Slashdot Mirror


Europe's LHC To Run At Half-Energy Through 2011

quaith writes "ScienceInsider reports that Europe's Large Hadron Collider will run at half its maximum energy through 2011 and likely not at all in 2012. The previous plan was to ramp it up to 70% of maximum energy this year. Under the new plan, the LHC will run at 7 trillion electron-volts through 2011. The LHC would then shut down for a year so workers could replace all of its 10,000 interconnects with redesigned ones allowing the LHC to run at its full 14 TeV capacity in 2013. The change raises hopes at the LHC's lower-energy rival, the Tevatron Collider at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois, of being extended through 2012 instead of being shut down next year. Fermilab researchers are hoping that their machine might collect enough data to beat the LHC to the discovery of the Higgs boson, a particle key to how physicists explain the origin of mass."

52 of 194 comments (clear)

  1. Half-measures by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Funny

    Does this news mean we now only have to be half afraid that they're going to create a black hole that will destroy the Earth?

    1. Re:Half-measures by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm scared for all the half-lives at risk.

    2. Re:Half-measures by halcyon1234 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Does this news mean we now only have to be half afraid that they're going to create a black hole that will destroy the Earth?

      Nope, we need to be fully afraid that it will destroy half the world. Hopefully the other half.

    3. Re:Half-measures by mikael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe you get a Schrodinger's black hole - it may or may not be there until you open the lid.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    4. Re:Half-measures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      no, it just means they'll be right on schedule for the end of the world in 2012 when they crank it up to full power.

    5. Re:Half-measures by cbope · · Score: 2, Funny

      Where is Gordon Freeman when you need him?!?

    6. Re:Half-measures by qmaqdk · · Score: 2, Informative

      Maybe you get a Schrodinger's black hole - it may or may not be there until you open the lid.

      No, no, no. It's both there AND not there until you open the lid.

      --
      My UID is prime. Hah!
  2. Where is the Outrage... by DougF · · Score: 4, Interesting

    at (apparently) no one being fired for designing interconnects that only allow the LHC to run at 1/2 power? I may not be a scientist, but shouldn't a design cover the requirements? Then, to lose a year's work on top of that, and no one is getting their wrist slapped or even sued?

    --
    Impetuous! Homeric!
    1. Re:Where is the Outrage... by eclectro · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's no one's fault really. It's just the Higgs Boson once again making sure that cern never uncovers its Cthulhu like existence.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    2. Re:Where is the Outrage... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I may not be a scientist, but shouldn't a design cover the requirements?

      It is an unprecedented scientific experiment, not the some sort of business logic application coded in Java that you undoubtedly do for a living.

      Yeeesh, cover the requirements indeed.

    3. Re:Where is the Outrage... by PhreakOfTime · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you misunderstand how larger government woks projects are run, and why. Physics is only an ancillary benefit.

    4. Re:Where is the Outrage... by joe_frisch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The interconnects are rather complex superconducting devices, not simple electronic connections. It certainly would have been possible to design them with a higher safety factor, but that would have increased the cost. If that approach had been taken with all of the critical components for the machine, the overall cost would have been significantly higher. Unfortunately for a large cutting edge project on a tight budget, you need to take some technical risks. Over the next 10 years we will see if they put a reasonable safety factor on the overall design.

    5. Re:Where is the Outrage... by raddan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Frankly, I'm a little sick of the "outrage" every time something doesn't go as planned. Since when does the universe have to play nice all the time?

      Science, by its very nature, deals with the unknown. We're at the point now where it looks like we're going to have to assemble thousands of experts, using billions of dollars to continue to make fundamental discoveries. If any of us had a road map, I assure you that we'd use it. This means that sometimes, we spend all that time and energy and hit a dead end.

      But here's the cool part: dead ends are sometimes better than confirming what we already knew. There was an interview with a theoretical physicist on the radio the other day, and the interviewer asked him what his worst fear and greatest hope for the LHC was. He said, "They're the same thing. We find out that we were completely wrong about something." This is simultaneously frightening and exhilarating, and it's what makes fundamental research so exciting.

    6. Re:Where is the Outrage... by Alcohol+Fueled · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think you misunderstand how larger government woks projects are run, and why.

      Not if he's Chinese.

      --
      Ah am not a crook! (\(-__-)/)
    7. Re:Where is the Outrage... by QuoteMstr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Personally, I see the whole "physics is the ultimate science" as a con to graft in more grad students.

      The world is not a nasty, nasty, vile thing that's out to get you. Take a deep breath. Sometimes, really, people mean what they say. Sometimes they act in earnest. Sometimes there is no ulterior motive.

      Is it so difficult to let go of your cynicism for five minutes?

    8. Re:Where is the Outrage... by PhreakOfTime · · Score: 3, Funny
      alright... looks like its time to replace the batteries in my wireless keyboard.

      At least its still spelled correctly, even if it is a grammatical abomination.

    9. Re:Where is the Outrage... by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you are from then US you are paying for it. The US has provided the LHC with a substantial mount of funding.

      Having said that, its a >20km super fluid helium (about 1.4K IIRC) superconducting collider with voltage and magnetic fields at the very limit of what we are capable of. The miss management part of the project was miss managing expectations. There is no way we should expect this to run as a typical engineering project with only one or two delays and cost over runs (typical in most large engineering projects).

      To give you an idea of just how far from typical engineering this is, take super fluid helium as an example. It can leak fast out of holes not much bigger than an atom. Also in the super fluid phase the thermal conductivity is insane, but one little spot thats just hot enough to get a small area just above the critical temperature (~2K) then... that area is effective thermal insulator compared to the super fluid and then you can't keep your magnets cold cus you cant get rid of parasitic thermal loads quick enough. Now lets make a connector for this stuff, and put a 10kA cable inside... We need 10 000 of em.

      We choose to do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.

      Ok well mainly because its bloody interesting.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    10. Re:Where is the Outrage... by AbRASiON · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You must be an American.
      Something is broken / wrong / not flawless, maybe we should sue them!

    11. Re:Where is the Outrage... by mdwh2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just to add some perspective on the US cost, note that the US contribution is about $500 million - also remember the LHC has been constructed over about a 15 year period I believe, so on average that's a yearly cost of $33 million. For comparison, the US yearly military budget is over half a trillion dollars.

      Alternatively, based on estimates of the cost of the Iraq War, of $2-3 billion a week, the entire worldwide cost of the LHC over 15 years is about 3-4 weeks in Iraq...

    12. Re:Where is the Outrage... by Webcommando · · Score: 4, Funny

      OMG..The real truth is out there. This is just an excuse to have the device shut down during 2012. They didn't want to be responsible for the 2012 Mayan prophecy coming true. It make so much sense now!

      Not that I believe that sort of thing but it is the first thought that popped in my head while reading the summary.

      --
      I love the sound of distortion in the morning -- webcommando
    13. Re:Where is the Outrage... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You mean more, or less than shutting down the whole project, redesigning the interconnects, and taking a whole year to replace them?

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  3. Nothing to sneeze at by ravenspear · · Score: 4, Insightful

    7 TeV is still more than 3 times Fermilab's total collision energy.

    This more conservative ramp up is probably smart given the previous problems with equipment failure on the LHC. This will allow the systems to be tested thoroughly before going to max capacity.

  4. the Source of all the risk by tepples · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm scared for all the half-lives at risk.

    But what about all the counter-strikes and the portals?

  5. Luminosity more important than energy by Entropius · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The Big Deal about the LHC isn't just the energy. It's also that it allows for a much higher collision rate than the Tevatron. Even if you only run the thing at Tevatron energies, it's possible that it can collect as much data in a week as the Tevatron could in years.

    When the LHC guys down the hall show up tomorrow I'll have to ask them about the planned luminosity in the first year of running.

    1. Re:Luminosity more important than energy by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 4, Informative

      > much higher collision rate than the Tevatron

      About 100 times. But remember that cross section goes down with E, so the effective collision rate at high energies is just about flat. See:

      http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/general/acphys.htm

      TRIUMF still kicks in this regard.

      Maury

    2. Re:Luminosity more important than energy by The_Wilschon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Cross sections for most interesting processes go up with a large power of E (~6) at a hadron collider. This is largely due to the gluon parton distribution functions: as you go to higher proton energies, you need smaller and smaller fractions of the proton energy for heavy particle production, and at small fractions of the proton energy, there are gillions of gluons. This has the additional interesting effect that heavy particles are primarily produced at rest, because the less of the proton's energy you use (and therefore less kinetic energy for the produced heavy particle), the more gluons are available to contribute to the cross section.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
  6. Full speed in 2013?? by Khan · · Score: 4, Funny

    Uh, HEL-LO?!! Have you guys forgotten that the world is going to end in 2012?!! I think you might want to ramp it up all the way in 2011...just in case.

    --

    "Klaatu, verada, necktie!" -Ash

  7. Re:Slash Tank (British viewers: think Dragon's Den by Mashiki · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Maybe they can claim that it has to do something with global warming and the giant sound of sucking machines, and micro-black holes will start getting the money for them.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  8. Re:Slash Tank (British viewers: think Dragon's Den by biryokumaru · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And hyperdrive.

    --
    When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
  9. Pay Now or Pay Later by westlake · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It certainly would have been possible to design them with a higher safety factor, but that would have increased the cost...Unfortunately for a large cutting edge project on a tight budget, you need to take some technical risks.

    I seem to have heard this argument before.

    The Apollo fire. The loss of the Challenger. Repairs to the Hubble.

    1. Re:Pay Now or Pay Later by Idarubicin · · Score: 4, Informative

      I seem to have heard this argument before.
      The Apollo fire. The loss of the Challenger. Repairs to the Hubble.

      I seem to have heard this misconception before. The Apollo fire wasn't because of a cutting-edge project taking technical risks, or making a considered judgement to accept smaller safety margins in exchange for reduced costs.

      Having a mixed-gas oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere in the Apollo capsule would have increased the internal capsule pressure in orbit, requiring a beefier structure and more weight. More dangerously, it would have required the development of suitable partial-pressure sensors for the precise measurement of oxygen levels within a mixed-gas environment. That would have constituted a technical risk. In contrast, the system used in the original Apollo design required only a simple pressure gauge to ensure sufficient oxygen for the crew.

      Moreover, in orbit the Apollo capsule internal pressure would be only about 5 psi - about a third of an atmosphere. While that pressure of oxygen is sufficient to support combustion, it isn't dangerously high, and all of the materials used aboard Apollo were tested for fire safety under those conditions. The big problem was that on the launch pad, the capsule contained a full atmosphere of oxygen (the excess pressure would be bled off as the capsule ascended to orbit). Nobody thought to test under those conditions. Even then, there's at least some evidence to suggest that it was the astronauts' webbing the capsule with large amounts of Velcro that allowed the fire to spread so rapidly.

      Finally, the earliest design for the Apollo capsule hatch opened outwards and was equipped with explosive bolts for rapid egress. It was at the insistence of astronaut Gus Grissom (who may have been the victim of premature triggering of such a system on his Mercury capsule) that the hatch be replaced with an inward-opening, 'plug' design that lacked explosive bolts.

      Both previous manned U.S. space capsules (Mercury and Gemini) had used essentially identical pure oxygen atmospheres, without concern and without any problems. Did they get lucky? Absolutely, in retrospect. Should the Apollo engineers have recognized the dangers that their predecessors had overlooked? Probably. Was the fire the result of taking 'technical risks' on a 'cutting edge project'? Nope. They thought they were sticking with a simple system that had worked for years, and didn't want to asphyxiate an astronaut by fiddling with something reliable.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    2. Re:Pay Now or Pay Later by joe_frisch · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Compromise is critical part of engineering - one of the reasons that "no compromise engineering" adverts are so silly. You can always make something better if you are willing to spend more money. You can improve one parameter if you are willing to give up on another. For example airliners are designed with something like a 1.5X safety factor on strength (above maximum loads). If the safety factor was 2X, probably a couple of in-flight break-ups would have been avoided, but the overall cost of air travel would increase dramatically.

      If Apollo had a higher safety factor, 3 astronauts would not have died - and we might never have gone to the moon. One of NASA's difficulties these days is that people are demanding higher safety, and that makes space more difficult and expensive.

      In hind sight it is easy to see where the safety factor should have been increased, but that isn't fair. You don't know in advance which part will fail, so you try to design critical systems to similar safety factors.

      Sometimes you get it wrong - but even that is a trade-off in engineering costs. Additional engineering reviews take time and money - and may eliminate the project, or reduce its capabilities.

      I am aware of another large accelerator project - the Next Linear Collider. Unless you are in the field you probably haven't heard of it. That's because the design was too expensive and it will never be built.

    3. Re:Pay Now or Pay Later by zmooc · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh there's so much more. The sinking of Columbus' ship Santa María comes to mind, the death of Marie Curie by cancer, the risks Franklin took when proving lightning was electricity and the murder of William Bullock by his printing-machine. Here are some more: http://listverse.com/2008/12/14/10-inventors-killed-by-their-inventions/

      The thing is, the greatest discoveries very often come at a great risk. The risk-averse culture than has steadily been introduced since, say, the 1970s probably greatly holds back mankinds progress. No longer are victims of cutting-edge technologic failures hero's, instead their designers are the victim of outrage and lawsuits. This makes me very sad. Risks are not something bad, risks are things taken by brave people. Very often those people are the ones responsible for great leaps in mankinds progress.

      Therefore the argument you quote is not just a good argument, it is a great argument. Wimps that cannot handle it should stay away from it and keep their mouth shut.

      --
      0x or or snor perron?!
  10. Re:Guilty of low aspirations by raddan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the LHC was designed properly, run the friggin' thing. If not, fix the friggin' thing.

    Did you RTFA? That's exactly what they're doing. It takes time to come up with a proper fix, but while you're coming up with something, why not use the thing? Even at a fraction of its energy, the LHC is the most advanced accelerator in the world. It would be a shame to just let it sit there.

  11. Re:Damn... by marcansoft · · Score: 4, Informative

    The beam energy at 7TeV is 362 megajoules. This is about the energy that you could get by maxing out a household mains connection (230V 20A) for one day, or about the energy content of 11 liters of gasoline. Quite a bit, but not huge at energy scales.

    Of course, the beauty of the LHC is that it accomplishes this energy in the form of a particle beam circling the collider at near the speed of light. This means that the power of the beam is about 4 terawatts if my math is right, so it could power about 3300 DeLorean time machines (not for very long, though). Keep in mind that this power is circling endlessly in the LHC, so it isn't being consumed - the actual electric power consumption to run the whole LHC is "only" about 120 megawatts.

  12. Re:Guilty of low aspirations by godrik · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If the LHC was designed properly, run the friggin' thing. If not, fix the friggin' thing.

    Did you RTFA? That's exactly what they're doing. It takes time to come up with a proper fix, but while you're coming up with something, why not use the thing? Even at a fraction of its energy, the LHC is the most advanced accelerator in the world. It would be a shame to just let it sit there.

    Without even counting that running it will stress some other hardware and uncover some other potential problems.

  13. Re:Baguette by bdwlangm · · Score: 2, Informative

    IIRC, the bird dropped its bread on something a little more innocuous sounding than a reactor. The bird escaped unharmed but lost its bread.

  14. Re:Guilty of low aspirations by Idarubicin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hard to get all worked up about this when the people running the program don't seem to be concerned about accomplishing anything significant. Sort of like spending untold billions on a supersonic aircraft, and after all the money is spent, flying it subsonic for a year or so, and then grounding it for another year to re-wire it.

    Well, no. It sounds like they're quite concerned about doing something useful after spending those billions of euros. They still have the most powerful particle accelerator on Earth by a good margin, even if it's not up to its full design power (yet). They can do some solid science, good experiments, collect a year's worth of data and test all of their detectors and other hardware.

    After that, they'll have a year with the beam turned off, in which they can actually analyze the mountains of data that were generated during a year of experimental runs. In addition to replacing the magnet interconnects, experimenters will have a year to fix any problems that come to light with detectors and other experiment hardware and software. This period of operation means that there shouldn't be any unpleasasnt surprises when they do go to full power, because they'll have had a year of 7 TeV operation to shake out all the bugs.

    --
    ~Idarubicin
  15. Another way to look at it by failedlogic · · Score: 5, Funny

    In an equally optimistic point of view, if Higgs boson is later shown to not exist, the Tevatron Collider can claim that it was able to not find it before the LHC!

  16. Another Sign of the Times by strangelovian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Fellow Slashdotters, I hope is becoming abundantly clear by now that an age is ending; the great 20th century scientific projects are fading into history, and the 21st century will require us to dramatically lower our expectations for scientific civilization. What exactly is the payoff for the LHC anyway? In what way does it inspire society at large or contribute anything useful? It’s very strange to be living through the collapse of your own civilization, but with each passing day it becomes more and more clear to me that that’s what is happening. It looks to me like our resources are going to be funneled increasingly toward the military as we struggle to maintain what we already have, instead of pursuing inspirational projects that ordinary people can understand. A sad time to be alive for those of us who grew up with bigger dreams, but maybe it wasn’t meant to be.

    1. Re:Another Sign of the Times by joe_frisch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In a way the LHC may be the last project of the grand old empire. It may be scaled down from the SSC, but it is still by many measures the largest and most complex machine ever created - designed to understand the most basic physics. 30 years ago you wouldn't have needed to ask what it was for, any more than you would have wondered why were were spending money to go to the moon, or to send spacecraft to Jupiter and Saturn.

      With the end of the cold war we no longer feel the need to prove our superiority by building ever bigger and more impressive projects. This has left us without a clear goal.

      ------
      Future generations will draw an arbitrary line and say "this is when the civilization fell".

  17. So the bird was carrying a sliced bagel this time by gemada · · Score: 3, Funny

    and only dropped half

  18. Re:What I don't understand by The_Wilschon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The failures, or rather misdesigns/misbuilds, are in "copper bus bars". These effectively act as shorts across the superconducting electromagnet coils. Since the coils are normally superconducting (when at cryogenic temperatures), the short does nothing. But if the coil gets ever so slightly above its critical temperature, it ceases to be superconducting. At that point, it still has very very low resistance, but the current through it is so enormous that it heats up rapidly. When it gets to a certain temperature, its resistance becomes comparable to the resistance of the copper bus bar shorting it, and the current starts to flow more and more through the copper, thus protecting the superconductor from getting too much hotter. At least, that's what is supposed to happen.

    What is wrong is that some of the solder joints for the bus bars are not good, and have too high of a resistance. A higher resistance in the bus bar system means a higher superconductor temperature before the current starts to flow through the copper, and in the end, this means damage to magnets.

    I'm not sure what level of testing was done, but building a short segment and testing it up to slightly above design spec is probably not really feasible. In order to get the particles to the eventual energies, you need the whole ring to be in working order, because it takes tons of complete circles around the ring to accelerate the particles. Injection from the SPS to the LHC occurs at 1/14th the design beam energy, and the LHC ring takes it up from there.

    Even if you could inject 7 TeV protons into a short segment of the ring, you'd still not be able to get the design beam intensity that way, because you don't have all 2000+ bunches ready for injection at once.

    You could run the magnet intensities up to what is needed to bend a beam in a tight enough circle at high enough energies even without any actual beam in there, and this was probably done. However, quenches (magnets getting above critical temp) happen principally because of the beam. The beam loses particles and energy at a fairly high rate due to a variety of effects, and all those particles and all that energy goes into heating something, usually the bending magnets. I suppose you could do a deliberate quench by playing with the cryo, though. Perhaps that was done, and we were unfortunate enough to have tested only good subsystems this way.

    As you may have guessed, I am a particle physicist (on CDF), but not a beams engineer. So, some of the above is guesswork, but I hope I've been able to relieve some of your ignorance.

    --
    SIGSEGV caught, terminating

    wait... not that kind of sig.
  19. Re:What I don't understand by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Thank you very much, you explained it well and I understand more now.

    Wouldn't a quench have a huge back-EMF associated with it as the field collapses? I don't see any alternative but for much of that energy to go through the coil-bar circuit and heat the coil up more.

  20. Re:Here's what I don't get by Werthless5 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Because the two machines operate at different collision energies. The Higgs cross section is going to be different at each collider due to this energy difference, so when you go to measure this cross section you're going to get different results.

    You can perform a meta-analysis, whereby you make a "best measurement" at different colliders and energies in order to better understand the measurements. However, that's not what you're proposing; you're proposing that they combine data in order to get a result in the first place, which you can't do.

  21. Not just lower power, but lower luminosity by physburn · · Score: 3, Informative
    I very much doubt that the LHC will find the Higgs in its 2011, 7TeV is plenty of power to find a Higgs between 100 and 200 GeV, however the luminosity of the LHC and the number of collisions it will make is a lot lower too. The LHC will only deliver about 1 inverse femtobarns in that time. But the Tevatron has will a built up to 8.5 inverse femtobarns of collisions in that time. That means that the first years run of the LHC will be a drop in the ocean of the already existing Higgs data from the Tevatron. So hard luck Europe, but the LHC won't detect a Higgs before 2013. The Tevatron might just see the beginnings of a signal, but probably not enough to confirm anything.

    ---

    LHC Feed @ Feed Distiller

  22. Europe? by thurman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Nice to see that when something goes wrong, it becomes 'Europe's' LHC. I thought CERN was an international thing.

    1. Re:Europe? by not-my-real-name · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Um, Europe does consist of many nations.

      --
      un-ALTERED reproduction and dissimination of this IMPORTANT information is ENCOURAGED
  23. Re:I'm all for blue sky research... by Mattskimo · · Score: 2, Insightful
    You remind me of the kid at school who would ask what relevance every single thing they were being taught would have in a work place.

    I think it reasonable to expect taxpayers to get something back from it

    You mean like the computer you wrote your post on? The medicine that has roughly doubled life expectancy in the developed world in the past few hundred years or so? What you seem to be advocating is akin to the recent UK government plans to assess potential economic benefits of research before granting funding which has met with considerable opposition. Private enterprise is certainly well-equipped enough to make a profit for the economy by applying the findings of fundamental research. Take the iPod for example. This needed research into materials, solid state physics, batteries etc, much of which would have been done at a government subsidised university/insitution. Private enterprise stands on the shoulders of giants and provides the economic benefit that easily justifies subsidising pure research.

    "There is nothing which can better deserve our patronage than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."

    -George Washington (address to Congress, 8 January, 1790)

  24. Re:Pity that sort of money isn't available .... by markov_chain · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Are you serious? None of those more useful things you listed would be here without, say, nuclear physics. Scanning microscopes, NMRI, VLSI... heh.

    --
    Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
  25. Re:Damn... by marcansoft · · Score: 2, Informative

    Yup, synchrotron radiation. This is significant with electron accelerators, but the LHC accelerates heavy ions where it isn't that much of a problem. The synchrotron power emitted is about 3.7kW in total.

  26. Worth it at any price! by timothy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While it's a shame that all the money put in so far hasn't quite led to the promised results, it doesn't matter. It's sciency, and it's worth it at any price.

    timothy

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5