Buger

Let's all have a discussion of the cool engine that will power the Rx-8! Hopefully, I understand some of the charactersitics of the new engine well enough to intelligently discuss them. If i don't, I hope that this discussion will educate me.

The renesis works much like other internal combustion engines by igniting an air-fuel mixture and using the expansion to do mechanical work. How can engines make more power?

1. More displacement - Is there no replacement?

2. Better volumetric efficiency - How much air can we get in the engine?
a. Stuff more air into the engine (ie. turbocharging, supercharging, Nitrous, Miller cycle?) More air is good. Compressing air also heats it though.
b. Cool the incoming air (ie. intercoolers, nitrous) Cool air is good because it is more dense.
c. Let more air into the engine. (ie. dual intake valves, tuned intake manifolds) More air is good.
d. Let exhaust leave the engine easier - (ie. dual exhaust valves, headers, high flow exhaust) More bad air going out means more good air can come in. More air is good.

3. Better use of the air/fuel mixture for power (Thermal efficiency)
a. Higher compression ratios. The air-fuel mix will be more prone to detonation & will need higher octane gas though.
b. Better thermal efficiency
c. Improved fuel atomization
d. More powerful spark
e. Better combustion stability

4. Less friction / resistance to movement (Mechanical efficiency)
a. Use lighter weight moving parts - waste less energy
b. Improve pumping losses (ie. Miller cycle with shorter compression stroke than expansion *huh?*)

How and why does a renesis make more power than previous rotaries?

1. Larger displacement - No.

2. Better volumetric efficiency
a. The side exhaust allows an intake port approx 100% bigger than previous production rotaries.
b. The side exhaust allows an exhaust port approx 30% bigger than previous production rotaries. Unfortuately, the port is not open as long as previous production rotaries and the exit path for exhaust is not as straight.
c. The intake manifold has been greatly improved to provide laminar airflow and uses 3 different length paths to tune the dynamic effect of the intake air pulses. This improves the supply of air to the engine for the entire powerband.

3. Better thermal efficiency
a. Better atomization of fuel due to ultra fine fuel injectors
b. More powerful spark due to higher power coils
c. Higher compression (unknown how high?) - [limited by sealing improvements and reliability]
d. Improved combustion stability/efficiency at low speed & light load due to no overlap.
e. Better thermal efficiency due to longer power stroke (exhaust port opens later)
f. Better thermal efficiency due to possible use of cermet (ceramic/metal hybrid alloy)?

4. Better mechanical efficiency
a. 14% Lighter rotors. Rotors will be approx 8.2 lb (9.54 * .86) leading safely to higher revs.
b. Shorter and lighter driveshaft. Carbon-fiber driveshafts are cool.

What else am I missing? I believe the side exhaust design was never used in the past because the peripheral exhaust offered a straighter path and led to greater power. While I'm sure that peripheral port rotaries with port jobs are capable of at least as much power as the renesis, we should congratulate Mazda on their R&D of the side exhaust port renesis since we can now have a rotary with larger ports AND greater fuel economy and emissions.

The future may yet hold a displacement increase for the rumored rx-7. Either by the addition of another rotor (3 rotor) or by something similar to how the 10a became the 12a (by increasing the width of the 2 rotors).

Brian

Hercules

Great post Buger.

Rich

Yeah, good post Buger. I have to admit stunning ignorance with regards to how engines (and rotaries) work. I've got the basics, but little interest in the details. I like posts like this because they're far enough beyond my knowledge that I learn something, but not so far out there that I can't follow.

One question, I'm curious about the RX-7 displacement point. It seems to me that increasing the displacement of each rotor would be fairly difficult. Wouldn't that mean significant changes to the manufacture of the rotors, seals, and much of the rest of the engine? It seems that Mazda needs to keep manufacturing costs down more than other car companies, simply because they're so much smaller, even with Ford's help. Also, would this make the engine less responsive and less willing to rev, as I naively would assume?

I just had a thought, and perhaps this is a good place to ask. Could anyone describe to me how a 1.3 liter 2-rotor would differ from a 1.3 liter 4-rotor? In other words, if you cut the size of the rotors and increased the number, would it be more rev-happy and smoother, yet keep the power due to keeping the displacemnt the same? If they were smaller they could also be placed lower to lower the center of gravity, right? Or is there a good packaging reason to stay with 2 rotors? I seem to recall someone saying something about the eccentric shafts being difficult to place in a 3 rotor, am I completely off the ball here? I hope this question doesn't reveal my ignorance too much...

Buger

Thanks guys,

You are right about the costs and Mazda will probably not increase displacement in this way because of it. There is precedent in Mazda increasing displacement by using wider rotors though. I just threw it out there as a remote possibility since a recent article from Newsmotoring (http://newsmotoring.news.com.au/news...E21822,00.html) said the following:

"Mazda powertrain managers have ruled out the chance of turbocharging the RX-8 RENESIS rotary engine but admit they are looking at ways of increasing capacity of the 1300cc two-rotor engine, bringing more naturally aspirated power to the lightweight unit."

I was confused by the "looking at ways of increasing capacity" part because it would have been simpler to just say that they were looking at using a 3 rotor. In thinking about other ways Mazda could increase displacement, I found that they have widened the rotors in the past to increase displacement.

I think it would. The larger displacement would produce more torque but the tradeoff would be a lower redline due to the higher weight of the rotors.

Hmm... I would think that a hypothetical 1.3 liter 4-rotor would rev higher. I think that the smaller rotors would exert much less stress on the eccentric shaft even if the total weight of the rotors were the same. I mean it's not like the entire weight of the rotors is moving up and down.

There are many added complexities though. I would also think that it would be exponentially harder to manufacture the parts because even finer tolerances would be needed on the miniaturized engine. If all of the world's car manufacturers were building rotaries, I'm sure there would be a wide variety of sizes. As it is now, Mazda is lucky they had enough financing to come out with any kind of new rotary. Of course, I am no expert on any of this stuff and I hope that I am corrected if I misunderstand anything.

It will be interesting to see how Mazda increases horsepower on the rumored rx-8 mps and the rumored rx-7. It is possible that turbocharging the renesis will not bring the same dramatic power increases as turbocharging previous peripheral port rotaries. I think that part of the reason is that the amount of air coming into the previous rotaries was the biggest limitation. The simple answer would have been to increase the intake port size but Mazda wouldn't have been able to market a car that couldn't pass the epa mileage guidelines (especially after the 70's gas crisis).

I read that the peripheral port design leads to much stronger "exhaust pulses" because of the straight path out of the engine and because the edge of the rotor effectively "pushed" the exhaust out of the port. The renesis has changed that by moving to the side exhaust port. Looking at the new design, we can see that the exhaust port is now larger and open for a shorter interval. This would seem to have strong "pulses" (with a longer interval between them though) even without the straight path. What effect would that have on a turbo?

wakeech

Well Buger, you present excellent thought in the theories you've got...

Ya, increasing the width of the rotor would be the easiest way to increase displacement, but i suppose that Mazda's found a really favourable comprimize with the bore (width) and stroke (fixed: the area change when viewing the rotor between TDC and BDC) ratio with the 80mm width it's at.... supposing, however, that Mazda DOES increase the width again, i really don't think that the increase in mass would hurt RPM so much: the mass of one rotor right now is 8.62 pounds, and the rotor itself is 80mm wide, thus 1.08 pounds per mm of width. to make a big, HUGE inaccurate guestimation of the mass of a 90mm wide rotor would be a mere 9.70 lb., which is still really fricken' light, considering where rotor manufacturing technology was 10 years ago in the 13BREW.

i'm not convinced that a 1.3L 4 rotor would rev any higher than a 2 rotor, as the comprimize is greater amounts of friction, possibly (i suck at math, so i can't really calculate any of the data i'd need to know this is true or not; Grimace?? a little help??) a greater ratio of rotating mass to displacement (which i'm guessing wouldn't be a good thing)... but, on the plus side, the RELATIVE tolerances of some of the key components in the engine (supposing they're made in the same fashion of the same materials) increases as they're miniaturized: ie. apex seals, eccentric shaft... they have to deal with less force at once, right??

ya, the gains of adding a forced induction system on such an already sophisticated atmoshperic system would be less than the 13Bs (and variants)... that variable length induction runner technology is adapted from the 787B!! :D coolness...
and thus when you butcher those runners with a turbo system to slegde hammer the power in, so to speak, the net gains wouldn't be as high, and would probably take a chunk out of the low end torque (supposing they have to reduce the length of the fixed length runner)
IF they could come up with a variable length runner system, AND pop a turbo on there, i'd have NO IDEA what the hell that would look like, but wow...that would be a sight to see...

as per the differences on the exhaust side, the power stroke on the RENESIS is more efficient, as the force (which is pressure*area-pressed-against) is greater longer into the stroke, where the exhaust port is open later (thus pressure is held higher as the volume expands toward BDC: exhaust starts to be expired later...)
i suppose though, that because of that early opening in the 13B, the exhaust is expelled with greater velocity (smaller exhaust port, and the exhaust gases are at a higher pressure when expiration stage begins), and the pluse lasts longer than it does with the RENESIS, doesn't it?? so, that may feed the turbine side of a turbo better than the shorter pulses of the RENESIS, without any overlap either...
also, yes, the direction of flow is a little contorted now, but i wouldn't want to guess on how much that would affect output...

Aesculapius

In regards to displacement,

Correct me if I am wrong but I seem to remember reading that a method of increasing displacement in rotaries is in scalloping out a portion of the rotary surface. Thereby increasing volume and decreasing weight.

Obviously this can only been carried to a point before the rotor loses strength. Anyone know if this was done to maximum potential in the Renesis?

Buger

Thanks Wakeech. I always like reading your posts too.

I actually found that Mazda has increased the bore (width) at least twice in the past. The 10a was originally 60mm wide. Mazda increased the width of the 10a to 70mm for the 12a. Mazda then increased the width of the 12a to 80mm for the 13b. The mass of the last generation rotors was 9.54 lbs and the fd3s had a 8000 redline (9000 tach). Mazda says that the renesis rotors are 14% lighter so they should be approx 8.2 lbs with a 9000 redline (10000 tach). Using the same guesstimation method, a 90mm width renesis rotor would weigh approx 9.225 lbs. Still pretty fricken' light and the redline of a hypothetical renesis with 90mm rotors should be somewhere between 8k and 9k.

You're right that there are many factors. Maybe an mechanical engineer can tackle this one.

A turbo renesis will definitely not be as "elegant" as the efficient na renesis. Part of the appeal of the rotary is from its elegant design without valves, cams, timing chains, etc. Then again, there are a lot of people who don't give a @#$$ about elegance and just want more peak torque and power!

You make a good point that the earlier opening of the 13b exhaust would be expelled when the pressure is higher. I hadn't really thought of that before.

Two unknowns about the renesis that I am eagerly awaiting info on are the compression ratio and if there will be a new coating for the engine housings. I think it was one of the Autobild articles that mentioned something about ceramic. One of the disadvantages of the rotary is the lesser thermal efficiency than the piston engine (because of the larger surface area of the combustion "chamber"). I wonder if Mazda is going to be using something like the "cermet" that they used on the 787b?

Brian

Buger

Hi Aesculapius,

See my previous post about how Mazda increased displacement from the 10a to the 12a to the 13b by increasing the width of the rotors. Mazda has also added another rotor to increase displacement.

I think that Mazda changes size of the depression on the rotor to change compression? Perhaps somebody that knows more can explain how Mazda changes the compression as it would seem that lowering compression in this manner would also increase displacement marginally? (or vice versa)

Who here can give some input on how Mazda changes the compression of rotaries?

Brian

wakeech

yup, the bathtub is exactly what you think it's for: controlling the compression ratio, as well as creating a cumbustion "chamber" (or so they describe it) for a good place for the flame front to form, and give the plugs some clearance... BUT, on the port side of the engine, this channel is a big reason emissions were smoked with tons of HC's flowing down to the exhaust port (kinda have to go through it to get there), after the inspiration port was given a wicked street and bridge port...

let's see.... some of the ongoing turbo discussions that were happening when i first joined the board were throwing around compression ratios of 10.5:1... i dunno if that's official or not (Boo??), or some guy just guessing... if it's a guess, that's exactly what i'd guess too :p

OH!! ceramics, forgot to say something abotu that before.... you know that iron sleeve in the expiration port of the 13B block?? i heard about the RENESIS incorperating ceramic materials into port linings, or around the block, or something??? the impression that is in my mind is that it was used as a sleeve similar to that iron one in the 13B...

here's something that's been buggin' me for a while: i've thought about it for a while... that 30% savings in mass, does that imply that the iron-intensive bits in the block "sandwich" have been switched to aluminum based alloys???

RedRotaryRocket

Wakeech,

I think that the side housings are still going to be made of iron. As I understand it, the "30% lighter" largely comes from the lack of turbos and associated hardware. I think they include the weight of the turbos when refering to the weight of the 13B-REW.

As far as keeping the variable length induction system if a turbo is added, I don't really see that as much of a problem. You wouldn't have to replace the intake manifold to add a turbo.

Buger

I can understand how the "bathtub" size could control compression but wouldn't a bigger bathtub marginally increase displacement also? Shouldn't low compression rotors give you a displacement of something like 1309 cc rather than 1308 cc? Or is the difference in size so small that it makes less than 1 cc of difference in displacement?

I think that the compression ratio is one of the factors that Mazda was playing around with when coming up with the renesis. The higher fuel efficiency and power of higher compression ratios needed to be balanced with long term reliability concerns. The rx-8 has to be reliable. (Perhaps Mazda will be a little more aggressive on a next gen na rx-7?) The compression ratio is probably one of the main factors that brought the projected power from 280 hp to 250 hp. Of course, one of the advantages that rotaries have over piston engines is that lower octane gas can be used for any given compression.

The low thermal conductivity of ceramic coatings could be the perfect way to counteract the lesser thermal efficiency of the rotary due to it's relatively large surface area.

I think I read that the weight savings was mainly from the turbo related components. Of course, the rotors are 1.33 lbs lighter each. Who knows what other components were lightened?

Brian

Macabre

Why? The specs/fuel requirements of other rotaries seems pretty much in-line with similar piston engines. I can see how the twin-plugs might help, but I thought those were just to compensate for the inherent inefficiencies of the combustion chamber shape in a rotary.

Buger

Hi Macabre,

I read that NA rotaries are less susceptible to pre-ignition and detonation because of their design. In the rotary, the intake and exhaust "strokes" are in separate areas of the engine than the power "stroke" whereas in a piston engine, all of the strokes are in the same area. This supposedly lessens the chance of ignition of gases when it isn't supposed to happen.

One of the marketing points of the rotary in it's early days was the ability to use lower octane fuel. One of the major concerns about the rotary after the gas crisis in the mid-seventies was it's fuel economy. The rotaries had comparatively better mileage at high revs than low. The entire reason the US has EPA mileage ratings for both city AND highway is because of Mazda pushed for the dual ratings. I read that one mitigating factor that the rotary had during the gas crisis was that it could run on 70 octane gas. Of course this wouldn't help the general public because the lowest octane gas available at the pumps was something like 85 (US uses ron+mon/2). The general rule for unmodified na rotaries is to use the lowest octane you can get.

The ability of the rotary to run on low octane gas was important because leaded gasoline was phased out and replaced by unleaded. The properties of lead were great for engines because it prevented detonation, pre-ignition and supplied lubrication. Unfortunately, the properties of lead are not as great for people.

Brian

Macabre

Hmm. That's interesting. Sounds good in theory, but in practice I don't know. I do know that the third gen's required premium (91+?) fuel, similar to piston engines of simialar displacement and boost, with a 9:1 CR, but that's not necessarily a representative example. I can definitely see the point about pre-ignition being reduced, since there shouldn't be any hotspots to ignite the mixture in the portion of the chamber used for intake (although some could form on the rotor itself?). I don't see how the risk of detonation would be reduced though. Anyways, thanks for the info.

These conversations will be far more insightful when we have the final specs on the renesis and the RX-8 :D

Buger

I found the answer to my own question.

http://members.tripod.com/~hardebeck/engine.htm has the below info:

"Rotary engine displacements seem small when compared to piston engines of similar power. In fact, both displacements are measured the same way. Displacement is the sum total of positive combustion chamber volume increases for one complete revolution of the main shaft (crank or eccentric). In a piston engine, this means the total amount of space swept by its pistons. In a rotary, it is easiest to think about the difference between the maximum and minimum volumes for a single chamber multiplied by the number of rotors (where each rotor has 3 chambers). Remember that the rotor actually revolves at one third the speed of the eccentric shaft, which is the reason only one chamber's displacement is used in the calculation."

Since displacement is the sum total of positive combustion chamber volume increases, a bigger "bathtub" does not affect displacement.
I was using the terms pre-ignition and detonation interchangably when they are very different indeed. Thanks for the link (http://link.sandiego.com/scripts/whe...idc?passin=297) which explains the difference between the two very well.

The same site also has an article (http://link.sandiego.com/scripts/whe...idc?passin=334) about how a rotary is much less subject to pre-ignition than a piston engine:

"First, hydrogen is subject to preignition. A conventional piston engine converted to hydrogen use tends to light off its incoming charge on hot exhaust valves or spark plugs...

...The HR-X is powered by one of Mazda's Wankel engines, which neatly sidestep the hot-spot problem by having separate areas for mixture induction and combustion."

Buger

Here is a question for some of the mech engineers (tallguylehigh, pelucidor, ...) and other smart people on the forum. What other changes do you think would be made to increase power on the rotary in the rumored 4th gen rx-7?

The specs for the rx-evolv had 280hp @ 9000 rpm. One of the things that Mazda did to make the rx-8 a little more conventional is to focus on hp at lower revs. Mazda may have also lowered the compression a little bit (from the rx-evolv) for improved reliability.

What other changes could future rotaries have?

The current renesis has no overlap. While this is great for lower revs, I read that "scavenging" effect of overlap improves power at higher revs. How about a small peripheral port exhaust that opens at high rpms?

What about the miller cycle rotary which was under development in the 90's? The belt driven lysholm compressor used in the Millenia was more efficient at compressing air than any engine could be. Could this be the much speculated about intercooled & "supercharged" rotary? This could increase fuel economy under light load conditions by reducing pumping losses while adding hp & torque across the powerband also.

I remember that our much respected Boowana mentioned that he thinks "a 300HP for the Mazdaspeed version is not out of the question". (http://www.rx8forum.com/showthread.p...5&pagenumber=4)

He also mentioned that "Robert Davis, a VP at Mazda stated that there will be a Mazdaspeed version of the RX-8 with 300 HP but did not say that it was turbocharged." (http://www.rx8forum.com/showthread.p...&highlight=300) Was this another hint?

Brian

MWG

I think the Renesis makes more power because the intake port are larger and open earlier. I think they will be able to be bridge ported if the exhaust port closes close to TDC or before because you would half to do this so there would be no overlap with the intake port. TDC or Top Dead Center is when the rotor is in the postion to make the smallest chamber. There is only one true TDC and it is on the Spark plug side of the housing but there is one the intake and exhaust side too. Think about the power possible with a bridge ported rotary. I think there would be no down sides to it as there is with rotarys to date.

Buger

Hi Mwg,

Welcome to the forum. The increased intake port size is one of the factors listed in my original post. I don't believe it opens earlier though. From what I have read, the port timings for the new side port are below:

Primary intake .....opens 32° ATDC .....closes 40° ABDC
Secondary intake opens 32° ATDC .....closes 30° ABDC
Aux. intake ..........opens 45° ATDC .....closes 80° ABDC
Exhaust ..............opens 50° BBDC .....closes 23° BTDC

The intake port timings are exactly the same while the exhaust port opens 25 degrees later (increased thermal efficiency) and closes 71 degrees earlier.

Hopefully somebody can confirm this information?

Also increasing the port size will probably not have quite the same effect as it had on previous rotaries.

Brian

wakeech

interesting idea you've come up with there Boogs, with the auxillary exhaust port on the perhipheral side... hmmm.... but i think our friend MWG may be onto something, with the bridge port idea... maybe with heeeeeeeeaaaaaaavvvvvvyyy reinforcement of the bridge itself, and not going too aggressively (making the bridge too thin, or not leaving a very very thin "fence" to keep the apex seals squarely on the rotor housings) for maximum width of the port, and didn't go for max overlap, or just bridging on the secondary inspiration ports (the 5th and 6th controllable ones), they could increase factory hp by double digits at peak numbers, without really comprimizing much other than emissions...

i was thinking, what if they had secondary ports, ie "5th and 6th" ports for the expiration side... when i think about trying to pipe a perhipheral version of the same, it'd be a real mess of spaghetti, so i think maybe the side would be more easily accomplished....

hmmmmmm.... interesting. i wonder how much Mr. Joe Average could screw around with this block without totally f***in' the whole thing... probably not much...

Buger

A small peripheral intake port that opened at high rpms would probably be more practical than the exhaust one although either one would affect emissions a little bit.

It is also possible that there were improvements to the apex seals since they no longer have to travel over peripheral ports now?

Brian

wakeech

oh yes!! that also may be true... they MIGHT be gettin' away with softer and lighter seals, as even though they were supported on either side of the gap as they travelled over the exhaust port in all pre-RENESIS layouts, there'd still be some wear on the leading edge of the seal as the port "fully opens" and "fully closes", yes??
those softer and lighter seals would obviously provide better sealing (higher degree of emissions friendliness), and maybe even lend themselves to prolonging good engine compression, eh?? wow... good one...

wakeech

hey guys!! EVERYONE, welcome back.

PLEASE CHECK THIS OUT AND RESPOND, 'cause it's mega mega cool...

over the break i took to posting on the (ugh) Autoweek forum, and there're two or three really smart fellows over there, but they're all muscle-heads... support for the rotary was absolutely insane!! lots and lots... everyone thinks it's cool...

to get back to what i was gonna say, one of the smart and resourceful guys over there found out (and calculated) some really neat info which goes into why the rotary engine (our RENESIS) makes so much power from such little displacement, and is so keen on revving so high.

i've not gone back and read everything, 'cause it's too much, but i've addressed Formula1 engines in many of my posts (not necessarily in this thread). to hit 19k rpm, the engineers have designed the pistons with as wide a bore, and as short a stroke as they can (limited by the fact that the valves have to FIT into the combution chamber), with horribly horribly oversquare designs. the short stroke and broad piston face lets them rev very very high (short distance to move over), and lots of force (as force = pressure * area) per stroke, which together add up to immense power.

back to the rotary. can you guess how oversquare this sucker is?? can you?? the stroke is 1.575 in (40 mm)... that's it. 654cc displacement, 40mm bore. think about that.

the "bore", calculated as if it's a piston (which it obviously isn't), is the full volume, divided by pi, square rooted (that's to the half power), times two (if my mental algebra holds up...).

the "bore" of the 80mm wide rotors of the 13B and now RENESIS are in the order of 5.681 in (144.3mm)!!!!!!!

unbelieveable, but true. that short stroke and long rotor side really add up to some amazing oversquareness in this engine.
Boowana just said yesterday that the RENESIS was tested at 17k rpm...
LOOK OUT F1!! heh heh heh...

Buger

Compression ratio in the production rx-8 is 10:1 which is marginally higher than the 9.7:1 of the previous NA rotary. I assume the compression ratio wasn't engineered higher because Mazda wanted the RX-8 to be incredibly reliable to counter the perception that many people have after the twin-turbo 3rd gen.

Mazda can produce more horsepower with this engine very easily...

Brian

SmokingClutch

The "bathtub" size has no effect on displacement because displacement is determined by the difference in volume between the combustion chamber at its largest and smallest. By increasing the size of the bathtub you increase combustion chamber volume in all cycles, which does not affect displacement. It's like adding the same amount to both sides of an equation, the difference is still the same.

A 1.3L 4 rotor wouldn't rev as well as a 1.3L 2 rotor for a very important reason. While smaller, lighter rotors would be more eager to rev, a longer eccentric shaft is more susceptible to flex at high RPM. I have serious doubts about an eccentric shaft that long holding up without using highly exotic materials.

I understand that Mazda is developing an engine with the same trochoidal dimensions but with the rotor width increased to 90 mm, giving a displacement of 1477cc.

Since the old 12A, 13B, 20B designations are going by the wayside, I expect it the 1.3L and 1.5L to simply be called the Renesis 1.3 and Renesis 1.5, respectively.

Buger

Hi Smokingclutch,

Nice post. I'm aware that the bathtub size has no effect on displcement though as I answered myself at the bottom of the first page of this thread. I actually sent a message to howstuffworks.com so that they can correct their article on the rotary but I never got a response.

You are right that a longer eccentric shaft would cause more flex *if the rotors were the same size*. The main reason why the renesis is allowed to rev higher is because the rotors are 14% lighter so they don't cause as much e-shaft flex. Of course a 4-rotor 1.3L engine would have rotors that are verry light and would not cause anywhere near the flex of previous 9.54 lb rotors.

Whatever the case, there is new information out there to be found. I am past my previous ruminations.

Brian