PipeChat Digest #1394 - Monday, May 15, 2000
 
Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic
  by "Chris Baker" <chorale@clara.co.uk>
Re: Double Languid Diapasons (x post)
  by "Chris Baker" <chorale@clara.co.uk>
Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic
  by "Bob Elms" <elmsr@albanyis.com.au>
Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic
  by "Bob Elms" <elmsr@albanyis.com.au>
Re: Sources for Parts?
  by "Bob Elms" <elmsr@albanyis.com.au>
Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic vs. tracker/slider
  by <Quilisma@socal.rr.com>
Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic
  by "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net>
Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic
  by "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net>
Re: Sources for Parts?
  by "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net>
Here's *why* EP to EM - Bob
  by "Bob Kinner" <rkinner@one.net>
Re: death ray,  was Re: Nicole Keller in Recital--Gainesville FL --Mother
  by <Cremona502@cs.com>
Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic
  by "Jon C. Habermaas" <opus1100@catoe.org>
Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic
  by "Chris Baker" <chorale@clara.co.uk>
Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic
  by "Chris Baker" <chorale@clara.co.uk>
Re: Here's *why* EP to EM - Bob
  by "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net>
Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic
  by "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net>
Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic
  by "Jon C. Habermaas" <opus1100@catoe.org>
 


(back) Subject: Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic From: "Chris Baker" <chorale@clara.co.uk> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 12:15:14 +0100     ----- Original Message ----- From: <Quilisma@socal.rr.com> Subject: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic     > Conventional wisdom says that the direct electric magnets have to do heavier > lifting ... therefore the valves open slower ... dividing the load up between the > magnets and the pneumatics is supposed to speed things up ... thus runs > conventional wisdom.   Can't see the problem : just convert to tubular pneumatic. : ) (remember to book the organ builders to come back in half a century or so, to do a spot of maintenance - not that it will be needed..... <<<GG>>>   Cheers, Chris    
(back) Subject: Re: Double Languid Diapasons (x post) From: "Chris Baker" <chorale@clara.co.uk> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 12:08:25 +0100     ----- Original Message ----- From: <ScottFop@aol.com> Subject: Double Languid Diapasons (x post)     > Does anyone know of double languid diapasons besides those in Wanamakers, > Atlantic City and the Church of the Assumption in Ansonia, CT (Midmer-Losh)? > Does Balboa Park have one?   According to Bonavia-Hunt, the double languid was invented by Vincent Willis, and the two prime examples in the UK are in Westminster Cathedral and in Liverpool Cathedral. BH goes on to mention the Atlantic City Auditorium, and that Vincent Willis had included two full choruses of double languid diapasons there - one set on 12inch wind, and the other on 20 inch ! VW apparently went to America initially at the invitation of Midmer-Losh, and of Senator Emerson Richards, (builder and architect resp.)   Bonavia-Hunt himself was invited to voice the 'Schulze' diapasons at Atlantic City, but was unable to accommodate the invitation.   Vincent Willis incidentally, invented the 'tubeon', or so he thought, but then discovered that Grindron had already done it. Rats!!!   Cheers, Chris Baker    
(back) Subject: Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic From: "Bob Elms" <elmsr@albanyis.com.au> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 22:03:51 +0800   An organ builder friend of mine who specialized in extension organs with = DE trebles, EP basses (built the organ I play) used an expansion chamber round the = foot hole of each pipe. No bounce there.   Incidentally as far as longevity of actions is concerned a number his = organs go back 45 years with minimum maintenance and tuning, and still showing no signs = of the need for any work done on them. On the other hand I know of some tracker organs = which have already had their actions replaced after less than 30 years.   It all depends on WHO builds the organ in the first place.   Bob E.   Quilisma@socal.rr.com wrote: I've talked to a couple of builders who are using direct electric action = applied   > to slider chests ... they say they've solved the bouncing and popping so > characteristic of old Wicks organs. If so, then certainly direct = electric is more > DURABLE than electro-pneumatic, as long as it fires as fast and the = valves don't > bounce. But then, thinking about it, I suppose slider chest pallet = valves wouldn't > bounce in the first place (grin). > > >    
(back) Subject: Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic From: "Bob Elms" <elmsr@albanyis.com.au> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 22:06:19 +0800   Sparks from back emf are eliminated these days by a diode in parallel to = the coil. Essential with solid state action unless you want to keep replacing = ICs. Bob E. TRACKELECT@cs.com wrote:   > Even the fastest EP action cannot come close to the speed of DE action = on > light to moderate wind. I speak as someone who has worked on hundreds of > organs all over the country. I have built DE and EP actions of my own = design > and have done exhaustive testing. This speed was the cause of the = problem > with early DE actions. Bouncing. This was found not to be of a purely > mechanical nature but was caused mostly by relay sparking. The valve = could > respond to the short spark caused by back EMF and the relay switch. = Gress > Miles eliminated this problem by building lost motion into their valves. > Wicks also built a lost motion valve but seems to have abandoned it = fairly > quickly. This problem was eliminated once and for all by solid state = relays. > The problems with speech in DE action are usually found in cheap or ill > conceived work or in conversions that are not done correctly. I have = done > several conversions and have taken great pains to ensure that they are = done > correctly. I have also restored EP organs that I could have converted = but > decided that because the action was quick and responsive it should be > retained intact ( double primaries ). All actions have their pros and = cons ( > although I can't think of many pros for tubular ) and DE action is = reaching a > very high state of refinement with todays quality builders. = Unfortunately it > has gotten a bad rap from poorly made organs. > > Alan B > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org   -- ----------------------------------------------------- Click here for Free Video!! http://www.gohip.com/freevideo/      
(back) Subject: Re: Sources for Parts? From: "Bob Elms" <elmsr@albanyis.com.au> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 22:16:12 +0800   Tom, here they also are working against a fairly low wind pressure. There = would be very few organs in this state using more than 4" WG pressure except on = tubas and high pressure reeds. I am not counting a couple of theatre organs, one = a Wurlitzer. The one I play by a local builder who built more organs here = than any other builder uses 3.5" WG even on the reeds. He use EP for the basses. = One bass (on a dulicana) uses DE all the way down but bottom C does not want to = work at all as the magnet cannot overcome the pressure.   I think sparking is a thing of the past with modern solid state actions = and modern diodes. My builder used low value resistors but that was 30 years = ago. Also when I replaced the old electro-mechanical stop relay here with a = solid state coupking system. I also put in a regulated power supply. Other = builders who did not do this have had problems with blown ICs. I have had none go so = far. The reason for replacing this stop action was to overcome a problem with = contacts corroding in the sea air. The organ is in a church only a few hundred = yards from the water. Bob E.   Tspiggle@aol.com wrote:   > Bob: > > The speed of the action really depends on the wind pressure. Most organs = with > EP action are higher wind pressure. With EP action, the wind pressure = assists > the opening of the valve so that the higher the pressure gets the faster = EP > action works. The Wurlitzer action, which works on 10" and higher = pressure, > is "lightning" fast. Conversley, with electric action the valves have to = work > against the wind. The higher the pressure, the slower they work. Also, = the > higher the pressure, the more electricity that is needed to open the = electric > valve, and excessive sparking and burnt contacts can result. Electric = valves > work OK on very low pressure. > > I've have in my home for the past 25 years a Moller with EP action but = with > another rank added on a direct electric chest. On my organ the EP is = faster > and also quiter. There's no way I'd convert the Moller to electric = action. > > As regards your organ, treble valves generally work faster because they = are > smaller. > > Tom > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org   -- ----------------------------------------------------- Click here for Free Video!! http://www.gohip.com/freevideo/      
(back) Subject: Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic vs. tracker/slider From: <Quilisma@socal.rr.com> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 09:23:41 -0700   If a TRACKER organ had to have its action REPLACED after thirty years, = then the church should be taking the builder to COURT. Surely you don't mean the ACTION, = unless, perchance, they used unstable wood or aluminum for the trackers and = plastic nuts or bearings and the thing had to be REWORKED, but that's still not the same = as REPLACING it. A properly constructed tracker ACTION will last for HUNDREDS of years ... = a slider windchest that gets rained on will NOT (grin).   Speaking of, though, a PROPERLY-CONSTRUCTED slider windchest made out of = properly-cured wood will also outlast a pitman or d.e. chest by several hundred years ... Bob-In-The-Desert was evidently exposed to some of the cheezy examples = that were built in the U.S. in the sixties ... we had one at CCM in Cincinnati with = wafer-thin transparent PLASTIC sliders, which of COURSE never sealed properly.   They're more expensive to build initially, to be sure, but not if you = factor in having to completely disassemble an organ on pitman chests to releather the = primaries every 25-50 years (depending on air pollution). Yes, d.e. chests last longer than = pitmans, but there's still the issue of the quality of pipe-speech and blend on a = stop-channel versus a tone-channel chest.   OK, MAYBE d.e. applied to slider chests is the best of all possible = worlds, IF you MUST have electric key action.   Cheers,   Bud   Bob Elms wrote:   > An organ builder friend of mine who specialized in extension organs with = DE trebles, > EP basses (built the organ I play) used an expansion chamber round the = foot hole of > each pipe. No bounce there. > > Incidentally as far as longevity of actions is concerned a number his = organs go back > 45 years with minimum maintenance and tuning, and still showing no = signs of the need > for any work done on them. On the other hand I know of some tracker = organs which have > already had their actions replaced after less than 30 years. > > It all depends on WHO builds the organ in the first place. > > Bob E. > > Quilisma@socal.rr.com wrote: > I've talked to a couple of builders who are using direct electric action = applied > > > to slider chests ... they say they've solved the bouncing and popping = so > > characteristic of old Wicks organs. If so, then certainly direct = electric is more > > DURABLE than electro-pneumatic, as long as it fires as fast and the = valves don't > > bounce. But then, thinking about it, I suppose slider chest pallet = valves wouldn't > > bounce in the first place (grin). > > > > > > > "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" > PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics > HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org > List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org > Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org    
(back) Subject: Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic From: "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 11:48:33   At 12:15 PM 5/15/2000 +0100, you wrote: >Can't see the problem : just convert to tubular pneumatic. : ) >(remember to book the organ builders to come back in half a century or >so, to do a spot of maintenance - not that it will be needed.....<snip>   Sorry, TP action of any kind is simply out of the question. It's too costly, does not lend itself well to mass production techniques, is full = of perishible leather, and has that annoying lag problem. Also, any = pneumatic system of motion control in inherently wasteful in terms of energy consumption.   DeserTBoB  
(back) Subject: Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic From: "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 12:16:20   At 10:06 PM 5/15/2000 +0800, you wrote: >Sparks from back emf are eliminated these days by a diode in parallel to = the >coil. Essential with solid state action unless you want to keep replacing ICs.<snip>   Absolutely. Diode shunting of the back EMF of the collapsing field, whether it be a large or small coil, is a must, and one that, for some reason, gets ignored by the pipe organ industry.   dB >Bob E. >TRACKELECT@cs.com wrote: > >> Even the fastest EP action cannot come close to the speed of DE action = on >> light to moderate wind. I speak as someone who has worked on hundreds = of >> organs all over the country. I have built DE and EP actions of my own design >> and have done exhaustive testing. This speed was the cause of the = problem >> with early DE actions. Bouncing. This was found not to be of a purely >> mechanical nature but was caused mostly by relay sparking. The valve = could >> respond to the short spark caused by back EMF and the relay switch. = Gress >> Miles eliminated this problem by building lost motion into their = valves. >> Wicks also built a lost motion valve but seems to have abandoned it = fairly >> quickly. This problem was eliminated once and for all by solid state relays. >> The problems with speech in DE action are usually found in cheap or ill >> conceived work or in conversions that are not done correctly. I have = done >> several conversions and have taken great pains to ensure that they are = done >> correctly. I have also restored EP organs that I could have converted = but >> decided that because the action was quick and responsive it should be >> retained intact ( double primaries ). All actions have their pros and cons ( >> although I can't think of many pros for tubular ) and DE action is reaching a >> very high state of refinement with todays quality builders. Unfortunately it >> has gotten a bad rap from poorly made organs. >> >> Alan B >> >> "Pipe Up and Be Heard!" >> PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics >> HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org >> List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org >> Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org > >-- >----------------------------------------------------- >Click here for Free Video!! >http://www.gohip.com/freevideo/ > > > >"Pipe Up and Be Heard!" >PipeChat: A discussion List for pipe/digital organs & related topics >HOMEPAGE : http://www.pipechat.org >List: mailto:pipechat@pipechat.org >Administration: mailto:admin@pipechat.org >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: mailto:requests@pipechat.org > > > >  
(back) Subject: Re: Sources for Parts? From: "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 12:34:41   At 10:16 PM 5/15/2000 +0800, you wrote: >I think sparking is a thing of the past with modern solid state actions = and >modern diodes. My builder used low value resistors but that was 30 years ago.<snip>   Before the advent of small, cheap germanium and silicon diodes in the '50s and '60s, either a resistance or capacitance was placed across the coil to deal with the EMF problem in most solenoid or relay applications. The resistance method is somehwhat wasteful, in that power is wasted to heat while the coil in energized, and the fact that there is a resistance is present doesn't take out all the back EMF. Capacitance, along with a high value bleeder resistor in parallel, also works for applications of low repeat rate, and was used for many years, but presents its own set of problems when rapid operation of the coil is required.   I draw upon my Bell System experience, as well as with various industrial control systems, for my knowledge on this subject. The Bell System = usually used shunt resistance in applications requiring rapid, successive = operation until germanium diodes were perfected and began being built in their = plants in the 1950s, whereupon diode shunting was used universally in relay applicatons, of which eletromechanical telephone switching had a seemingly infinate amount. Another "sometimes" advantage to diode shunting is that, due to the back EMF being effectively shorted except for the diode's forward voltage drop, the coil will, to a degree, tend to resist the armature's return to rest position, thus providing a small "cushioning" effect.   DeserTBoB  
(back) Subject: Here's *why* EP to EM - Bob From: "Bob Kinner" <rkinner@one.net> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 17:10:55 -0400   Dear List, Thanks for the many responses. I'll be getting back to some of you personally soon.   There are many good arguments - on both sides - on the EP to EM case. (We should avoid "DE" as that's a Wicks trademark.) But here's the overruling one that made the decision easy for me: maintenance. The only concern my church voiced when I proposed donating this organ was: " How are we going to maintain it? That's why we bought a toaster in the first place. Isn't maintenance expensive?"   It does take a certain knack - and often a lot of time - to repair the EP chests made by many builders. And, yes, they do need to be releathered once in a *great* while. On the other hand, anyone who can use a screwdriver and a soldering iron can repair an EM chest. IF the pallet valve fails, you just pull it out and replace it with another.   The old arguments about arcing ruining contacts should be moot by now. An $0.88 MOSFET will switch 15 amps and a group of $.03 diodes takes care of the switching and EMF shunting.   Again, thanks for the help. I'll be in touch. Bob -- Bob Kinner AA8FH rkinner@one.net "If at first you don't succeed, switch to power tools." Red Green      
(back) Subject: Re: death ray, was Re: Nicole Keller in Recital--Gainesville FL --Mothers Day From: <Cremona502@cs.com> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 17:16:09 EDT   In a message dated 5/15/00 12:38:04 AM Eastern Daylight Time, lmelby@prtel.com writes:   > had misidentified the writer of the note below as Bruce in my > previous note, I'm sorry Bruce, so sorry, I didn't mean to do it . > Luther,,, an old guy, who is new to computers and pipe organs. > No problem. As long as I don't get sued, makes no nebbermind! Forgiven! =     Brewse.... another old guy, who is now comfortable with computers, not = new to pipe organs, but doesn't really give a hoot anymore. hehehehehe   Bruce .. . . .in the Beagles' Nest with the Baskerbeagles Molly, Duncan, and Miles Cremona502@cs.com http://ourworld.cs.com/Brucon502  
(back) Subject: Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic From: "Jon C. Habermaas" <opus1100@catoe.org> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 16:17:47 -0500     >At 12:15 PM 5/15/2000 +0100, you wrote: > >Can't see the problem : just convert to tubular pneumatic. : )   And while you are at it...trim the wicks and bring back the kerosene lamps, throw out the airconditioning and put a wood stove in the corner before next winter. You might also check out the equine market,,,,   jch ;-)    
(back) Subject: Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic From: "Chris Baker" <chorale@clara.co.uk> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 22:46:23 +0100   Chris Baker wrote:   > >Can't see the problem : just convert to tubular pneumatic. : ) > >(remember to book the organ builders to come back in half a century or > >so, to do a spot of maintenance - not that it will be needed.....<snip> > Bob replied: > Sorry, TP action of any kind is simply out of the question. It's too > costly, does not lend itself well to mass production techniques, is full of > perishible leather, and has that annoying lag problem.   Bob, even though I was only joking about such a conversion, you really MUST come to England and play a J.J.Binns TP organ. The one I play is 90 years old, has instantaneous speech, has just received its first overhaul, needing seven small motors to be re-leathered, and apart from that, just cleaning and re-voicing. Still, Binns *was* one of the two makers to develop and perfect the technology. Many others thought they could improve on it, but mercifully, most of them seemed to cross to America, leaving us with the working model, so to speak.   >Also, any pneumatic system of motion control in inherently wasteful in terms of energy > consumption.   Eh???? WHAT energy is wasted? The Discus charges and powers the action, Compared to the release of air through the pipework, air loss through the action is minute, thus the 're-charging' load on the Discus motor is from negligible to none. And there is no other energy input or drain - no wiring, switches, solenoids, contacts etc.. Did you mean something else?   Regards, Chris Baker              
(back) Subject: Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic From: "Chris Baker" <chorale@clara.co.uk> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 23:01:52 +0100     From: Jon C. Habermaas Subject: Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic   Chris Baker wrote:   > > >Can't see the problem : just convert to tubular pneumatic. : ) > Jon replied: > And while you are at it...trim the wicks and bring back the kerosene > lamps, throw out the airconditioning > and put a wood stove in the corner before next winter. You might also > check out the equine market,,,,   I see that you are thoroughly familiar with the English rural parish church. "Air conditioning"...........AIR CONDITIONING!!!!!!! HaHaHaHaHaHaHa.   And do tell, exactly WHY would we need to put another wood stove in the corner, Huh.. huh? Is there something wrong with the one we already have?   <<GG>>   Chris Baker        
(back) Subject: Re: Here's *why* EP to EM - Bob From: "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 15:44:40   At 05:10 PM 5/15/2000 -0400, Red Green wrote: >How are we going to maintain it? That's why we bought a toaster in the >first place. Isn't maintenance expensive?"<snip>   BINGO! This same phrase must be uttered in every state of the union every week. Churches KNOW that organs are a maintenance PITA; hence, the proliferation of the electronic poseur. A reliable, inexpensive, tonally invisible "EM" action (bowing to the Wicks' "DE"=AE trademark now, for fear of ruffling their feathers) takes a big hunk out of future maintanence headaches that churches (and other venues, we certainly hope) worry about, and they should worry about it! The advantages of "EM" are on both the front end, with reduced costs over EP and tracker, and the back end, with reduced long-term maintenance against EP. Although I grant that GOOD tracker/slider action is long-lived, it is prohibitavely costly and inflexible, and woe be to anyone that dares contemplate an addition or rearragnement of any kind. With "EM", these are simply "plant pipes and play". To those that seem to have some notion of the "tonal" superiority of slider chests, I point to the perennial success of Austin...'nuff said.   If you want to play against the electronic poseur, you have to do it on their home turf....economics.   That said, I shall place yet another batch of my infamous burrs under the saddles of the traditionalists! The day ain't far away when "pipe metal" will be gone, too. The whole long-held myth that metal or alloy type has a pronounced influence over tonality has been proved to be bunk. The pipe is merely a conduit; the air column is the tonal generator. Thus, I see pipes of various plastics, PVC, ABS and others, as well as carbon fibers, making their entrance, and quite soon. Fiberglas=AE chests? Certainly a possibility, and one that forever banishes the water damage problem, which has silenced many a great organ way before its time. Had such engineering been available in the '30s, I'd bet ACCH would still be playing it its entirety today.   Who CARES what it's made of, as long as it SOUNDS right and LASTS!   DeserTBoB  
(back) Subject: Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic From: "Bob Scarborough" <desertbob@rglobal.net> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 15:57:36   At 10:46 PM 5/15/2000 +0100, you wrote: >you really >MUST come to England and play a J.J.Binns TP organ.<snip>   Binns' work was probably the apex of TP technology and application, so I've heard.   >Many others thought they could improve on it, but >mercifully, most of them seemed to cross to America, leaving us with >the working model, so to speak.<snip>   Gee, thanks a LOT! We got cursed with some real turkeys with EP, that's for certain! M=F6ller built more than their share.   >And there is no other energy >input or drain - no wiring, switches, solenoids, contacts etc.. Did >you mean something else?<snip>   All pneumatic systems leak, for one, plus the energy source, the blower, must be actively consuming power at all times to provide static pressure to work the action. While in play, the air consumed by TP or EP action can get to be a fairly considerable amount of the whole, when things aren't as tight and tidy as they're supposed to be. With electric action, energy, minus transformer losses given up as heat, isn't consumed at all until the action is actually doing work. Most assuredly, many "EM" actions which use huge recitifiers give off a lot more heat energy that is totally necessary. A "stored energy" system, consisiting of gel-cells, could reduce the size, and thus increase the efficiency of the rectifier, thus providing a sufficient reserve for the gradest of grand tuttis, while minimizing heat loss of a large rectifier.   DeserTBoB  
(back) Subject: Re: direct electric vs. electro-pneumatic From: "Jon C. Habermaas" <opus1100@catoe.org> Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 18:07:47 -0500   At 11:01 PM 05/15/2000 +0100, you wrote:   >I see that you are thoroughly familiar with the English rural parish >church. >"Air conditioning"...........AIR CONDITIONING!!!!!!! HaHaHaHaHaHaHa. > >And do tell, exactly WHY would we need to put another wood stove in >the corner, Huh.. huh? >Is there something wrong with the one we already have? > ><<GG>> > >Chris Baker > HEHE...you got me....guess I've been the city too long...     jch