by
U.V.S. Seshavatharam
Honorary faculty, I-SERVE
Alakapuri, Hyderabad-35, AP, India
E-mail: seshavatharam.uvs@gmail.com
.
Prof. S. Lakshminarayana
Dept. of Nuclear Physics, Andhra University
Visakhapatnam-03, AP, India
E-mail: lnsrirama@yahoo.com
.
.
Introduction
On 21 December 2011 a new meson of rest energy 10.530±0.005 GeV was detected in CERN – LHC and the ATLAS detector.
This new meson, known as χb (3p), consists of two parts – an elementary particle known as a `beauty’ quark and its opposite antiquark, which are bound together by a `strongforce'[1].
Its existence was predicted in our published paper [2]: page-278, table-16, last row, last column.
Before going further, authors request the interested readers to please go through the two published papers [2] and [3].
This paper is a combined and unified version of the published papers [2,3] and proceedings of the DAE symposium on nuclear physics 2011, India [4,5].
Please note that in our previous paper [2] it was suggested that: W boson is the super symmetric boson of the top quark fermion and the charged Higgs boson pair generates the neutralized Z boson.
It was also suggested that [3,5] Higgs charged boson and W boson couples together to form a neutral boson of rest energy 126 GeV.
Its existence was detected and is under open discussion [6,7].
Another interesting idea is: W boson pair generates a neutral boson of rest energy 161 GeV. This is our prediction and needs to be verified.
.
Dear Mr. Rossi,
Which versions of the E-Cat are being tested by the independent testers? Hot-cat, Warm-cat, Gas-cat?
Thanks,
Lou
Andrea Rossi wrote in February 16th, 2013 at 9:08 AM
2- Models Of the Atomic Nucleus (Prof. Norman D. Cook- Berlin 2006)
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea, I did not know this book.
I was looking at Google, and found something about it.
The page 248 of the book is shown bellow:
http://books.google.com.br/books?id=CwRGogWF5-oC&pg=PA248&hl=pt-BR&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false
The second structure shown in page 248 is the excited 6C12 (Ex = 4,44MeV), according to the lattice model.
It has spin i=+2
It also has nuclear magnetic moment zero:
http://www.uni-due.de/physik/wende/englisch/nuclear-moments.pdf
However, it’s IMPOSSIBLE to conciliate a spin i=+2 with a magnetic moment zero by considering that structure, because according to the structure shown in the page 248 that excited 6C12 must have the following magnetic moment:
mag. mom = -2×1,913= -3,826
Note: -1,913 is the magnetic moment of the neutron.
So, the lattice model cannot explain the nuclear properties of the excited 6C12.
How do they explain it in the book ?
Regards
WLAD
Dear Bob K:
Yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Mr. Rossi, Do you anticipate any Ecat news within the next few months that will excite your readers and keep them tethered to their computer screen? Not that you owe us anything , but this lack of news in the LENR field is disturbing…………..Cheers, Bob K
1- The particle at the end of the universe (Prof. Sean Carroll- New York 2012)
2- Models Of the Atomic Nucleus (Prof. Norman D. Cook- Berlin 2006)
3- Physics Today
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Mr Rossi,
I have 3 quick questions for you.
1. What is your favorite science or engineering book?
2. What is your favorite nuclear physics book?
3. What is your favorite science journal?
Thank you!
Best Regards,
Sergei
Decision on manuscript by the European Physical Journal A, concerning the Guglinski’s paper On the Stability, Magnetic Moments, Nuclear Spins, and Electric Quadrupole Moments of Light Nuclei with Z < 9 – Part One
=====================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 07:03:28 -0500
From: epja@itkp.uni-bonn.de
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
CC: epja.bologna@sif.it
Subject: European Physical Journal A – Decision on Manuscript ID EPJA-102257
14-Feb-2013
Dear Prof. Guglinski:
Thank you for submitting your paper mentioned above to EPJ A “Hadrons and Nuclei”.
However, I do not believe that your proposed model of the nucleus is state of the art.
Therefore, I cannot accept it for publication in EPJ A.
Sincerely yours
Prof. Ulf Meissner
Editor in Chief
European Physical Journal A
epja@itkp.uni-bonn.de
epja.bologna@sif.it
=====================================================
Reply by W. Guglinski:
=====================================================
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: epja@itkp.uni-bonn.de
Subject: RE: European Physical Journal A – Decision on Manuscript ID EPJA-102257
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 21:37:47 -0200
Dear Prof. Ulf
what do you mean with “I don not believe that your proposed model of the nucleus is state of the art” ?
My nuclear model is supported by calculations with two different methods, and both the methods give the same results for the magnetic moments of the light nuclei.
There is NO ART in my theory. The figures are used so that to ilustrate the structure of the light nuclei, and the physical principles that rule their behavior.
The last experiments in the field of nuclear physics in the last 5 years are showing that the principles adopted in standard nuclear physics cannot explain the nuclear properties of the light nuclei.
Look for instance what says Dr. Wilfried Nortershauser of the Institute of Nuclear Chemistry of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, regarding the experiment published in 2009, which detected the halo neutron in 4Be11 with a distance of 7fm from the cluster:
By studying neutron halos, scientists hope to gain further understanding of the forces within the atomic nucleus that bind atoms together, taking into account the fact that the degree of displacement of halo neutrons from the atomic nuclear core is incompatible with the concepts of classical nuclear physics.
The discovery of these exotic atomic nuclei created a new area of research, which Nörtershäuser as the head of a young investigators group funded by the German Helmholtz Association has pursued since 2005 at the University in Mainz and at the GSI Helmholtz Center for Heavy Ion Research in Darmstadt.
The measurements revealed that the average distance between the halo neutrons and the dense core of the nucleus is 7 femtometers. Thus, the halo neutron is about three times as far from the dense core as is the outermost proton, since the core itself has a radius of only 2.5 femtometers. “This is an impressive direct demonstration of the halo character of this isotope. It is interesting that the halo neutron is thus much farther from the other nucleons than would be permissible according to the effective range of strong nuclear forces in the classical model,” explains Nörtershäuser. The strong interaction that holds atoms together can only extend to a distance of between 2 to 3 femtometers
https://idw-online.de/pages/de/news301916
Therefore, the neutron halo in 4Be11 is proving that strong nuclear force cannot be responsible for the cohesion of the nucleons in the light nuclei. and so there is need to discover a new nuclear model capable to explain the cohesion of those isotopes.
My book was published in 2006, and in that time it was already proposed in my theory that the cohesion of the nucleons within the nuclei is NOT PROMOTED by the strong nuclear force. The experiment published in 2009 proved that my assertion was right.
There is need to look for a new theory, with new principles, with a a new nuclear model, so that to explain the nuclear properties of the light isotopes. This is just what my theory proposes.
I suggest you to read carefully the paper, forgetting what you know about nuclear physics, because the classical nuclear physics you know cannot be applied to the light nuclei, as enphasized by Dr. Wilfried.
Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI
=====================================================
Dear Steven N. Karels:
I absolutely am not able to answer to your question, because the publication of the report of the indipendent third party does not depend from me. I do not even know where their report will be published.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
You posted: “I have been informed today that the third party tests will be completed in the third week of March.” I would estimate the published report will not occur before the end of April, given testing ends in late March.
georgehants,Steven N. Karels…Re Desalination/water purification. The Hot Cat could create a revolution in desalination and water purification, and save countless lives. Dr. Rossi stated several months ago he is aware of this situation and how important it is to the Third world. My frustration is the bureaucracies that must be penetrated before it is recognized. I am writing all the government officials I can think of, hope you do the same.
Dear Steven N. Karels:
Thank you, very important.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Frank Acland:
Yes, the peer reviewers asked for additional tests to confirm the results.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea,
Thank you for the update regarding the conclusion of the 3rd party tests. You mentioned in December they had concluded their tests and then had to do more. Do you know why they need to do so much more testing — are these tests required by the peer reviewers?
I’m just curious, and know many others are, too.
Many thanks,
Frank Acland
John,
There are many UV water purification systems available and in use. The common requirement is that the water turbidity (cloudiness) be very low and the particle size be less than 5 microns, thus the slow sand filters.
Heating to 75C for several hours helps but I don’t believe it is an internationally accepted practice. I know the UV lamp is accepted as are some other approaches (i.e., clorine). The engineering issue is to deliver a system that is self-contained, required no expertise to operate and has a low maintenance cost. The UV Lamp costs a few hundred dollars and lasts for one year. The pumps last many years as does the piping. Use local materials (concrete) for the cisterns. Educate the local people by their own fellow trained people or this will not be effective.
Dear Franco:
Still in course.
I have been informed today that the third party tests will be completed in the third week of March.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Steven,
If the water can be heated to 75 C and maintained at 75 C for a few hours, all known harmful bugs would be dead. Not convinced that UV lamp is an efficient way to kill parasites (especially protozoa and larva)- unless someone has developed a super efficient and powerful LED UV emitter.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Regarding the remote village water purification scheme using a thermal eCat — if you can achieve a COP of 10, and the thermal-to-electric conversion efficiency was 30%, you could generate about 3 kW of electrical energy for each 10kW of thermal energy produced, minus about 1 kW of electrical energy to sustain the eCat operation. This would still leave about 2 kW of electricity for use for water pumps, the UV sterialization lamp and control. The excess thermal heat could be used to provide warm or hot water for the village. A village of 250 people (typical size) should need between 2 and 5 gallons (~8 to ~20 liters) per person per day of clean water or about 500 gallons to 1250 gallons per day. Assuming a 50% split between cold and hot water, then between 250 and 625 gallons per day needs to be heated. At 1250 gallons per day and 1440 minutes per day, a 1 gal / min UV sterialization lanp (a small one) would be nicely sized for the effort. Assuming 2500 liters of warmed water going from 20C to 50C requires about 75 million Joules so I would think one 10kW eCat could meet the hot water needs of such a village. Someone check my math but I think this is close.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
please could you give an update, are the third party tests of Hot-Cat (at today) completely ended or they are still in course?
Thank you.
Best Regards
Steven N. Karels, my point exactly, economics, so if the E-Cat receives it’s safety certificate and is released and is cheaper than solar cells, what is the approximate numbers of lives and number of people saved from water borne diseases in the World.
Dear Georgehants, Steven N. Karels:
I agree.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Georgehants,
We had previously had many posts on the involvement of eCat in providing clean water to remote and third-world populations. The result was the conclusion that eCats would best be used to provide electricity to other, more efficient water purification processes. Boiling water is not an efficient use of an eCat.
My personal favorite for a remote village would be a combination of a pump and cistern (to remove suspended particulates) for water storage followed by multiple slow sand filters (to remove fine particulates and parasites/bacteria) followed by a UV lamp (to kill any remaining parasites/bacteria) going to a clean cistern where water is drawn by the local population. If an eCat can be made with direct electric production of a few hundred Watts, a village of 250 people could be supported (assuming there is a local water source). Note this can be done currently with solar cells and batteries but this is costly. So it really comes down to economics.
Dear Mr. Rossi, have you calculated when your small Hot-Cat receives it’s safety certificate and becomes generally available at a low price how many lives will be saved and improved by it’s use to supply clean water to people around the World.
Dear Todd Burkett:
I confirm that my theory has nothing to do with the Mills Theory.
I cannot give information regarding the operation of our reactors.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
You have said previously, that you don’t believe your invention to be related to Dr. Randall Mills theory of Hydrinos.
Do you still consider this to be true? And if you believe your energy source to not be related to this, have you seen any of the effects that Dr. Mills has theorized, in addition to the effect that you’re generating with your Ecat Technology of course. Being very similar materials and temperatures perhaps there are some co-related effects?
SHAME IN THE JOURNAL NATURE
Ahead it is exhibited the report used by the editor of the Journal Nature so that to decline the publication of my paper On the Stability, Magnetic Moments, Nuclear Spins, and Electric Quadrupole Moments of Light Nuclei with Z < 9 – Part One, submitted to that journal.
Report of the Nature’s editor:
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 11:24:08 -0500
To: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
Subject: NATURE: Thank you for your submission to Nature
CC: wlasdki@yahoo.com
From: decisions@nature.com
13th February 2013
Dear Mr GUGLINSKI,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript, which we are
regretfully unable to offer to publish.
It is Nature’s policy to return a substantial proportion of
manuscripts without sending them to referees, so that they may be
sent elsewhere without delay. Decisions of this kind are made by
the editorial staff when it appears that papers are unlikely to
succeed in the competition for limited space.
In the present case, while your findings may well prove
stimulating to others’ thinking about such questions, I regret
that we are unable to conclude that the work provides the sort of
firm advance in general understanding that would warrant
publication in Nature. We therefore feel that the paper would
find a more suitable outlet in a specialist journal.
I am sorry that we cannot respond more positively on this
occasion, but I hope that you will rapidly receive a more
favourable response elsewhere.
Yours sincerely,
Manuscript Administration, Nature
This email has been sent through the NPG Manuscript Tracking System NY-610A-NPG&MTS
Confidentiality Statement:
This e-mail is confidential and subject to copyright. Any unauthorised use or disclosure of its contents is prohibited.
=========================================
My first reply to Nature:
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: peter.hewitt@nature.com
Subject: RE: Plagiarism in the Journal Nature
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:18:29 -0200
Dear Peter,
I have received the decision on my paper.
However, the decision is very strange, because of the following:
1- First the editor says:
Decisions of this kind are made by
the editorial staff when it appears that papers are unlikely to
succeed in the competition for limited space
COMMENT: Such argument is very strange. Because if the new nuclear model proposed in my theory is correct, it can change the way of the theoretical way in which the Nuclear Physics has been developed up to the present days. Then if makes no sense to claim that my paper is “unlikely to succeed in competition for limited space“. A paper with the magnitude of changing some principles of Nuclear Physics merits to have any space at its disposal.
2- The second argument of the editor is:
In the present case, while your findings may well prove
stimulating to others’ thinking about such questions, I regret
that we are unable to conclude that the work provides the sort of
firm advance in general understanding that would warrant
publication in Nature
COMMENT 1: First of all, the findings are not of mine. The findings were obtained by EXPERIMENTS, made in the last five years. If the editor is afraid that my paper is threatening the Classical Theoretical Nuclear Physics, he is wrong. Because the Classical Nuclear Physics is being threatened by the recent EXPERIMENTS published between 2008 and 2012. The experiments are only corroborating my new nuclear model.
So, if the Standard Nuclear Physics needs to be changed, the changing is required because of the EXPERIMENTS require it, and not because my theory is suggesting it. My theory is only pointing out a possible theoretical way.
COMMENT 2: The paper provices equations, it proposes a Lagrangian for the light nuclei, and it shows how to calculate magnetic moments. Then, with the publication of the paper, other nuclear theorists can undertake the enterprise of submitting the new nuclear model to more and more calculations. From such work, they will be able to conclude if the nuclear cohesion of light nuclei is indeed promoted by the magnetic and spin-interactions, as calculated in the paper.
The editor confesses that “we are unable to conclude that the work provides the sort of firm advance in general understanding…”.
Well but the experiments published in the last five years are very firm when they point out to us that the current models of the Standard Nuclear Physics do not give any advance for us in understanding the behavior of the light nuclei. There is not any theory capable to explain the distance of 7fm between the halo neutron and the cluster in 4Be11. And now the editor decides to decline the unique theory which proposes a coherent explanation for the phenomenon. This makes no sense.
Probably the editor is afraid because my theory proposes new principles different of those considered in the Standard Nuclear Physics. However his fear makes no sence, because the need of changing some principles of the current Nuclear Physics is not decurrent of my paper. Such need is decurrent of the last experiments published in the last five years.
3- Finally, the editor says:
We therefore feel that the paper would
find a more suitable outlet in a specialist journal.
COMMENT: this is no true. The paper How Atomic Nuclei Cluster has been published by Nature in July 2012. If the argument of the editor should be true, that paper would never be published by Nature.
CONCLUSION: the arguments used by the editor are not supported by the facts, and therefore the paper cannot be declined by such sort of reasoing.
So, I would like to ask to submit the paper to another editor.
Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI
===========================================
===========================================
Second reply to Nature:
From: wladimirguglinski@hotmail.com
To: peter.hewitt@nature.com
Subject: FW: Plagiarism in the Journal Nature
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 22:44:36 -0200
Dear Peter,
what I had disliked in the criterion for rejection of my paper is the incoherence of the arguments.
I could accept the rejection of the paper if the editor had used coherent arguments.
For instance, he could say:
1- I regret that we are unable to conclude that the work developed along 80 years of research in the field of the Standard Nuclear Physics provides the sort of firm advance in general understanding of the light isotopes, because the experiments in the last 5 years are showing us that some principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics are wrong.
However I regret to say that it’s hard to me to reject 80 years of research, and so I confess that I preffer to keep my trust in what we believed along those 80 years.
2- I know that current nuclear models are wrong, because the experiments published in the last 5 years are proving that the Standard Nuclear Physics cannot explain the nuclear properties of the light isotopes. I know that strong nuclear force cannot promote the cohesion of the light nuclei, as we used to believe along 80 years, because the halo neutron far away 7fm from the nuclear core in 4Be11 cannot be linked by the strong nuclear force. However I cannot reject 80 years of theoretical work, along which we believed that the nuclei have their cohesion thanks to the strong force.
3- I know that some principles of the Standard Nuclear Physics must be replaced. For instance, I know that we need to find a model in which the nucleons are not linked by the strong force. However I cannot reject the Standard Nuclear Physics. Instead of, I prefer to betray the scientific method, by rejecting the experiments published in the last 5 years (some of them published in the own Journal Nature).
Therefore, we are regretfully unable to offer to publish Guglinski’s paper.
Yours sincerely,
Manuscript Administration, Nature
Dear Peter,
This is a coherent argument, and it is acceptable. But not that nonsense with which the editor declined my paper.
Regards
WLADIMIR GUGLINSKI
==============================================
Dear Carlo Marcena:
Thank you for the information.
Warm Regards,
A.
Mr. Rossi,
do u know about these Power Chips http://www.powerchips.gi/technology/overview.shtml
They could be interesting in order to efficiently convert heat into electricity.
Waiting news about your activity and with my admiration,
Carlo Marcena
Andrea,
The Higgs boson was originally called “that God damn particle” because they could not find it. It was then shortened to “the God particle”, most likely because its existance was a matter of faith.
Paul
Dear Pekka Janhunen:
Interesting, thank you,
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Steven Karels, Andrea Rossi:
In North America there is company Snow Dragon (http://www.snowdragonmelters.com) who makes snow melting machines for municipal use, using different fossil fuels and with burner power ranging 1.7-16 MW, depending on the model. The bigger models are up to 20 m long, built on a large truck. The idea is that in large urban areas, melting snow locally is cheaper and might even consume less energy than transporting it to faraway snow dumping sites with trucks. It looks to me that this would be a possible application for E-cats. Just put the wanted number of 1 MW GasCats on wheels and you have an E-dragon. Startup time shouldn’t be a big problem since the snow melting job typically lasts the whole day. A downside might be that if the unit is used only for a few days per year, the capital costs might be too high (this I don’t know, it depends on how costly the melter infrastructure is versus the burner/fuel costs).
In Finland we don’t use snowdragons, probably because our cities are small enough that dumping sites are not too far. But with cheap E-cat energy it might change.
regards, pekka
Dear Steven N. Karels:
Interesting proposal.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear gian:
Paradigma: to get attention ( and financing) about the Higgs boson, they called it ” The Particle Of God”…
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
During the last snow storm, I had to remove almost 2 feet of snow. The following is submitted for your consideration.
Warm eCat for Snow Removal
About 50W of thermal power are required to melt a 2”/hour snow fall rate for one square foot of area. So one 10kW Thermal eCat should be able to accommodate 200 square feet of driveway or walkway surface. Hot water or steam would be pumped through buried pipes under blacktop or concrete surfaces. This could be part of a residential home heating system or a commercial system for a parking garage or parking lot. The Thermal eCats could be paralleled for larger area coverage.
OTTIMA RISPOSTA
Dear Mattias Andersson:
I do not agree with your Teacher in Mathematics. My opinion is that if Humanity had not been so involved in theological studies, Science would have been not born. The research of our origin has been the source of all our intellectual research and the research of our origin, the research of the Truth, of the Knowledge ( Phylosophy) is the source of all our knowledge ( which, actually, is not so much, anyway).
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I had a teacher in mathematics who once said that if humanity had not been so involved in theological studies, science would have been far more advanced by now (I presume he meant the kind of studies conducted by monks where your entire life is absorbed by studying the bible.)
Would you agree with this assertion?
Kind regards,
Mattias
Dear Hughd:
The numbers you have given are shaky. Before answering to your question in a not superficial way a throughly analisys should be made regarding all the components connected with the 2 terms of the equation. To answer to your question a paper is necessary, not a comment. In any case: the energy necessary to build an E-Cat and its fuel is irrilevant compared to the energy produced by an E-Cat with its fuel: the latter is minor by orders of magnitude.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
In the energy field one of the measures used in comparing different energy sources is “Energy Return on Energy Invested” or EROEI.
In the nuclear fission energy a figure of 5 to 1 is used and in the US a figure of 3 to 1 is used for new oil wells. Coal is listed as 80 to 1.
Have you an EROEI figure for your LENR energy source relative to the E-Cats?
Best regards,
Hughd
Dear Anatoliy V Sermyagin:
1- confidential
2- we do not use, so far, thermoelectric devices, because of their low efficiency.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
I’m looking forward to the publication of the third party report.
Meanwhile, it is interesting to know, if you please, how the gas is used in the gas-E-Cat version:
1. For direct heating of the core;
2. As a fuel in the thermoelectric Converter that powers the electric heaters of the good old E-Cat?
Personally, I’d prefer the second option.
Warm Regards,
Dear Steven N. Karels:
Interesting consideration.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Based on the referenced article, it appears that steam in an electric power generation plant has much of the steam alternating between 600C and 200C with some reheating for water addition and other cooling effects.
Would this not suggest a three-stage eCat operation? Perhaps a thermal eCat to start the water to steam convertion (up to ~120C), then a second set of eCats to convert from ~120C to ~200C and then a third set of eCats to go to ~600C for entry to the turbine?
I would suspect that this might make the heat transfer problem easier by dealing with a more limited range of temperatures for each eCat unit. It might also make the control easier for the eCat operation.
Dear Pekka Janhunen:
Thank you, I’ll look at it more carefully.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andrea Rossi,
Regarding answer given to Tom Profan. No I think the abstract refers to some novel type of thermionic emission device. They are talking about resolving the space charge problem.
regards, pekka
Dear Tom Profan:
It refers to the thermoelectric Seebeck Effect.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Hi Mr.Rossi !
This sounds very interesting for you and seems to be a really scientific paper…
http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/02/breakthrough-for-superefficient.html
Dear gio and Joseph Fine:
Now I have understood. The answer is yes.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Andy Kumar:
I am not able to read the mind of the Supreme Entities, so I just put down to work, making things I suppose useful for Mankind: that’s the sense of my existence, so far I can understand. If you ask me if I am sure of this, my answer is that the only thing I am sure of is that I am sure of nothing.
Thank you for your methaphysical projection.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
Dear Ing. Rossi,
Ecat will come in due time. In the meantime, I was wondering if you sometimes think of yourself as a modern day Prometheus, having stolen the new fire from the gods.
Do you ever worry that the gods might punish humanity for your sin (of stealing from the gods). Having been brought up in Hindu mythology, I had to ask.
Warm Regards,
Andy Kumar
AR, Gio,
Bill of Materials?
Joseph