![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Metadiscussion:this whole talk page has become a colossal mess. ( User:Bryan Derksen)
Boy, hasn't it. How about wiping archiving the whole thing and starting over, with a set of disputed topics, e.g., ==marginal_cost/kg via an Edwards skyhook==, ==... via an advanced elevator==, ==what is the minimum traffic level needed to justify an elevator?== How about taking longer turns, with sceptics and boosters posting on alternate days?
But it seems to me that webpages are suboptimal for presenting multiple involved discussions with multiple participants. People insert and/or append responses, and the ::: thing is quickly overloaded. How about moving the discussion to sci.space.tech or some such? I'd be much easier to keep the threads and subthreads straight, and we could get some new participants, with maybe some new perspectives. It's not true that all knowledge is contained in wikipedia (not yet, anyway).
--
wwoods 08:06, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
I moved stuff relevant to rockets over to
Talk:Rocket, as suggested by
Bryan. I hope some of it might be useful enough to move to the
Rocket article.
--
DavidCary 14:50, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
I moved stuff relevant to rockets over to Talk:Rocket. Again. I moved stuff relevant to the Van Allen radiation belt over to Talk:Van Allen radiation belt. Please edit those talk pages and move the facts out into the articles where they belong. Thank you. -- DavidCary 10:22, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
I moved all the discussion of economics to Talk:Space elevator economics. -- DavidCary 18:51, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
(moved to Talk:Rocket)
I have read Wolfkeeper's references and they seem as authoritative as any produced here. Certainly a lot has been said by others without references being produced. It seems to me profoundly wrong to remove information from the page which is backed up by references. Not only wrong but against NPOV Wikipedia policy. Rei you must find another way than just reverting back past info that does not agree with your POV. Read NPOV. Paul Beardsell 00:26, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
Rei, you have now reverted 4 times - against Wikipedia policy - and this is the last comment provided: It's not a POV, it's false "facts" which have not been defended on talk. Until they are defended, it is information that has been challenged without rebuttal. What seems to qualify as a "false fact" is something not said by you. Wolfkeeper has provided references. Your so-called rebuttal, in the above section, is without a citation to back it up. There is nothing for Wolfkeeper to defend - he has provided references. You have supplied some text which may or may not be true. References please. Paul Beardsell 00:41, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
I have once broken the reversion policy but once it was pointed out to me I never did it again. How long have you been aware of the policy, Rei? Paul Beardsell 01:04, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
That the information is or is not false is the question. Your argument is circular. Paul Beardsell 01:04, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
I refer you to the Third Commandment. Paul Beardsell 01:04, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
One of the candidate versions of the article now says that an orbital launch to 180km at 51 degrees inclination is a "LEO transfer orbit" - an unusual term! An orbit at 180km altitude is a good LEO. If any part of it is higher than 180km then that is even better. But the 51 degrees refers to the angle at which the satellite crosses the equator - it does not make the orbit elliptical. Paul Beardsell 00:54, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
It's gone now, but for clarity: If 180km altitude can be attained at 51 degrees then, given a better launch site a higher altitude can be attained (or more payload lifted) for the same cost. Paul Beardsell 01:50, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
More than that: reducing the payload size slightly raises the orbit, and only slightly worsens the cost/kg ratio.
Basically this term 'leo transfer orbit' is spurious unless it's at seriously low altitude (like 100km). Any orbit that goes around the earth atleast once is LEO by definition. Wolfkeeper
What's the solution to this? On the face of it we have mutually exclusive solutions. The focus in the Economics section is the Edwards proposal, an up-only elevator, but the proposed solution (in this article) to the Van Allan belt problem is portable shielding shifted about on an up-down elevator. An up-down elevator reduces by a large factor the payload capacity (it seems difficult or impossible to have multiple climbers and decenders simultaneously - difficult enough that Edwards did not want to solve it) and thereby the economics are significantly affected. Maybe we send cargo only and the astronauts go by rocket? Paul Beardsell 13:49, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
Yes, my understanding is that the Edwards plan for the first space elevator is a up-only, cargo-only elevator, without any shielding. -- DavidCary 10:22, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
(details moved to Talk:Van Allen radiation belt)
Look, houserules. You can stick more or less anything you want in the Space Elevator section; but you'd sure as heck better have a citation; no citation and I'm unilaterally editing it out again. The point of a wikipedia is you don't 'make shit up'. Some people appear to be doing this.
So I'm currently expecting a citation to Rei's scheme for sheilding the cars- if she can't produce it I'm removing it. (I don't actually think this scheme works- the worst of the belts are at low altitude anyway, where the cable is weakest).
As for deleting other people's contributions; if you have a *well* respected source, then it's barely ok, but you're better off adding in the contrary citation. And it had better be a primary source, not some airy-fairy 'rockets are all so inefficient and expensive opinion piece' or 'space elevators are impossible' or some such. Got it? Wolfkeeper
Recently the 2nd para was changed to say the SE "might become a reality in a little over a decade". This calls into question the meaning of the word "reality": It does not mean "realistic proposition". I reverted to "might become a reality in decades to come". Paul Beardsell 20:25, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
Actually that was me; I had neglected to log on. Apologies.
Let me explain. The only known showstopper for the space elevator is the cable.
This is a fierce research area for a whole host of reasons, not just for space elevators, but suspension bridges and a massive list of other possible uses of carbon nanotubes; including better and cheaper rockets :-)
If the cable technology was to appear in the next two years; that would not particularly surprise me; the current record of 10 cm at 63 GPa is *incredibly* close to being enough; the theoretical strength estimates are about 120 Gpa right now. OTOH if it didn't turn up for a decade or ever; that wouldn't surprise either.
Brad Edwards has a project plan that shows going from zero to elevator in (IRC) 14 years. It seems reasonable that it won't take much less than this, even if some sort of space race happened, but of course could take a lot longer.
So this is not necessarily decades off. So I think this language is justified.
Besides it's only the opening paragraph, having a few 'could's and 'maybe's and 'might's is fine. I don't agree with 'would's and 'will's though. -- Wolfkeeper 22:39, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
C'mon now: Let's at least say something in the introduction with which we all can agree. If we are not going to have the bland version I propose then, Wolfkeeper, at least you mustn't delete Rei's references as this is something of which you yourself complain. Paul Beardsell 20:22, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I certainly can see why you are complaining, and I'm not terribly unwilling to change it back, but I think that the opening paragraph *must* be positive, we want the reader to read the rest of the article; rather than just instantly dismissing the idea as silly. I made it clear that the people who think that are optimistic, and I personally do believe that the seed elevator might become a reality in a little over a decade. It probably won't; but it might; I'd be betting on 20 years even if the cable popped up tomorrow by the time it was financed; even the channel tunnel took 200 years to complete. It really critically only depends on the cable technology; the rest looks doable. Whether it stays up; more than 5 minutes I don't know. The one thing financially in it's favour is that people *love* the idea of a elevator; so financing might well be twisted out of the scrouge-like politicians or some rich entrepreneur.-- Wolfkeeper 21:13, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
The showstoppers are not currently limited to just the cable. We have to be able to move LEO satellites. Paul Beardsell 20:22, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
These objects won't be over the horizon for long; and if it is predicted to hit another object you'd do much better to take it out early than try to dodge the tiny fragments.
I moved the economics section to space elevator economics and replaced the section in this article with a short summary. This is not an attempt to get rid of the current dispute by hiding it in some obscure place. I moved it because 1) the section was getting very detailed, and 2) this article is too long and should preferrably be partitioned even further. The fact that the economics dispute can now get a talk page of its own is merely a fortunate side effect :)
Feel free to improve my summary. It was a quick work and doesn't do as good a job as it should do. But try to keep excessive details out of it. The separate article can now be expanded to include every conceivable cost detail, this summary should be kept brief and abstract so a casual reader can get a good overview without getting confused. I find the current economics article rather confusing to read myself. Fredrik 22:46, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
See what the incorrigible optimists have been reading. Paul Beardsell 00:50, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
Well, it seemed to me that there is a certain parallel between the naive optimism which is being gently but appreciatively poked at that web site and the barely-a-decade optimism here. Failing which I hoped that the web site would be appreciated for its own sake by those who have a sense of humour, regardless of their position on the optimism scale. It can't be that a defining attribute of the space elevator enthusiast is a lack of a sense of humour? Paul Beardsell 00:45, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
I moved discussion of
carbon nanotubes to the
Talk:carbon nanotube article
--
DavidCary 18:51, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Someone needs to fix the engineering discussion in the Cable section. The feasability of constructing a space elevator isn't determined by the material's tensile strength, it's determined by the ratio between the material's tensile strength and density. If someone discovers 120 GPa Unobtanium tomorrow, it'll still be useless for a beanstalk if it's as dense as gold. One of the reasons people are so excited about carbon nanotubes is the combination of low density with high tensile strength.
A nice intuitive way to express the strength to weight ratio of a material is called "characteristic length". It is the length of material fashioned into a constant cross-section rope that can just support itself when hung from one end in a uniform one earth gravity field. (The formula is tensile-strength/(density*1g)). Graphite, with its strong covalent carbon-carbon bonds is the best actually existing material. Its theoretical characteristic length is several thousand km. A metastable metallic version of hydrogen that can exist at room temperature might be quite a bit better because hydrogen has much less dead weight, but its existence is only conjectured. . Later editions of the CRC handbook have a NASA originated table labelled "Mechanical and Physical Properties of Whiskers". The indicated whiskers are actual laboratory grown, millimeter length, single crystal rods of various substances, whose strength and density can be measured. The measured properties give the following characteristic lengths: . Graphite whiskers 961 km Al2O3 whiskers 527 km Iron whiskers 162 km Si3N4 whiskers 455 km SiC whiskers 704 km Si whiskers 337 km . These numbers are about 1/5 to 1/10 of the theoretical limits for the substances. . By comparison we have todays engineering materials: . Bulk aluminum 10 km Bulk iron 11 km Bulk steel 40 km Nylon 88 km Fiberglass 98 km Kevlar 195 km . As stated in my previous message, a strength five times that of Kevlar would make earth elevator cables of varoius varieties possible. This means a characteristic length of about 1000 km; a bulk material with the graphite whisker strength above would do fine.
-- http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/1976.skyhook/1982.articles/skymes
Why, in the quoted material above, is a characteristic length of 1000km good enough for a cable much, much longer than that? The first few thousand km of which will be in a gravity close to what we experience here on the ground. Paul Beardsell 04:40, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC) From your last reference I quote:
The support lengths assume no tapering. He figures tapering would be used, but a safety margin is also required, so they cancel out. The necessary support length for a Terran beanstalk is about 4,940 km. . He mentions that graphite whisker is already strong enough for a Martian beanstalk, where the support length is 975 km.
Paul Beardsell 04:44, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The "Launching into outer space" describes drag on the cable (west ward0 when mass climbs. But it doesn't explain how the cable katches up after imparting orbit velocity to the payload. Pud 23:59, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Moved discussion of various types of tethers, and what to name each one, to Talk:tether propulsion. -- DavidCary 08:52, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
it seems the whole article uses metric, except for the "Building an elevator" section. i wanted to change it, but i realized i have no clue which ton is used. can somebody try to find out, and then change it to fit the rest of the article?
There's been a factual accuracy dispute tag over at Space elevator economics for two months without any editing being done on either the article or the talk: page, does anyone know whether the dispute is still ongoing? I asked in that article's talk page too, but I figured this page was more likely to be bookmarked by interested people. Bryan 18:34, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think pretty much everyone got bored by the bickering and people claiming that white was black, or that only orange is important. I know I got bored. -WolfKeeper
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Metadiscussion:this whole talk page has become a colossal mess. ( User:Bryan Derksen)
Boy, hasn't it. How about wiping archiving the whole thing and starting over, with a set of disputed topics, e.g., ==marginal_cost/kg via an Edwards skyhook==, ==... via an advanced elevator==, ==what is the minimum traffic level needed to justify an elevator?== How about taking longer turns, with sceptics and boosters posting on alternate days?
But it seems to me that webpages are suboptimal for presenting multiple involved discussions with multiple participants. People insert and/or append responses, and the ::: thing is quickly overloaded. How about moving the discussion to sci.space.tech or some such? I'd be much easier to keep the threads and subthreads straight, and we could get some new participants, with maybe some new perspectives. It's not true that all knowledge is contained in wikipedia (not yet, anyway).
--
wwoods 08:06, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
I moved stuff relevant to rockets over to
Talk:Rocket, as suggested by
Bryan. I hope some of it might be useful enough to move to the
Rocket article.
--
DavidCary 14:50, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
I moved stuff relevant to rockets over to Talk:Rocket. Again. I moved stuff relevant to the Van Allen radiation belt over to Talk:Van Allen radiation belt. Please edit those talk pages and move the facts out into the articles where they belong. Thank you. -- DavidCary 10:22, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
I moved all the discussion of economics to Talk:Space elevator economics. -- DavidCary 18:51, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
(moved to Talk:Rocket)
I have read Wolfkeeper's references and they seem as authoritative as any produced here. Certainly a lot has been said by others without references being produced. It seems to me profoundly wrong to remove information from the page which is backed up by references. Not only wrong but against NPOV Wikipedia policy. Rei you must find another way than just reverting back past info that does not agree with your POV. Read NPOV. Paul Beardsell 00:26, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
Rei, you have now reverted 4 times - against Wikipedia policy - and this is the last comment provided: It's not a POV, it's false "facts" which have not been defended on talk. Until they are defended, it is information that has been challenged without rebuttal. What seems to qualify as a "false fact" is something not said by you. Wolfkeeper has provided references. Your so-called rebuttal, in the above section, is without a citation to back it up. There is nothing for Wolfkeeper to defend - he has provided references. You have supplied some text which may or may not be true. References please. Paul Beardsell 00:41, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
I have once broken the reversion policy but once it was pointed out to me I never did it again. How long have you been aware of the policy, Rei? Paul Beardsell 01:04, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
That the information is or is not false is the question. Your argument is circular. Paul Beardsell 01:04, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
I refer you to the Third Commandment. Paul Beardsell 01:04, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
One of the candidate versions of the article now says that an orbital launch to 180km at 51 degrees inclination is a "LEO transfer orbit" - an unusual term! An orbit at 180km altitude is a good LEO. If any part of it is higher than 180km then that is even better. But the 51 degrees refers to the angle at which the satellite crosses the equator - it does not make the orbit elliptical. Paul Beardsell 00:54, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
It's gone now, but for clarity: If 180km altitude can be attained at 51 degrees then, given a better launch site a higher altitude can be attained (or more payload lifted) for the same cost. Paul Beardsell 01:50, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
More than that: reducing the payload size slightly raises the orbit, and only slightly worsens the cost/kg ratio.
Basically this term 'leo transfer orbit' is spurious unless it's at seriously low altitude (like 100km). Any orbit that goes around the earth atleast once is LEO by definition. Wolfkeeper
What's the solution to this? On the face of it we have mutually exclusive solutions. The focus in the Economics section is the Edwards proposal, an up-only elevator, but the proposed solution (in this article) to the Van Allan belt problem is portable shielding shifted about on an up-down elevator. An up-down elevator reduces by a large factor the payload capacity (it seems difficult or impossible to have multiple climbers and decenders simultaneously - difficult enough that Edwards did not want to solve it) and thereby the economics are significantly affected. Maybe we send cargo only and the astronauts go by rocket? Paul Beardsell 13:49, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
Yes, my understanding is that the Edwards plan for the first space elevator is a up-only, cargo-only elevator, without any shielding. -- DavidCary 10:22, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
(details moved to Talk:Van Allen radiation belt)
Look, houserules. You can stick more or less anything you want in the Space Elevator section; but you'd sure as heck better have a citation; no citation and I'm unilaterally editing it out again. The point of a wikipedia is you don't 'make shit up'. Some people appear to be doing this.
So I'm currently expecting a citation to Rei's scheme for sheilding the cars- if she can't produce it I'm removing it. (I don't actually think this scheme works- the worst of the belts are at low altitude anyway, where the cable is weakest).
As for deleting other people's contributions; if you have a *well* respected source, then it's barely ok, but you're better off adding in the contrary citation. And it had better be a primary source, not some airy-fairy 'rockets are all so inefficient and expensive opinion piece' or 'space elevators are impossible' or some such. Got it? Wolfkeeper
Recently the 2nd para was changed to say the SE "might become a reality in a little over a decade". This calls into question the meaning of the word "reality": It does not mean "realistic proposition". I reverted to "might become a reality in decades to come". Paul Beardsell 20:25, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
Actually that was me; I had neglected to log on. Apologies.
Let me explain. The only known showstopper for the space elevator is the cable.
This is a fierce research area for a whole host of reasons, not just for space elevators, but suspension bridges and a massive list of other possible uses of carbon nanotubes; including better and cheaper rockets :-)
If the cable technology was to appear in the next two years; that would not particularly surprise me; the current record of 10 cm at 63 GPa is *incredibly* close to being enough; the theoretical strength estimates are about 120 Gpa right now. OTOH if it didn't turn up for a decade or ever; that wouldn't surprise either.
Brad Edwards has a project plan that shows going from zero to elevator in (IRC) 14 years. It seems reasonable that it won't take much less than this, even if some sort of space race happened, but of course could take a lot longer.
So this is not necessarily decades off. So I think this language is justified.
Besides it's only the opening paragraph, having a few 'could's and 'maybe's and 'might's is fine. I don't agree with 'would's and 'will's though. -- Wolfkeeper 22:39, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
C'mon now: Let's at least say something in the introduction with which we all can agree. If we are not going to have the bland version I propose then, Wolfkeeper, at least you mustn't delete Rei's references as this is something of which you yourself complain. Paul Beardsell 20:22, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I certainly can see why you are complaining, and I'm not terribly unwilling to change it back, but I think that the opening paragraph *must* be positive, we want the reader to read the rest of the article; rather than just instantly dismissing the idea as silly. I made it clear that the people who think that are optimistic, and I personally do believe that the seed elevator might become a reality in a little over a decade. It probably won't; but it might; I'd be betting on 20 years even if the cable popped up tomorrow by the time it was financed; even the channel tunnel took 200 years to complete. It really critically only depends on the cable technology; the rest looks doable. Whether it stays up; more than 5 minutes I don't know. The one thing financially in it's favour is that people *love* the idea of a elevator; so financing might well be twisted out of the scrouge-like politicians or some rich entrepreneur.-- Wolfkeeper 21:13, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
The showstoppers are not currently limited to just the cable. We have to be able to move LEO satellites. Paul Beardsell 20:22, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
These objects won't be over the horizon for long; and if it is predicted to hit another object you'd do much better to take it out early than try to dodge the tiny fragments.
I moved the economics section to space elevator economics and replaced the section in this article with a short summary. This is not an attempt to get rid of the current dispute by hiding it in some obscure place. I moved it because 1) the section was getting very detailed, and 2) this article is too long and should preferrably be partitioned even further. The fact that the economics dispute can now get a talk page of its own is merely a fortunate side effect :)
Feel free to improve my summary. It was a quick work and doesn't do as good a job as it should do. But try to keep excessive details out of it. The separate article can now be expanded to include every conceivable cost detail, this summary should be kept brief and abstract so a casual reader can get a good overview without getting confused. I find the current economics article rather confusing to read myself. Fredrik 22:46, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
See what the incorrigible optimists have been reading. Paul Beardsell 00:50, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
Well, it seemed to me that there is a certain parallel between the naive optimism which is being gently but appreciatively poked at that web site and the barely-a-decade optimism here. Failing which I hoped that the web site would be appreciated for its own sake by those who have a sense of humour, regardless of their position on the optimism scale. It can't be that a defining attribute of the space elevator enthusiast is a lack of a sense of humour? Paul Beardsell 00:45, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
I moved discussion of
carbon nanotubes to the
Talk:carbon nanotube article
--
DavidCary 18:51, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Someone needs to fix the engineering discussion in the Cable section. The feasability of constructing a space elevator isn't determined by the material's tensile strength, it's determined by the ratio between the material's tensile strength and density. If someone discovers 120 GPa Unobtanium tomorrow, it'll still be useless for a beanstalk if it's as dense as gold. One of the reasons people are so excited about carbon nanotubes is the combination of low density with high tensile strength.
A nice intuitive way to express the strength to weight ratio of a material is called "characteristic length". It is the length of material fashioned into a constant cross-section rope that can just support itself when hung from one end in a uniform one earth gravity field. (The formula is tensile-strength/(density*1g)). Graphite, with its strong covalent carbon-carbon bonds is the best actually existing material. Its theoretical characteristic length is several thousand km. A metastable metallic version of hydrogen that can exist at room temperature might be quite a bit better because hydrogen has much less dead weight, but its existence is only conjectured. . Later editions of the CRC handbook have a NASA originated table labelled "Mechanical and Physical Properties of Whiskers". The indicated whiskers are actual laboratory grown, millimeter length, single crystal rods of various substances, whose strength and density can be measured. The measured properties give the following characteristic lengths: . Graphite whiskers 961 km Al2O3 whiskers 527 km Iron whiskers 162 km Si3N4 whiskers 455 km SiC whiskers 704 km Si whiskers 337 km . These numbers are about 1/5 to 1/10 of the theoretical limits for the substances. . By comparison we have todays engineering materials: . Bulk aluminum 10 km Bulk iron 11 km Bulk steel 40 km Nylon 88 km Fiberglass 98 km Kevlar 195 km . As stated in my previous message, a strength five times that of Kevlar would make earth elevator cables of varoius varieties possible. This means a characteristic length of about 1000 km; a bulk material with the graphite whisker strength above would do fine.
-- http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/1976.skyhook/1982.articles/skymes
Why, in the quoted material above, is a characteristic length of 1000km good enough for a cable much, much longer than that? The first few thousand km of which will be in a gravity close to what we experience here on the ground. Paul Beardsell 04:40, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC) From your last reference I quote:
The support lengths assume no tapering. He figures tapering would be used, but a safety margin is also required, so they cancel out. The necessary support length for a Terran beanstalk is about 4,940 km. . He mentions that graphite whisker is already strong enough for a Martian beanstalk, where the support length is 975 km.
Paul Beardsell 04:44, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The "Launching into outer space" describes drag on the cable (west ward0 when mass climbs. But it doesn't explain how the cable katches up after imparting orbit velocity to the payload. Pud 23:59, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Moved discussion of various types of tethers, and what to name each one, to Talk:tether propulsion. -- DavidCary 08:52, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
it seems the whole article uses metric, except for the "Building an elevator" section. i wanted to change it, but i realized i have no clue which ton is used. can somebody try to find out, and then change it to fit the rest of the article?
There's been a factual accuracy dispute tag over at Space elevator economics for two months without any editing being done on either the article or the talk: page, does anyone know whether the dispute is still ongoing? I asked in that article's talk page too, but I figured this page was more likely to be bookmarked by interested people. Bryan 18:34, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I think pretty much everyone got bored by the bickering and people claiming that white was black, or that only orange is important. I know I got bored. -WolfKeeper