Re: Correa
Chris wrote: Now we're getting somewhere! No, we are not. You are repeating the same mistake that Jeff made, changing what the Correas did before you ever see the effect. The PAGD discharge is a wideband event. Transformers are ***not*** simple devices in a wideband case, they have stray inductance which will present a complex impedance to the discharge. You are ignoring what I said about the discharge continuing with no rise in the cell voltage. You say you have studied the Correa ptents, but you have not understood the implications of what is in them. Transformers also block DC. I don't want to be harsh here, but you have to do your homework **very thoroughly**. Mike Carrell Perhaps a huge part of this mystery concerns the critical design of the output. Too small a capacitor and the pulse action will be inhibited because the capacitor will be filled. Too fast or brief a pulse and the battery may reject most of it as heat rather than accept it as a charge. It might be possible to use some sort of audio transformer of high quality to transform the pulses down. I would think the low impedance of a small battery pack would be reflected back into the tube favorably. Perhaps one of the new low voltage ultracaps would work in such a circuit.
Re: Correa
Jeff wrote, my comments in blue. Mike Carrell I don't know anything about electrochemistry in batteries, but I question the ability of a string cells to absorb a fast high energy pulse without impedance, and that this impedence would cause a voltage spike. Maybe the spike has a different contour than a cap has and that makes the difference. I don't know. Batteriestake charge by chemical action, which can't happed as fast as the PAGD pulse; Jeff is right. This is why the Correa circuit has a large electrolytic capacitor across the batteries, to take the peak energy and buffer it so the battery chemistry can act. What I do know is that if you run the tube with only a ballast resistor, the PAGD events are merely a random display of little sparkles on the surface of the cathode, and that a series connected diode cap combination across the the tube to capture a forward pulse will collect nothing. But, if you put a 3 mfd cap across the tube, the sparkles turn into energetic eruptions on the cathode surface causing the capture capto charge up to 800v in successive pulses. (I accidently pushed a series combination of 350v electrolytic capture caps to 800v and got away with it) The faint blue glow is one of the precursors to the PAGD discharge. When you put a 3 mfd capacitor across the cell you have made an ordinary strobe flasher and the energy comes from charging the capacitor. My tube is a pair of 3/4 inch aluminum plates separated be a 12 inch dia by 3 in pyrex tube sealed with a 12 inch dia by 3/16 O ring and vac grease. One plate is drilled for a vac connection. I also have a 9 inch dia version using an acrylic tube. It works just as well. Works is a relative term. Lots of neat visual effects: no obvious OU. The Correa patents are quite specific about the aluminum alloys used, and quite specific about the need for a low work function, which will also depend on the condition of the surfaces with respect to contamination. If you don't "get" this, you are missing essential matters. As you pull a vacuum while the tube is energized, you reach a vacuum threshold where the tube lights off. Maximum activity is not terribly far below this threshold. If you pull a much harder vacuum then the reactions get lethargic. The geometry of my tubes allows me to see a haze line in the lavender glow of the tube. This line may not be visible in a Correa style tube. Best performance of my equipmentis at a haze line height of 5/8 to 3/4 inch above the cathode plate. At light off the haze line is at 1/8 to1/4 inch above the cathode. Jeff - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 5:25 PM Subject: Re: Correa Now we're getting somewhere! Perhaps a huge part of this mystery concerns the critical design of the output. Too small a capacitor and the pulse action will be inhibited because the capacitor will be filled. Too fast or brief a pulse and the battery may reject most of it as heat rather than accept it as a charge. It might be possible to use some sort of audio transformer of high quality to transform the pulses down. I would think the low impedance of a small battery pack would be reflected back into the tube favorably. Perhaps one of the new low voltage ultracaps would work in such a circuit.
RE: Correa
For those of us that read email in plain text to avoid embedded viruses please refrain from formatted replies... it is impossible to follow. Also, formattinggets stripped out in the archived messagesso the historical context of your thread is lost too. Just a suggestion. -john -Original Message-From: Mike Carrell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 8:24 AMTo: vortex-l@eskimo.comSubject: Re: Correa Jeff wrote, my comments in blue. Mike Carrell I don't know anything about electrochemistry in batteries, but I question the ability of a string cells to absorb a fast high energy pulse without impedance, and that this impedence would cause a voltage spike. Maybe the spike has a different contour than a cap has and that makes the difference. I don't know. Batteriestake charge by chemical action, which can't happed as fast as the PAGD pulse; Jeff is right. This is why the Correa circuit has a large electrolytic capacitor across the batteries, to take the peak energy and buffer it so the battery chemistry can act. What I do know is that if you run the tube with only a ballast resistor, the PAGD events are merely a random display of little sparkles on the surface of the cathode, and that a series connected diode cap combination across the the tube to capture a forward pulse will collect nothing. But, if you put a 3 mfd cap across the tube, the sparkles turn into energetic eruptions on the cathode surface causing the capture capto charge up to 800v in successive pulses. (I accidently pushed a series combination of 350v electrolytic capture caps to 800v and got away with it) The faint blue glow is one of the precursors to the PAGD discharge. When you put a 3 mfd capacitor across the cell you have made an ordinary strobe flasher and the energy comes from charging the capacitor. My tube is a pair of 3/4 inch aluminum plates separated be a 12 inch dia by 3 in pyrex tube sealed with a 12 inch dia by 3/16 O ring and vac grease. One plate is drilled for a vac connection. I also have a 9 inch dia version using an acrylic tube. It works just as well. Works is a relative term. Lots of neat visual effects: no obvious OU. The Correa patents are quite specific about the aluminum alloys used, and quite specific about the need for a low work function, which will also depend on the condition of the surfaces with respect to contamination. If you don't "get" this, you are missing essential matters. As you pull a vacuum while the tube is energized, you reach a vacuum threshold where the tube lights off. Maximum activity is not terribly far below this threshold. If you pull a much harder vacuum then the reactions get lethargic. The geometry of my tubes allows me to see a haze line in the lavender glow of the tube. This line may not be visible in a Correa style tube. Best performance of my equipmentis at a haze line height of 5/8 to 3/4 inch above the cathode plate. At light off the haze line is at 1/8 to1/4 inch above the cathode. Jeff - Original Message - From: Zell, Chris To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 5:25 PM Subject: Re: Correa Now we're getting somewhere! Perhaps a huge part of this mystery concerns the critical design of the output. Too small a capacitor and the pulse action will be inhibited because the capacitor will be filled. Too fast or brief a pulse and the battery may reject most of it as heat rather than accept it as a charge. It might be possible to use some sort of audio transformer of high quality to transform the pulses down. I would think the low impedance of a small battery pack would be reflected back into the tube favorably. Perhaps one of the new low voltage ultracaps would work in such a circuit.
attachments
Can I get a scanned diagram to go thru Vortex-l as an attachment. As I recall photos won't go. Jeff
Transistors, replication, and PAGD
Jed favors us with excellent snippets of the history of technology to illustrate contemporary situations. In that spirit, some comments. Transistors have their roots in very early radio detectors, the 'cats whisker' and a lump of lead oxide, or galena ore. The 'cats whisker' was a sharpened wire on a pivoting mount, enabling the user to fish around on the surface of the galena crystal to find a 'hot spot' that was a useful rectifier. Some 20 years later, the early solid state physics gave insight into what was going on. With the early development of radar, a pressing need was the receive/transmit switch. The same antenna was used for transmitting a multi-kilowatt burst and receiving the faint reflections from aircraft. An instant switch was needed to protect the teceiver from the transmitter burst. It was found in a point contact germanium diode, a refined version of the earler 'cats whisker' detector. Wartime necessity paid for methods of refining ot get pure germanium, and mass production of mechanically stable diodes. It also paid for studies in solid state physics to understand the operation of the diode. Bell Lab's search for an electronic switch started with that diode and in essence added another sharpenend wire close to the first one, and found that current injected by that second wire could control current in the other, with amplification. It was analogus to the well know triode vacuum tube, but with important differences that had to be understood to be controlled. Mass production was essential, which depended on understanding the transistor effect well enough to know what was truly essential and what was irrelevant. I won't recap the many clever ideas that were tried to stabilize the transistor characteristics and extend life. It was many years later that the concept of the planar transistor slowly emerged in two people and converged in integrated circuits which are made by a sophisticated printing process. It also took time to mature the use of silicon instead of germanium as a substrate. Germanium transistors are still made for specific applications, and used by circuit designers who understand how to handle gremanium's characteristics. The road from the point contact transistor to integrated circuits cost untold billions and tens of thousands of man hours of work in diverse technologies. Jed has given us useful illustrations fromthe history of aviation.I recall that even after the Wright brother's flight, even after the patents were issued, even after their successful demonstration in Washington, people were still building failing airplanes after 'their own ideas'. People who followed the Wright brothers patents built airplanes that flew. There were rapid refinements in the control system used, but these were based on the essentials revealed in the Wright brother's work. In the current discussion about PAGD, Jeff cites aerospace experience. I could suggest that his deviations from the Correa's patents are equivalent to deciding that it is too much trouble to make those curved wing and propellor surfaces, that flat wings and paddle-like propellors are good enough, following common sense. This ignores the extensive wind tunnel tests that the Wrights made of different wing and propellor shapes, long before there was any computer simulation of the airflow over these complex surfaces. In the current LENR scene, it could be said that in those few episodes of sudden extreme heat release, of 'heat after death', something "right" was done and in everything else people are unwittingly and sincerely repeating mistakes. After all, if those "right" events were repeated every day in labs around the world, we would not be fretting about the DoE reports or what Scientific American has to say. It may not be true that the specific construction described in the Correa patents is of the essence, or that disclosure overcomes barriers to commercial uitlization, but nobody can say that their work is mysterious or obscure until they with competence have duplicated what is in the patents. And I do mean "duplicated", not "imitated". After long contemplation of the phenomenon, there are aspects which seem strange indeed. Why not use wall-powered supplies to provide the setup conditions instead of batteries? Years ago Paulo said such supplies were destroyed when the PAGD pulse let go. Why? I don't know. Why not make LENR cells with cathodes cut from soup cans? It's cheaper. The same can be said of the Mills work. There is one paper in the Journal of Applied Physics which purportedly duplicated a Mills experiment, without significant results. One significant parameter was different, which meant that the paper reported on an expeiment which Mills had already made with null results, not on his successful experiment. Others have found the phenomena Mills reports with apparatus that is different is some respects, butwith an understanding of
Re: attachments
At 12:05 pm 05-03-05 -0500, you wrote: Can I get a scanned diagram to go thru Vortex-l as an attachment. As I recall photos won't go. A way of getting round the problem that Vortex is a text only group is to either [1] have your own web-site and provide a URL for the relevant page, or [2] register with Yahoo groups (free) and set up your own group (free) This gives you 20Meg file space, 30Meg for photos, etc. If you ever run out of space then you simply open up a second group. Now it's true that to get to see those files Vorts would have to become members of that group. But once they are members they can readily access the files, jpegs, whatever. If people aren't prepared to make a small effort to see a file, over and above merely clicking on a URL, then they are not really interested. Cheers Frank Grimer
Re: attachments
also, feel free to email me the file off list, ill make a space on my webserver if youd like for vortex email items, and give the url here. On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 19:06:45 +, Grimer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 12:05 pm 05-03-05 -0500, you wrote: Can I get a scanned diagram to go thru Vortex-l as an attachment. As I recall photos won't go. A way of getting round the problem that Vortex is a text only group is to either [1] have your own web-site and provide a URL for the relevant page, or [2] register with Yahoo groups (free) and set up your own group (free) This gives you 20Meg file space, 30Meg for photos, etc. If you ever run out of space then you simply open up a second group. Now it's true that to get to see those files Vorts would have to become members of that group. But once they are members they can readily access the files, jpegs, whatever. If people aren't prepared to make a small effort to see a file, over and above merely clicking on a URL, then they are not really interested. Cheers Frank Grimer -- Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write Voltaire
Energy - The Big Picture
Table 1 - Current energy plant capital cost in $/W Gas turbine 0.5 Wind 2.0 Solar tower 2.5 Nuclear 6.0 One MBtu is equivalent to 33.43 watts expended for a year. Multiplying the above values by 33.43 we can thus obtain energy plant cost in $ per MBtu/yr assuming a plant life of one year. Table 2 - Current energy plant capital cost (in $ per MBtu/yr, or $T per quad/yr) Gas turbine 17 Wind 67 Solar tower 83 Nuclear 200 The above values have to be multiplied by 10^9 to obtain cost in $ per quad/yr. So, the above numbers represent the current cost in trillions of dollars per quad/yr energy creation capacity. Thus multiplying the values of Table 2 by 400 we have the cost of plant capacity to provide current world energy needs of 400 quads: Table 3 - Current energy plant capital cost in $T to supply world needs Wind 26,800 Solar tower 33,200 Nuclear 80,000 If we discard nuclear energy as not cost effective, and assume half solar and half wind energy production, we have 30,000 $T capital cost to provide all the worlds energy needs by renewable means. Assuming a 3 percent cost of capital (reasonable assuming value of energy inflates too) we have an annual cost of 1500 trillion dollars to produce the 400 quads. That is (10^6)(1500x10^9)/(400x10^15)$/MBtu = $3.75 per MBtu. If we triple the cost to include cost for novel energy transportation and storage methods, we have a cost of $11.25 per MBtu. This is very competitive with the DOE 2003 costs of energy, as shown in Table 4. Table 4 - Current costs of energy in $/MBtu Electric 25.20 Methane9.10 Heat. Oil 9.25 Propane 13.46 Kerosene 11.41 It appears the job of converting to renewable energy can be accomplished starting now, especially where long trades are not required. The capital cost will ultimately be on the order of 90,000 trillion dollars, but invested over the, say, 20 years required to accomplish the plant development it will be about 4,500 trillion per year. At $12/MBtu, the world energy requirement costs about 4,800 trillion dollars per year. The capital to achieve the conversion can be obtained by doubling the cost of energy for about 20 years. Considering most of the energy is consumed on the continents in which it is produced, the cost could be substantially less than that estimated, possibly by as much as 60 percent less. The powerful effect of economy of scale has not been applied either. Unfortunately, as with a national renewable energy policy, all that is missing is the political will to make it happen. It is even less likely to happen on a global basis than a national basis. However, emerging capitalists should have their noises in the air. The smell of money is there. They may well wipe out those unable to think in any terms other than big oil. The future is likely another example of survival of the fittest and the adaptable. Any corrections would be appreciated. Regards, Horace Heffner
RE: Energy - The Big Picture
--- On Sat 03/05, Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It appears the job of converting to renewable energy can be accomplished starting now, especially where long trades are not required. The capital cost will ultimately be on the order of 90,000 trillion dollars, but invested over the, say, 20 years required to accomplish the plant development it will be about 4,500 trillion per year. I assume you mean American trillion, i.e., 10^12. In any case, long term conversion of energy sources needs to be analyzed this way. This is very enlightening. M. ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web!
Re: Transistors, replication, and PAGD
Ed Storms wrote with his usual insight: Mike Carrell wrote: It may not be true that the specific construction described in the Correa patents is of the essence, or that disclosure overcomes barriers to commercial uitlization, but nobody can say that their work is mysterious or obscure until they with competence have duplicated what is in the patents. And I do mean duplicated, not imitated. After long contemplation of the phenomenon, there are aspects which seem strange indeed. Why not use wall-powered supplies to provide the setup conditions instead of batteries? Years ago Paulo said such supplies were destroyed when the PAGD pulse let go. Why? I don't know. Why not make LENR cells with cathodes cut from soup cans? It's cheaper. Mike, I agree, the early transistor experience is very similar to what people now suffer with cold fusion. For example, one of the major problems with early transistors was the level of required purity. Very small amounts of impurity in the Ge would cause large and unexpected changes in the electrical properties. These amounts were below the level of detection until new analytical tools were developed. The same is true of cold fusion. The active material is a very small amount of material deposited on an inert substrate, a domain that is too small to see by normal methods. Therefore, once again, new tools must be applied, in addition to a new attitude. Palladium was used initially and is still thought to be the active material by some people. However, the palladium is only an inert substrate on which the active material deposits. Once the proper deposit has been identified, the effect will be completely reproducible regardless of what is used as the inert substrate. Soup cans would work just as well, provided the proper deposits are applied. The point I'm making is that knowing the important variables is more important than simply duplicating the effect. This requires making assumptions about the basic process. In the case of the transistor, the basic process involved electron conduction. The basic process in cold fusion involves a nuclear process in a solid lattice. For flight, the basic process involves the pressure differential created by air flowing over a curved surface. In each case, success was achieved by understanding the basic process. For transistors, the conduction band became the center of attention, for cold fusion, the solid structure is important, and for flight, the pressure of flowing air is measured. ---New stuff: So I ask, what is the basic process in the PAGD effect? Excellent question to which I do not have an answer. My understanding is that the effect was found by accident while investigating Xray tubes. The Correas then checked refrences, to be found in their patents, and empirically discovered the means to evoke the effect at will and capture the energy. What is conspicuously absent from the patents and publications is a discussion of exactly what goes on in the discharge itself. A few images here and there suggest an intensive investigation. Harold Aspden, who has written extensively on aether theory, devoted a monograph to the PAGD phenomenon. There are curious annular pits around one of the electrodes, suggesting a vortex. I infer that study of the phenomenon opened doors to a new understanding of physics which has underlain their later work and monographs. One must set aside preconceptions about the nature of the aether, and conventional notions ion behavior and the like. Dr. Harold Aspden was once head of IBM's patent operations for Europe with a base in the UK. During his graduate work he found some anomalous realtionships between heat and magnetism in magnetic materials, and this set him on a lifelong investigation of the nature of aether which is set out in books, monographs, and an extensive website full of tutorial essays. You can find his discussion of PAGD at http://www.aspden.org/reports/Es8/Rep8.htm. There is little I can add to a reading of this report, which sits in a context to Aspden's larger work. For example, how can moving ions extract energy from their surroundings? Wrong question. Read the above cited report by Aspden, which may not be the whole story. Why must the ions and/or electrons only move in a certain way, as caused by the unique applied voltage? Wrong question again: see Aspden. It isn't the applied voltage itself. The effect occurs in a certain region of the generally well known current-voltage realtionship of a glow discharge, near the arc conditions. The effect cannot be triggered; one sets up the conditons and when a vortex of aether energy comes by, part of it is tapped. One can better think of the cell as a kind of antenna. The discharges occur semi-periodically at various average rates. If the rate is low, the discharges tende to be more energetic than when they are fast. How can this required motion be achieved other
Re: Energy - The Big Picture
In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Sat, 05 Mar 2005 18:23:50 -0900: Hi, [snip] Table 1 - Current energy plant capital cost in $/W Gas turbine 0.5 Wind 2.0 Solar tower 2.5 Nuclear 6.0 One MBtu is equivalent to 33.43 watts expended for a year. Multiplying the above values by 33.43 we can thus obtain energy plant cost in $ per MBtu/yr assuming a plant life of one year. Table 2 - Current energy plant capital cost (in $ per MBtu/yr, or $T per quad/yr) Gas turbine 17 Wind 67 Solar tower 83 Nuclear 200 The above values have to be multiplied by 10^9 to obtain cost in $ per quad/yr. So, the above numbers represent the current cost in trillions of dollars per quad/yr energy creation capacity. The costs started off in dollars and got multiplied by 10^9, so they are be in billions, not trillions of dollars per quad/yr generation capacity. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk All SPAM goes in the trash unread.
Energy - The Big Picture DRAFT #2
The following is an attempt to put into perspective the problem of obtaining the world's energy needs by carbon free renewable means. Table 1 - Current energy plant capital cost in $/W Gas turbine 0.5 Wind 2.0 Solar tower 2.5 Nuclear 6.0 One MBtu is equivalent to 33.43 watts expended for a year. Multiplying the above values by 33.43 we can thus obtain energy plant cost in $ per MBtu/yr assuming a plant life of one year. Table 2 - Current energy plant capital cost (in $ per MBtu/yr, or $B per quad/yr) Gas turbine 17 Wind 67 Solar tower 83 Nuclear 200 The above values have to be multiplied by 10^9 to obtain cost in $ per quad/yr. So, the above numbers represent the current cost in billions of dollars per quad/yr energy creation capacity. Thus multiplying the values of Table 2 by 400 we have the cost of plant capacity to provide current world energy needs of 400 quads: Table 3 - Current energy plant capital cost in $T to supply world needs Wind 26.8 Solar tower 33.2 Nuclear 80.0 If we discard nuclear energy as not cost effective, and assume half solar and half wind energy production, we have 30 $T capital cost to provide all the worlds energy needs by renewable means. Assuming a 3 percent cost of capital (reasonable assuming value of energy inflates too) we have an annual cost of 1.5 trillion dollars to produce the 400 quads. That is (10^6)(1.500x10^12)/(400x10^15)$/MBtu = $3.75 per MBtu. If we triple the cost to include cost for novel energy transportation and storage methods, we have a cost of $11.25 per MBtu. This is very competitive with the DOE 2003 costs of energy, as shown in Table 4. Table 4 - Current costs of energy in $/MBtu Electric 25.20 Methane9.10 Heat. Oil 9.25 Propane 13.46 Kerosene 11.41 It appears the job of converting to renewable energy can be accomplished starting now, especially where long trades are not required. The capital cost will ultimately be on the order of 90 trillion dollars, but invested over the, say, 20 years required to accomplish the plant development it will be about 4.5 trillion per year. At $12/MBtu, the world energy requirement costs about 4.8 trillion dollars per year. The capital to achieve the conversion can be obtained by doubling the cost of energy for about 20 years. Considering most of the energy is consumed on the continents in which it is produced, the cost could be substantially less than that estimated, possibly by as much as 60 percent less. The powerful effect of economy of scale has not been applied either. Unfortunately, as with a national renewable energy policy, all that is missing is the political will to make it happen. It is even less likely to happen on a global basis than a national basis. However, emerging capitalists should have their noises in the air. The smell of money is there. They may well wipe out those unable to think in any terms other than big oil. The future is likely another example of survival of the fittest and the adaptable. Any corrections would be appreciated. Regards, Horace Heffner
RE: Energy - The Big Picture
At 10:39 PM 3/5/5, Michael Foster wrote: I assume you mean American trillion, i.e., 10^12. In any case, long term conversion of energy sources needs to be analyzed this way. This is very enlightening. Thanks for the correction. I shouldn't post when I'm so short of time. Regards, Horace Heffner
Energy - The Big Picture DRAFT #2
I wrote: However, emerging capitalists should have their noises in the air. The smell of money is there. I wrote: However, emerging capitalists should have their noses in the air. The smell of money is there. Regards, Horace Heffner
Re Energy - The Big Picture DRAFT #2
I wrote: However, emerging capitalists should have their noises in the air. The smell of money is there. I meant to write: However, emerging capitalists should have their noses in the air. The smell of money is there. However, a little noise probably couldn't hurt if that's all it is. Regards, Horace Heffner
RE: Correa
Not really sure why the reply to does that. The message is technically being sent from the mail server, not from me per se. The reply to address should update accordingly... there is nothing I can do from my end. It's a mail server thing. My lazy work around to that problem (and it only really happens with a small minority, had no idea I was one of them) is to hit reply to all and simply click on and delete the offending address. That might save you a few mouse picks. 8^) -john -Original Message- From: Grimer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2005 1:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Correa At 09:38 am 05-03-05 -0600, you wrote: For those of us that read email in plain text to avoid embedded viruses please refrain from formatted replies... it is impossible to follow. Also, formatting gets stripped out in the archived messages so the historical context of your thread is lost too. Just a suggestion. -john And a jolly good one too! I always understood that Vortex post should have no HTML and no attachments. It's very irritating for people who are reading in plain text to have to delete wodges of HTML before being able to reply. And while I'm having a moan I would like to point out, John Steck, that your e-mail address appears where the Vortex address normally appears. This means that I have to delete your address, click on my nicknames window and substitute the Vortex address or my reply will go to you rather than Vortex. Quite a few posts come through like this. I don't know why but I wish people would sort it, out of consideration for those of us who keep our Lord Beaty's commandments. ;-) As for attachments, if posters want to refer to photos, diagrams, etc. they can use a URL to their own website or a Yahoo group site. Moan over, ;-) Frank Grimer -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.2 - Release Date: 05/03/04
