unique composition, >strength, cohesion and speed of delivery of NATO. > >Take for example, the interoperability, joint training, compatible >communications and logistics that flow from NATO's military structure. > >They were crucial building blocks that helped an earlier coalition win the >Gulf War. They have underpinned NATO success in Bosnia and Kosovo. Now >they will be a major asset in the fight against terrorism. > >Of course NATO has always been much more than just a military >alliance. President Putin of Russia recognised that when I met him last >week in Brussels. > >Some, however, are arguing that the attacks on New York, Washington and >Pennsylvania have somehow invalidated NATO's established agenda. Most >significantly, there is the occasional whisper that NATO enlargement might >now be off the agenda, either because we need to focus on more urgent >issues or because that will be the price of Russian co-operation on >Afghanistan. > >That is, of course, classic zero sum thinking. But entirely wrong. NATO >may need to prioritise activities if some Allies become involved in major >military operations. But the events of September 11 have, if anything, >reinforced the logic of our pre-existing agenda. > >They have reinforced the logic of keeping peace in the Balkans, because >stable, multi-ethnic states are our best insurance against terrorism >emerging in the first place. > >Afghanistan is a safe haven for terrorists precisely because it does not >have viable state structures. It is a "black hole". > >We are in the Balkans to prevent such "black holes" from emerging right at >our doorstep. And nothing will deflect us from completing our tasks in >this region. > >This was the reason why we set up and deployed - in two weeks - Task Force >Harvest to collect the weapons of the so-called National Liberation Army in >the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Task Force Harvest did its >job, collecting almost 4000 weapons, and now - as promised - it is being >withdrawn. And this is why we are now deploying a new German-led mission >to contribute to the security of OSCE and EU monitors in the former >Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. > >The events of September 11 have also reinforced the logic of NATO's Defence >Capabilities Initiative, which is designed to equip our forces precisely >for today's diverse and unpredictable threats. > >They have increased the value of our Partnerships - because the ties we >have built to stabilise Europe and its periphery and, in the case of >Central Asia, can turn out to be crucially important in an emergency. > >Finally, September 11 has reinforced the logic of NATO enlargement. The >broad coalition that we need to respond to the scourge of terrorism makes >the notion of "ins" and "outs" less and less relevant. > >In this crisis, the applicant countries have been as steadfast as any full >member of the Alliance. They have demonstrated that they share our values >and our determination to uphold them. > >Maybe not all of them may yet meet other benchmarks for membership. But it >is clear to me that the Prague Summit in November of next year will >unequivocally move the enlargement process forward, to the very real >benefit of the Alliance. > >We will not let the terrorist attacks of last month derail our agenda. We >will indeed have to broaden and adapt this agenda. But we will not >jettison the fundamentals. Because the core of what we do made sense on >September 10, and continues to make sense after September 11. > >We are, nonetheless, faced by a world transformed by terror. How many NATO >planners, generals and defence ministers are focusing today with the same >single-mindedness on the threats and risks that preoccupied them a month >ago? How many foreign, finance and interior ministers are able to >concentrate on their traditional agendas? > >And how many of them have started properly to think through the longer-term >implications? > >I can only guess at the answer to these questions, but can say that NATO >has started, albeit tentatively. I will therefore use this opportunity to >float some very personal ideas on where we need to do better if we are to >prevent the age of terrorism from shifting from the op-ed pages to our >towns and cities. > >First, we should make better use of the political tools that we have >available in NATO to cope with terrorism. > >NATO is a permanent coalition, a unique network with 19 nations at its core >and a further 27 in a partnership relationship. We have the habit and the >mechanisms for co-operation, and strong experience in working together in >Brussels and on the ground. > >The 46 nation Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council is key. It enables us to >mobilise a coalition for the long haul, tying in countries from Vancouver >to Bishkek to make a difference on real issues such as effective border >control in Central Asia. We are using the Euro-Atlantic Partnership >Council as a practical vehicle for co-operation and this will make life for >terrorists far more difficult. > >Second, we need to move forward the NATO-Russia relationship. There is a >window of opportunity here that we should not miss. > >In Russian eyes, Article 5 has been the quintessential demonstration of >NATO's Cold War orientation. Now we have invoked Article 5 in an entirely >different context, one to which Russia can relate. > >I had a long, personal meeting with President Putin last week and was >deeply impressed by his positive attitude and his frankness. > >He is disappointed by, what he views, as the lack of progress in developing >our relationship. He knows that a better relationship will make it easier >for him to sell NATO enlargement at home. He wants to work more closely >with the Alliance, and not just in the fight against terrorism. > >I am keen to build on this momentum and I have already presented him with a >package of proposals for more detailed and substantive co-operation. > >This does not mean that we should turn a blind eye to unacceptable Russian >behaviour, in Chechnya or elsewhere. But it does mean that we should be >able to transform a nervous partnership of former enemies into a practical >friendship that benefits both sides. > >Third, we need to focus even more strongly on non-proliferation and missile >defence. > >Those who say that both initiatives have been invalidated by the >terrorists' use of hijacked airliners miss the point. One of the reasons >the terrorists resorted to such unconventional tactics on 11 September was >that non-proliferation activities have frustrated their efforts, and those >of rogue states, to acquire and use more familiar weapons of mass >destruction. > >But we can never be certain of 100% success. That is why defence against >ballistic missiles is here to stay. And why we need to continue >consultations among Allies, strengthen NATO's WMD Centre, develop our >co-operation on missile defences and capitalise on Russia's interest in TMD >co-operation. > >Fourth, we need to develop a more comprehensive approach to internal and >external security. > >Terrorists blur the line between criminal and combatant. They act in a >"grey area", which we must deny them. > >That is why we need much closer interaction and intelligence-sharing >between our military and civilian security agencies. This must not >undermine the primacy of civilian law enforcement agencies. We must not >respond to terrorism by militarising our societies. That would be a price >too high to pay. > >But we can, and must, do better to break down artificial barriers between >agencies and "join up" our overall response. NATO's habits and mechanisms >of co-operation - including its unique collective defence planning >arrangements - can be put to good use in that regard. > >Fifth, we need to move ahead with a European Security and Defence >Policy. Following September 11, there will inevitably be a new discussion >about the global role of the United States. American isolationists may use >the events to argue their case for a reduction of the United States' >world-wide commitments. > >Their arguments will not carry the day. In an age of globalisation, >isolationism is simply not an option. But Europeans can surely expect a >tougher US stance on transatlantic burden sharing. > >America's Allies should not fear this reaction in Washington. It is in all >of our interests to maximise individual and collective military >capabilities. > >But for the Europeans, a tougher US approach to burden sharing vindicates >the logic of the European security and defence initiative. The United >States needs capable and effective European forces with which to >co-operate, or on which to rely in peace support missions where the >Alliance as a whole is not engaged. > >This is not a cry of "Yanks, go home". Quite the reverse. It is a >recognition that unless we do better, we may wake up one day to find that >you have already gone. > >For Americans, however, the test remains whether the result of this >initiative is a new European willingness to develop serious crisis >management capabilities, with new military hardware. Which in turn means >new money, wisely spent. > >So my sixth and final point is that we must look at the financial >implications which arise from these new challenges and tasks. If we want >to do a proper job in the fight against terrorism, we need the right tools. > >It is simply impossible to have security and defence on the cheap and at >the same time request more measures, more protection, against new >threats. For NATO, the zero real growth "mantra", which many apply in >security and defence, completely ignores the security needs of the 21st >century. > >I put these ideas on the table as a first basis for discussion. I hope >that others will soon join them. Debate is the lifeblood of >democracy. Our response to the terrorists must show that this lifeblood >still flows unchecked > >Ladies and Gentlemen, > >We know that the struggle against terrorism will be difficult and >prolonged. We accept that our political determination will be tested. And >we realise that we need a wide variety of tools if we are to persevere. > >We must catch and punish the perpetrators; we must choke off their funding; >we must deny them safe havens anywhere in the world. > >This will be a long haul. But we have not seen such a coalition since the >struggle against slavery and the defeat of fascism. NATO will be a vital >component of this new coalition. As a provider of capabilities. As a >vehicle for coalition cohesion. And as a forum for the new ideas without >which, we will not stay the course. > >I started today with a reference to Pearl Harbor. Let me finish with a >lesson from that earlier, bloody day. We must all beware of turning our >enemies into giants. Bin Laden and his associates are not ten feet >tall. We are. We have suffered a defeat. But we will win the war. And >we will do so without damaging the values and principles which we represent >and defend. > >Bin Laden has had his Pearl Harbor. We will have our Tokyo Bay. Make no >mistake about it. > >Thank you very much for your attention. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2001 16:28:59 From: "wayne binkley" Subject: Tax money(off topic) 2. PASCAL'S WAGER: THE PODKLETNOV GRAVITY SHIELD STRIKES OUT. In 1992, Russian physicist Eugene Podkletnov claimed that objects above a spinning superconducting disk show a 2 percent loss in weight. Why this should be so wasn't too clear, but it would be great for launching spacecraft, and you could build a perpetual motion machine. There are two possibilities: either this obscure Russian was mistaken, or the First Law of Thermodynamics is wrong. NASA put its money on Podkletnov (WN 15 Aug 97). Four years and $1M later, NASA thought maybe they saw a weight change of 2 parts per million, but couldn't be sure. "Maybe you need a bigger disk," Podkletnov suggested. That led to another $1M and another four years. Finally, at a conference on propulsion this year, NASA said that tests on the new shield were "inconclusive." That's NASA-talk for "it didn't work," but if NASA just said, "it didn't work," they would have to explain why they spent all that money an idea that violates the First Law. In fairness, however, we must point out that NASA also supported Ketterle's beautiful work on BE condensates. Hmmm. Perhaps there's more than one NASA. wayne d.binkley _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 05:50:38 -0500 From: George R. Kasica Subject: TEST MESSAGE Just testing the list to see its still working.... George ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 262 677 0766 Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 206 374 6482 FAX http://www.netwrx1.com Jackson, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com ICQ #12862186 Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works S L O W E R T R A F F I C K E E P R I G H T tm / \ / \ _/ ___ \_ ________/ \_______/V!V\_______/ \_______ \__/ \___/ \__/ www.habu.org The OnLine Blackbird Museum ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 05:51:46 -0500 From: George R. Kasica Subject: Re: Skunk-Works Subscribe On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 21:58:44 -0500, you wrote: >George, I got your message direct but nothing through a list distribution >that I can find? > >Thank you, Larry Odd...well here goes again...I see you're subscribed as larryjoe@westok.net See if you get this one :) George ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 262 677 0766 Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 206 374 6482 FAX http://www.netwrx1.com Jackson, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com ICQ #12862186 Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works S L O W E R T R A F F I C K E E P R I G H T tm / \ / \ _/ ___ \_ ________/ \_______/V!V\_______/ \_______ \__/ \___/ \__/ www.habu.org The OnLine Blackbird Museum ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 09:42:28 -0500 From: "Larry Hancock" Subject: Re: Skunk-Works Subscribe Thanks George, I did get the "Test Message" through the list last night. Sorry to be a pain. I'll hope for some regular traffic now. Larry - ----- Original Message ----- From: George R.Kasica To: Larry Hancock Cc: Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 5:51 AM Subject: Re: Skunk-Works Subscribe > On Mon, 15 Oct 2001 21:58:44 -0500, you wrote: > > >George, I got your message direct but nothing through a list distribution > >that I can find? > > > >Thank you, Larry > Odd...well here goes again...I see you're subscribed as > larryjoe@westok.net > > > See if you get this one :) > > George > > ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 262 677 0766 > Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 206 374 6482 FAX > http://www.netwrx1.com Jackson, WI USA > georgek@netwrx1.com > ICQ #12862186 > > Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works > > S L O W E R T R A F F I C K E E P R I G H T > tm > / \ > / \ > _/ ___ \_ > ________/ \_______/V!V\_______/ \_______ > \__/ \___/ \__/ > > www.habu.org > The OnLine Blackbird Museum ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 10:31:08 -0400 From: John Szalay Subject: Re: TEST MESSAGE At 05:50 AM 10/16/01 -0500, you wrote: >Just testing the list to see its still working.... > >George > > Thank you George, I was begining to wonder myself if the list was still working, and considering sending a test message myself to see ( and possibly incuring the wrath of the netgods) :-) \\ ~ ~ // ( @ @ ) -----------oOOo-(_)-oOOo---------- | john.szalay@att.net | ------------------Oooo.----------- .oooO ( ) ( ) ) / \ ( (_/ \_) I yam whaddIyam. No trees were harmed in the transmission of this message, However, A rather large number of electrons were temporarily inconvenienced. Friends, don't let friends do AOL! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 17:11:23 EDT From: SR71T@aol.com Subject: Re: TEST MESSAGE Its working, Hi george, have you been off the air? greg.. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 17:30:55 EDT From: SecretJet@aol.com Subject: Re: TEST MESSAGES? Yup, working in UK too!!! (Been a bit quiet tho'!) - ----------------------- Regards, Bill Turner, B-T 'Admin'. http://www.secretjet.net Black-Triangle E-Group HQ. http://members.aol.com/BlackTriangles/index.html - ----------------------------------------------------------------- No Door is Closed - To an Open Mind! - ----------------------------------------------------------------- http://members.aol.com/Secretjet/Links.html Black-Triangle Links ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 16:59:50 -0500 From: George R. Kasica Subject: Re: Protocol On Tue, 16 Oct 2001 16:54:51 -0400, you wrote: >George, > >My book on the Navy's A-12 stealth bomber THE $5 BILLION MISUNDERSTANDING, >has just come out. The U.S. Naval Institute is offering it for $45, $36 to >Naval Institute members. Since amazon.com is offering it for $31.50, I >thought that I would make the same offer to anyone on the list that might >want it for the same 30% off and with an autograph, if they want it. > >The reason I am writing to you directly, is that I did not know if making >such an offer would violate your rules. > >Jim Stevenson > Jim: I have no problem with this. I'll fwd it to the list. George ===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 262 677 0766 Skunk-Works ListOwner +1 206 374 6482 FAX http://www.netwrx1.com Jackson, WI USA georgek@netwrx1.com ICQ #12862186 Digest Issues at: http://www.netwrx1.com/skunk-works S L O W E R T R A F F I C K E E P R I G H T tm / \ / \ _/ ___ \_ ________/ \_______/V!V\_______/ \_______ \__/ \___/ \__/ www.habu.org The OnLine Blackbird Museum ------------------------------ End of skunk-works-digest V10 #34 ********************************* To subscribe to skunk-works-digest, send the command: subscribe skunk-works-digest 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 skunk-works-digest local-skunk-works@your.domain.net To unsubscribe, send mail to the same address, with the command: unsubscribe skunk-works-digest 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