In a different thread, N5MK wrote:

I've tried some programs with "optimizers" etc, etc.. MMANA has one fer
instance, and it's freeware. In many cases, I can manually churn out a
better design by ignoring it, and doing it myself. I've seen a few
churn out some pretty funky designs which were not even close to being
optimum. Overall, I don't have much use for them. I don't need the
program to hold my hand while using it.

Can we start a new discussion, specifically about optimizers?

Having used Brian Beezley's YO and AO (Yagi Optimizer and Antenna
Optimizer) extensively in the past, I'm not quite as pessimistic as Mark
about the value of optimizers.

If they're simply allowed to run wild, they can produce some very
foolish antenna designs. Usually that is not a criticism of the
automated modeling... it mostly means that, for some practical reason or
another, the user would be a fool to build the thing.

On the other hand, an optimizer can be very useful for tasks that have a
very simple target, so it can't go far wrong. For example: "Adjust the
length of that wire to make it resonant at this frequency." That doesn't
take long to do by hand, but an optimizer can also handle more
complicated tasks like: "Adjust the lengths of these three interacting
wires to make the antenna resonant on three different bands." Then you
really start to see some benefit from the automation.

At the other end of the spectrum is the kind of complex optimization for
which YO was developed. You quickly learn that you can't just say
"Optimize that yagi!" Quite the opposite: to use the program at all, you
are forced to think very hard about what you really mean by "optimum" -
for example, how much importance you attach to forward gain, a clean
pattern, a convenient feedpoint impedance, and to maintaining that good
performance over a wide bandwidth. Playing with an optimizer, you
quickly come to understand that it isn't possible to get the best of
everything, all at the same time... which is a very valuable lesson to
learn.

The same applies to all other antenna optimizers, of course; and circuit
optimizers too. The learning process alone can be worth the money.

Having gone through that learning process, an automatic optimizer can
then zip out some really good antenna designs in a matter of minutes -
which leaves you wondering what took you so long :-) But that isn't
going to happen in the first evening, or even maybe the first month.


[Sorry, I don't know how or even if you can buy AO or YO any more.]


--

73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)
http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

On 9 Mar, 02:37, Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
In a different thread, N5MK wrote:

I've tried some programs with "optimizers" etc, etc.. MMANA has one fer
instance, and it's freeware. In many cases, I can manually churn out a
better design by ignoring it, and doing it myself. I've seen a few
churn out some pretty funky designs which were not even close to being
optimum. Overall, I don't have much use for them. I don't need the
program to hold my hand while using it.

Can we start a new discussion, specifically about optimizers?

Having used Brian Beezley's YO and AO (Yagi Optimizer and Antenna
Optimizer) extensively in the past, I'm not quite as pessimistic as Mark
about the value of optimizers.

If they're simply allowed to run wild, they can produce some very
foolish antenna designs. Usually that is not a criticism of the
automated modeling... it mostly means that, for some practical reason or
another, the user would be a fool to build the thing.

On the other hand, an optimizer can be very useful for tasks that have a
very simple target, so it can't go far wrong. For example: "Adjust the
length of that wire to make it resonant at this frequency." That doesn't
take long to do by hand, but an optimizer can also handle more
complicated tasks like: "Adjust the lengths of these three interacting
wires to make the antenna resonant on three different bands." Then you
really start to see some benefit from the automation.

At the other end of the spectrum is the kind of complex optimization for
which YO was developed. You quickly learn that you can't just say
"Optimize that yagi!" Quite the opposite: to use the program at all, you
are forced to think very hard about what you really mean by "optimum" -
for example, how much importance you attach to forward gain, a clean
pattern, a convenient feedpoint impedance, and to maintaining that good
performance over a wide bandwidth. Playing with an optimizer, you
quickly come to understand that it isn't possible to get the best of
everything, all at the same time... which is a very valuable lesson to
learn.

The same applies to all other antenna optimizers, of course; and circuit
optimizers too. The learning process alone can be worth the money.

Having gone through that learning process, an automatic optimizer can
then zip out some really good antenna designs in a matter of minutes -
which leaves you wondering what took you so long :-) But that isn't
going to happen in the first evening, or even maybe the first month.

[Sorry, I don't know how or even if you can buy AO or YO any more.]

--

73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

What bothers me about all this Ian is that AO when allowed to run
freely
does produces an array where all elements are resonant in situ.
Put this same array in NEC4 and the program will concur with the value
of the desirables given. In the early days I thought that this was a
result of programming interference by outsiders but the symetry kept
bugging me. So I gave a rational for why AO was correct to test the
water. Well we all know that it is not in the books therefore I am an
idiot. So we flip the coin and determine why the original NEC code
provided an opening for such a big error but first we determine if
this so called"" error" had spread in any way.
Tho I believe my rational is correct surely the majority would be
interested in the cause of this anomaly, why it produced antenna
arrays that were legitametly smaller than the yagi and since NEC4
verified its performance it should be of interest to all antenna
designers. But no.
Ridicule has been put into motion and true science went out of the
window.
Cheers
Art
Go figure!

On Mar 9, 5:37 am, Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
In a different thread, N5MK wrote:

I've tried some programs with "optimizers" etc, etc.. MMANA has one fer
instance, and it's freeware. In many cases, I can manually churn out a
better design by ignoring it, and doing it myself. I've seen a few
churn out some pretty funky designs which were not even close to being
optimum. Overall, I don't have much use for them. I don't need the
program to hold my hand while using it.

Can we start a new discussion, specifically about optimizers?

Having used Brian Beezley's YO and AO (Yagi Optimizer and Antenna
Optimizer) extensively in the past, I'm not quite as pessimistic as Mark
about the value of optimizers.

If they're simply allowed to run wild, they can produce some very
foolish antenna designs. Usually that is not a criticism of the
automated modeling... it mostly means that, for some practical reason or
another, the user would be a fool to build the thing.

On the other hand, an optimizer can be very useful for tasks that have a
very simple target, so it can't go far wrong. For example: "Adjust the
length of that wire to make it resonant at this frequency." That doesn't
take long to do by hand, but an optimizer can also handle more
complicated tasks like: "Adjust the lengths of these three interacting
wires to make the antenna resonant on three different bands." Then you
really start to see some benefit from the automation.

At the other end of the spectrum is the kind of complex optimization for
which YO was developed. You quickly learn that you can't just say
"Optimize that yagi!" Quite the opposite: to use the program at all, you
are forced to think very hard about what you really mean by "optimum" -
for example, how much importance you attach to forward gain, a clean
pattern, a convenient feedpoint impedance, and to maintaining that good
performance over a wide bandwidth. Playing with an optimizer, you
quickly come to understand that it isn't possible to get the best of
everything, all at the same time... which is a very valuable lesson to
learn.

The same applies to all other antenna optimizers, of course; and circuit
optimizers too. The learning process alone can be worth the money.

Having gone through that learning process, an automatic optimizer can
then zip out some really good antenna designs in a matter of minutes -
which leaves you wondering what took you so long :-) But that isn't
going to happen in the first evening, or even maybe the first month.

[Sorry, I don't know how or even if you can buy AO or YO any more.]

--

73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

The first time I used YO was on a 386 computer and I remember how
looooong it took. Not too long ago I ran it on my daugther's 3.2Ghz
computer and it zipped by so fast I couldnt see what was going on. Are
there new versions that take care of this timing problem? The hardest
thing to do when using this type of software is to define BEST. BEST
is a very subjective quality. For eample I had a vertical on 10 meters
that is 1.5wl long. Most people would call this an awful antenna with
a vertical radiation angle that is way too high. No doubt this wasnt
the best local antenna or the best DX antenna but it filled a niche.
It worked great for short range skip and allowed me to have QSOs that
I never would have had with any other antenna. Seemed to really like
to talk into Louisianna for some reason.

Jimmie

On Mar 9, 9:18 am, "art" wrote:
On 9 Mar, 02:37, Ian White GM3SEK wrote:





In a different thread, N5MK wrote:

I've tried some programs with "optimizers" etc, etc.. MMANA has one fer
instance, and it's freeware. In many cases, I can manually churn out a
better design by ignoring it, and doing it myself. I've seen a few
churn out some pretty funky designs which were not even close to being
optimum. Overall, I don't have much use for them. I don't need the
program to hold my hand while using it.

Can we start a new discussion, specifically about optimizers?

Having used Brian Beezley's YO and AO (Yagi Optimizer and Antenna
Optimizer) extensively in the past, I'm not quite as pessimistic as Mark
about the value of optimizers.

If they're simply allowed to run wild, they can produce some very
foolish antenna designs. Usually that is not a criticism of the
automated modeling... it mostly means that, for some practical reason or
another, the user would be a fool to build the thing.

On the other hand, an optimizer can be very useful for tasks that have a
very simple target, so it can't go far wrong. For example: "Adjust the
length of that wire to make it resonant at this frequency." That doesn't
take long to do by hand, but an optimizer can also handle more
complicated tasks like: "Adjust the lengths of these three interacting
wires to make the antenna resonant on three different bands." Then you
really start to see some benefit from the automation.

At the other end of the spectrum is the kind of complex optimization for
which YO was developed. You quickly learn that you can't just say
"Optimize that yagi!" Quite the opposite: to use the program at all, you
are forced to think very hard about what you really mean by "optimum" -
for example, how much importance you attach to forward gain, a clean
pattern, a convenient feedpoint impedance, and to maintaining that good
performance over a wide bandwidth. Playing with an optimizer, you
quickly come to understand that it isn't possible to get the best of
everything, all at the same time... which is a very valuable lesson to
learn.

The same applies to all other antenna optimizers, of course; and circuit
optimizers too. The learning process alone can be worth the money.

Having gone through that learning process, an automatic optimizer can
then zip out some really good antenna designs in a matter of minutes -
which leaves you wondering what took you so long :-) But that isn't
going to happen in the first evening, or even maybe the first month.

[Sorry, I don't know how or even if you can buy AO or YO any more.]

--

73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

What bothers me about all this Ian is that AO when allowed to run
freely
does produces an array where all elements are resonant in situ.
Put this same array in NEC4 and the program will concur with the value
of the desirables given. In the early days I thought that this was a
result of programming interference by outsiders but the symetry kept
bugging me. So I gave a rational for why AO was correct to test the
water. Well we all know that it is not in the books therefore I am an
idiot. So we flip the coin and determine why the original NEC code
provided an opening for such a big error but first we determine if
this so called"" error" had spread in any way.
Tho I believe my rational is correct surely the majority would be
interested in the cause of this anomaly, why it produced antenna
arrays that were legitametly smaller than the yagi and since NEC4
verified its performance it should be of interest to all antenna
designers. But no.
Ridicule has been put into motion and true science went out of the
window.
Cheers
Art
Go figure!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry but I dont understand you Art, you denounce known theory but
want to use software based on known theory to prove your hypothesis.
Sorry but you tend to accept or denounce current theory just so you
can defend your current arguments.

Jimmie

On 9 Mar, 09:05, "JIMMIE" wrote:
On Mar 9, 9:18 am, "art" wrote:





On 9 Mar, 02:37, Ian White GM3SEK wrote:

In a different thread, N5MK wrote:

I've tried some programs with "optimizers" etc, etc.. MMANA has one fer
instance, and it's freeware. In many cases, I can manually churn out a
better design by ignoring it, and doing it myself. I've seen a few
churn out some pretty funky designs which were not even close to being
optimum. Overall, I don't have much use for them. I don't need the
program to hold my hand while using it.

Can we start a new discussion, specifically about optimizers?

Having used Brian Beezley's YO and AO (Yagi Optimizer and Antenna
Optimizer) extensively in the past, I'm not quite as pessimistic as Mark
about the value of optimizers.

If they're simply allowed to run wild, they can produce some very
foolish antenna designs. Usually that is not a criticism of the
automated modeling... it mostly means that, for some practical reason or
another, the user would be a fool to build the thing.

On the other hand, an optimizer can be very useful for tasks that have a
very simple target, so it can't go far wrong. For example: "Adjust the
length of that wire to make it resonant at this frequency." That doesn't
take long to do by hand, but an optimizer can also handle more
complicated tasks like: "Adjust the lengths of these three interacting
wires to make the antenna resonant on three different bands." Then you
really start to see some benefit from the automation.

At the other end of the spectrum is the kind of complex optimization for
which YO was developed. You quickly learn that you can't just say
"Optimize that yagi!" Quite the opposite: to use the program at all, you
are forced to think very hard about what you really mean by "optimum" -
for example, how much importance you attach to forward gain, a clean
pattern, a convenient feedpoint impedance, and to maintaining that good
performance over a wide bandwidth. Playing with an optimizer, you
quickly come to understand that it isn't possible to get the best of
everything, all at the same time... which is a very valuable lesson to
learn.

The same applies to all other antenna optimizers, of course; and circuit
optimizers too. The learning process alone can be worth the money.

Having gone through that learning process, an automatic optimizer can
then zip out some really good antenna designs in a matter of minutes -
which leaves you wondering what took you so long :-) But that isn't
going to happen in the first evening, or even maybe the first month.

[Sorry, I don't know how or even if you can buy AO or YO any more.]

--

73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

What bothers me about all this Ian is that AO when allowed to run
freely
does produces an array where all elements are resonant in situ.
Put this same array in NEC4 and the program will concur with the value
of the desirables given. In the early days I thought that this was a
result of programming interference by outsiders but the symetry kept
bugging me. So I gave a rational for why AO was correct to test the
water. Well we all know that it is not in the books therefore I am an
idiot. So we flip the coin and determine why the original NEC code
provided an opening for such a big error but first we determine if
this so called"" error" had spread in any way.
Tho I believe my rational is correct surely the majority would be
interested in the cause of this anomaly, why it produced antenna
arrays that were legitametly smaller than the yagi and since NEC4
verified its performance it should be of interest to all antenna
designers. But no.
Ridicule has been put into motion and true science went out of the
window.
Cheers
Art
Go figure!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry but I dont understand you Art, you denounce known theory but
want to use software based on known theory to prove your hypothesis.
Sorry but you tend to accept or denounce current theory just so you
can defend your current arguments.

Jimmie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thats an untruth Jimmie! are you only reading what you want to read?
Art

On Mar 9, 1:58 pm, "art" wrote:
On 9 Mar, 09:05, "JIMMIE" wrote:





On Mar 9, 9:18 am, "art" wrote:

On 9 Mar, 02:37, Ian White GM3SEK wrote:

In a different thread, N5MK wrote:

I've tried some programs with "optimizers" etc, etc.. MMANA has one fer
instance, and it's freeware. In many cases, I can manually churn out a
better design by ignoring it, and doing it myself. I've seen a few
churn out some pretty funky designs which were not even close to being
optimum. Overall, I don't have much use for them. I don't need the
program to hold my hand while using it.

Can we start a new discussion, specifically about optimizers?

Having used Brian Beezley's YO and AO (Yagi Optimizer and Antenna
Optimizer) extensively in the past, I'm not quite as pessimistic as Mark
about the value of optimizers.

If they're simply allowed to run wild, they can produce some very
foolish antenna designs. Usually that is not a criticism of the
automated modeling... it mostly means that, for some practical reason or
another, the user would be a fool to build the thing.

On the other hand, an optimizer can be very useful for tasks that have a
very simple target, so it can't go far wrong. For example: "Adjust the
length of that wire to make it resonant at this frequency." That doesn't
take long to do by hand, but an optimizer can also handle more
complicated tasks like: "Adjust the lengths of these three interacting
wires to make the antenna resonant on three different bands." Then you
really start to see some benefit from the automation.

At the other end of the spectrum is the kind of complex optimization for
which YO was developed. You quickly learn that you can't just say
"Optimize that yagi!" Quite the opposite: to use the program at all, you
are forced to think very hard about what you really mean by "optimum" -
for example, how much importance you attach to forward gain, a clean
pattern, a convenient feedpoint impedance, and to maintaining that good
performance over a wide bandwidth. Playing with an optimizer, you
quickly come to understand that it isn't possible to get the best of
everything, all at the same time... which is a very valuable lesson to
learn.

The same applies to all other antenna optimizers, of course; and circuit
optimizers too. The learning process alone can be worth the money.

Having gone through that learning process, an automatic optimizer can
then zip out some really good antenna designs in a matter of minutes -
which leaves you wondering what took you so long :-) But that isn't
going to happen in the first evening, or even maybe the first month.

[Sorry, I don't know how or even if you can buy AO or YO any more.]

--

73 from Ian GM3SEK 'In Practice' columnist for RadCom (RSGB)http://www.ifwtech.co.uk/g3sek

What bothers me about all this Ian is that AO when allowed to run
freely
does produces an array where all elements are resonant in situ.
Put this same array in NEC4 and the program will concur with the value
of the desirables given. In the early days I thought that this was a
result of programming interference by outsiders but the symetry kept
bugging me. So I gave a rational for why AO was correct to test the
water. Well we all know that it is not in the books therefore I am an
idiot. So we flip the coin and determine why the original NEC code
provided an opening for such a big error but first we determine if
this so called"" error" had spread in any way.
Tho I believe my rational is correct surely the majority would be
interested in the cause of this anomaly, why it produced antenna
arrays that were legitametly smaller than the yagi and since NEC4
verified its performance it should be of interest to all antenna
designers. But no.
Ridicule has been put into motion and true science went out of the
window.
Cheers
Art
Go figure!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry but I dont understand you Art, you denounce known theory but
want to use software based on known theory to prove your hypothesis.
Sorry but you tend to accept or denounce current theory just so you
can defend your current arguments.

Jimmie- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thats an untruth Jimmie! are you only reading what you want to read?
Art- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What do you mean UNTRUE, Isnt it TRUE that you have repeatedly
chastised people for only accepting that which is ACCEPTED and written
in books, calling these people LEMMINGS. ISNT it also true you use the
same software based on that long accepted data that you claim to be in
error. Sounds to me as you want to have your cake and eat it too.
Please explain how you can accept results from software that uses the
theory you have denounced.

Jimmie

Ian White GM3SEK wrote:
In a different thread, N5MK wrote:

I've tried some programs with "optimizers" etc, etc.. MMANA has one
fer instance, and it's freeware. In many cases, I can manually churn
out a better design by ignoring it, and doing it myself. I've seen a
few churn out some pretty funky designs which were not even close to
being optimum. Overall, I don't have much use for them. I don't need
the program to hold my hand while using it.


Can we start a new discussion, specifically about optimizers?

Having used Brian Beezley's YO and AO (Yagi Optimizer and Antenna
Optimizer) extensively in the past, I'm not quite as pessimistic as Mark
about the value of optimizers.

If they're simply allowed to run wild, they can produce some very
foolish antenna designs. Usually that is not a criticism of the
automated modeling... it mostly means that, for some practical reason or
another, the user would be a fool to build the thing.

On the other hand, an optimizer can be very useful for tasks that have a
very simple target, so it can't go far wrong. For example: "Adjust the
length of that wire to make it resonant at this frequency." That doesn't
take long to do by hand, but an optimizer can also handle more
complicated tasks like: "Adjust the lengths of these three interacting
wires to make the antenna resonant on three different bands." Then you
really start to see some benefit from the automation.

At the other end of the spectrum is the kind of complex optimization for
which YO was developed. You quickly learn that you can't just say
"Optimize that yagi!" Quite the opposite: to use the program at all, you
are forced to think very hard about what you really mean by "optimum" -
for example, how much importance you attach to forward gain, a clean
pattern, a convenient feedpoint impedance, and to maintaining that good
performance over a wide bandwidth. Playing with an optimizer, you
quickly come to understand that it isn't possible to get the best of
everything, all at the same time... which is a very valuable lesson to
learn.

The same applies to all other antenna optimizers, of course; and circuit
optimizers too. The learning process alone can be worth the money.

Having gone through that learning process, an automatic optimizer can
then zip out some really good antenna designs in a matter of minutes -
which leaves you wondering what took you so long :-) But that isn't
going to happen in the first evening, or even maybe the first month.


[Sorry, I don't know how or even if you can buy AO or YO any more.]

However, there are other optimizers out there. Arie has one in 4nec2
that works fairly well. There's also a program called GENOPT which can
optimize ANYTHING (or at least, anything where the modeling program can
be invoked from the command line and which takes a file as input and
generates a file as output).. You can specify all sorts of contstraints
and evaluation functions, and it just keeps shooting new models out,
running the modeler, and parsing the output. For use with NEC, you need
to write a little postprocessor to extract your desired "figure of
merit" from the NEC output file (e.g. NEC doesn't give you something
like F/B or SWR Bandwidth.. and while the GENOPT parser *could* be set
up to do it, it would be painful...)

And, there's a variety of ways to do things like fire off NEC from
Excel, and you can use Excel's optimizer (such as it is..).

If you get into more esoteric optimizers like particle swarm or genetic
optimizers, they're all available in fairly generic form.

So, what you need is the following 4 pieces of softwa

1) The optimizer engine
2) Something that takes a list of "parameters being optimized" (your
independent variables) and turns it into a suitable model file
3) The modeler (e.g. NEC)
4) Something that post processes the output of the modeler to generate
your "evaluation function".

If you can get each of the latter 3 in a form which is invokable from
the command line, then almost all of the existing #1 programs can use it.


For doing #2, there is a perl script/program out there that can do
fairly nice parameter substitution. Not quite as nice as Arie's 4nec2
symbol substitution with math, but at least it will take a file with one
parameter per line, and substitute them into a "skeleton" NEC input deck
that has parameter references, with some arithmetic. There's actually a
lot of these sorts of scripting tools around.

for #3, it exists already

for #4, it would be nice if there were a library of little programs that
could parse a NEC output deck and just emit a few numbers for some
standardized analyses.. For instance, you could feed in a NEC output
file and it would give you front/back ratio, or SWR bandwidth.
Obviously, such things exist, embedded in programs like EZNEC and 4nec2,
but they're not readily available as little usable components (and I
don't expect Roy or Arie to provide them, either.. That's their
proprietary improvements on the raw NEC engine, and they should use them
as they see fit, in exchange for the considerable work they've put into it.)


Maybe a good start would be to define some common "figure of merit"
numbers that might be applied to antennas. Not just define in words,
but in a more rigorous quantitative specification sort of way. Some are
easy (forward gain, swr bandwidth for a single band), some are more
difficult.. how do you handle describing side/back lobe performance? Do
you cutoff above a certain elevation angle (on the basis that there's no
propagation there anyway)? The radar folks talk about things like Peak
Sidelobe Level, Integrated Sidelobe Level, and average sidelobe level.

Jim

On 9 Mar 2007 10:58:02 -0800, "art" wrote:

Sorry but I dont understand you Art, you denounce known theory but
want to use software based on known theory to prove your hypothesis.

Just what the Global Warming Paranoia brigade are doing these days
with their climatic change modelling software!!!

Peter, G3PHO

Peter wrote:
On 9 Mar 2007 10:58:02 -0800, "art" wrote:

Sorry but I dont understand you Art, you denounce known theory but
want to use software based on known theory to prove your hypothesis.

Just what the Global Warming Paranoia brigade are doing these days
with their climatic change modelling software!!!

Peter, G3PHO

Computer modeling seems to be the new shill game of street smart con men
alright.

However, I think antenna modeling software is in a bit different
category--however, the computer model can only be as good as our
understanding of "radio theory." (and note, that IS radio theory and
NOT "radio laws."

JS
--
http://assemblywizard.tekcities.com

John Smith I wrote:
Peter wrote:
On 9 Mar 2007 10:58:02 -0800, "art" wrote:

Sorry but I dont understand you Art, you denounce known theory but
want to use software based on known theory to prove your hypothesis.

Just what the Global Warming Paranoia brigade are doing these days
with their climatic change modelling software!!!

Peter, G3PHO

Computer modeling seems to be the new shill game of street smart con men
alright.

However, I think antenna modeling software is in a bit different
category--however, the computer model can only be as good as our
understanding of "radio theory." (and note, that IS radio theory and
NOT "radio laws."

Thus blovates another ignorant dweeb that doesn't know the word "theory"
has a different meaning in science than it does in a TV mystery.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.