Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Case efficiency versus powder efficiency.

Ken:
<br>
<br>The Hawk line of cartridges claims a better efficiency. The 30-06 Ackley Improved is apparently claiming 5% better than the 30-06 Springfield. The Hawk is claiming apparently upto 9%.
<br>
<br>The following article seems to support Hawks ( Fred Zigler's ) claim that the 300 Hawk is actually more efficient? Is the article accurate?
<br>
<br>I have extracted the various "productivity characteristics" of various powders, for a given caliber" from loading manuals and found that there is a very big difference in the performance of one powder versus another. In fact as much as 25% less powder of a given type will produce the same relative velocity. This leads to believe that before a manufacturer such as Winchester Short Magnum or 300 Hawk can legitimately claim that a cases shape is responsible for such and such a performance, first the powders actual performance and its role has to be evaluated.
<br>
<br>Do case shapes actually account for significant differences in performance, velocity, pressures? If so how?
<br>
<br>Thermodynamic Efficiency of the .300 Hawk Cartridge
<br>
<br> by Alvin Byars, AEM Enterprises, Inc.
<br>
<br>www.aement.com
<br>
<br>Fred Zeglin, the gun guru at Z-Hat Custom has often made the comment that his Hawk line of cartridges were among �the most efficient cartridges available.� Not ones to take boasting lightly, we at AEM Enterprises, Inc. decided to look closely at his claim. It turns out that Fred is right. And here�s the proof.
<br>
<br>Click here to Define Efficiency thru Thermodynamics
<br>
<br>The Laws of Thermodynamics
<br>
<br>Before the math and science in this topic turn you off, please read on. Our intent is to lightly cover the immutable laws that govern how efficient any energy conversion can be. After all, that�s what we�re examining.
<br>
<br>Classical Thermodynamics is the science that studies energy and the transformation of energy into work, or moving things around. When we speak of the thermodynamic efficiency of a cartridge, what we mean is the efficiency of the cartridge in transforming the chemical energy contained in the unfired propellant into the kinetic energy of the speeding bullet. Classical Thermodynamics is completely described by two laws.
<br>
<br>The first law is often referred to as the conservation of mass and energy. Mass (or matter, the stuff of which things are made) and energy can be transformed from one into the other. But, the total amount of mass and energy after any transformation is the same as the total we started with before the transformation. Energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed. They can only be changed from one form to another. This law also tells us that when we completely burn one pound of gunpowder, we are going to end up with one pound of gas. When we ignite the powder in a cartridge and release its energy, only part of the energy will be transformed into the bullet�s motion. What doesn�t get transformed into bullet motion is going somewhere, either barrel heat and wear, or hot gases, or unburned powder. But, none of it is just going to disappear. Another way of stating the first law of thermodynamics is �there�s no such thing as a free lunch.� This is common sense stuff.
<br>
<br>The second law is even more common sense. It says that energy will always flow from high-energy sources to low energy sources. We are never going to get warm by hugging something colder than we are. Gunpowder is high-energy stuff. By comparison, a bullet moving down a barrel is low energy. When we ignite the gunpowder, the bullet is going to move. It�s not going the other way. The second law also sets a limit on the transformation of energy. When we set something hot right up next to something cold, heat is going to flow from the hot thing to the cold thing until both things are the same temperature. Then the heat stops flowing between the two things.
<br>
<br>The �model� most often used by thermodynamics to describe the transformation of heat energy into energy of motion is a piston in a cylinder being pushed by hot expanding gases. In this model, heat is injected into the cylinder, the pressure of the gas increases, the rising pressure moves the piston and increases the volume of the cylinder. As the volume of the cylinder increases, the pressure decreases and the temperature drops. Thermodynamics represents this model mathematically with the following equation:
<br>
<br> P * V = n * R * T where P is the pressure of the gas,
<br>
<br> V is the volume of the gas,
<br>
<br> n is the quantity of gas,
<br>
<br> R is a number called the Universal Gas Constant,
<br>
<br> (about 1.25 for smokeless propellants), and
<br>
<br> T is the temperature of the gas.
<br>
<br>Thermodynamics calls this the Equation of State. This model described by the Equation of State is completely analogous to the pressure of hot gases from ignited gunpowder pushing a bullet down the barrel of a gun.
<br>
<br>You can relax now, because the above equation is the last one you are going to see in this article. Everything presented in the rest of this article can be derived from this equation. The important things to remember are these: The first law tells us that when we burn a pound of powder, we are going to get a pound of gas. The Equation of State tells us that as the temperature rises and more gas is produced, the pressure rises and pushes the bullet down the barrel. As the bullet moves down the barrel, the volume of gas behind the bullet increases, and the pressure and temperature drop. Finally, the second law tells us that chemical energy in the gun powder will continue to be transformed into increased bullet velocity until the gas pressure, volume and temperature reach some kind of equilibrium.
<br>
<br>Thermodynamics and Cartridge Efficiency
<br>
<br>One of the questions asked by thermodynamics is, �How much energy can I convert into work?� In our case, �What is the maximum velocity I can get from this cartridge?� Without going into a lot of mathematics, suffice it to say that it depends on only two things: the energy contained in the gunpowder, and the proportion of that energy that is converted into bullet motion. Common sense, isn�t it?
<br>
<br>The amount of chemical energy contained in a pound of pure gunpowder is pretty much the same from one gunpowder to the next, around 1,550,000 foot-pounds. The thing that changes from one gunpowder to the next is the burning rate. The shape of the powder and the coatings, deterrents and other additives determine the burning rate. These additives make up about 15% of the powder as it comes from the canister, so that the chemical energy contained in a pound of gunpowder out of the canister is about 1,325,000 foot-pounds. That is roughly 189 foot-pounds per grain of powder. For example, a cartridge that holds 75 grains of powder holds about 14, 175 foot-pounds of chemical energy. If you take a look at Figure 1, you will see the chemical energy contained in five popular .308 caliber cartridges. This chart assumes that each cartridge has the bullet seated one caliber deep, that the case is completely filled with powder, and that the density of the powder is 0.85, which is typical for rifle powders. It is important to understand that when we speak of density here we are talking about the density of the powder itself, not the load density. In this case, the load density is 100%. The powder density (more correctly, the specific gravity or specific weight of the powder) is assumed to be 85%.
<br>
<br>Figure 1
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>The chart in Figure 1 is really nothing more than the case capacity of the five cartridges. However, rather than showing case capacity in terms of how many grains of water each case can hold, it is shown in terms of how many foot-pounds of chemical energy each case can hold when filled with gunpowder. Notice in the chart that the .300 Hawk is pretty average in its �energy capacity� as far as .308 caliber cartridges go, not much greater than the .30-06 Springfield.
<br>
<br>Now, if all of these .308 caliber cartridges were equally efficient in converting chemical energy into projectile motion, then we would expect the .300 Hawk to be fairly average in terms of bullet velocity since it is fairly average in terms of energy capacity. However, take a look at Figure 2.
<br>
<br>Click here to find out How Others Define Efficiency
<br>
<br> Figure 2
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>Figure 2 shows the average velocity for the five .308 caliber cartridges with various bullet weights. These velocities are the average maximum velocities from several reloading manuals rounded off to the nearest 25 feet per second. As you can see, the velocities produced by the .300 Hawk are very close to those produced by the .300 Winchester Magnum, and right on the heels of the .300 Weatherby Magnum. Obviously, not all cartridges are equally efficient in converting chemical energy into bullet velocity.
<br>
<br>Perhaps even more interesting than the average velocities for the five .308 caliber cartridges are the kinetic energies. After all, that is what we are really interested in when we talk about cartridge efficiency. How efficient is the cartridge in converting the chemical energy in the gunpowder into kinetic energy of a speeding bullet?
<br>
<br>Figure 3
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>Two interesting things can be seen in Figure 3. First, the average amount of kinetic energy produced by a given cartridge loaded to its maximum is pretty much the same regardless of bullet weight. Second, the kinetic energy produced by the .300 Hawk is very close to that produced by the .300 Winchester Magnum, and again right on the heels of the .300 Weatherby Magnum.
<br>
<br>So, I can hear you asking, �What determines how efficient a cartridge is in converting chemical energy into bullet velocity?� Thermodynamics tells us that it is determined by three things:
<br>
<br>1) Volumetric expansion ratio,
<br>
<br>2) Heat losses, and
<br>
<br>3) Pressure gradient in the barrel.
<br>
<br>The volumetric expansion ratio is nothing more that the total volume of the cartridge case plus the volume of the barrel, divided by the volume of the case. Figure 4 shows the volumetric expansion ratios for our five .308 cartridges.
<br>
<br>Figure 4
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>The expansion ratios shown in Figure 4 are based on 24 inch barrels. The graph is sort of the opposite of the case capacities. In general, everything else being equal, smaller cartridges are more efficient and longer barrels are more efficient. This is all based on the Equation of State. But, the Equation of State describes an �ideal closed system� from which no energy can escape. A cartridge igniting in a gun is a pretty open system and a heck of a lot of energy is lost to heat. Below is shown the conversion of chemical energy that takes place in a typical rifle cartridge when the gunpowder is ignited:
<br>
<br> Mechanical energy
<br>
<br>Projectile motion 32%
<br>
<br>Barrel friction 2%
<br>
<br>Thermal energy
<br>
<br>Hot gases 34%
<br>
<br>Barrel heat 30%
<br>
<br>Chemical energy
<br>
<br>Unburned propellant 1%
<br>
<br>As we can see, nearly two thirds of the chemical energy in the gunpowder goes to heat, either a hot barrel or hot gases. This is clearly illustrated in Figure 5.
<br>
<br>Figure 5
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>The interesting thing to note in Figure 5 is that as we continue to increase cartridge size and chemical energy capacity in an attempt to get more velocity and kinetic energy, the decreasing expansion ratios quickly catch up with us and we reach a �point of diminishing returns.� Beyond that point we produce a lot more heat, but not much more velocity and kinetic energy. Hence, heat loss is the second thing that determines cartridge efficiency.
<br>
<br>The third thing that determines cartridge efficiency is the pressure gradient in the barrel. Figure 6 shows the estimated pressure gradient for the .300 Hawk with a 180-grain bullet leaving the muzzle at 3,000 feet per second, as graphically produced by the AccuLoad precision reloading program.
<br>
<br>Figure 6
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>As can be seen in Figure 6, pressure in the barrel quickly rises, reaching a maximum when the bullet has traveled a bit less than two inches, then gradually decreases until the bullet exits the barrel. The longer we can keep the pressure up in the barrel, the more chemical energy we will convert to kinetic energy and bullet velocity.
<br>
<br>Now, let�s see if we can wrap all this up by taking a different view of the information shown in Figure 5. When we talk about the thermodynamic efficiency of a cartridge, we are really talking about the percentage of chemical energy contained in the cartridge�s gunpowder that will be converted into kinetic energy of a speeding bullet. This is exactly what is shown in Figure 7.
<br>
<br>Figure 7
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>One thing is very clear from Figure 7. The .300 Hawk cartridge is considerably more efficient than other smaller or larger .308 caliber cartridges, based on the effective use of energy conversion.
<br>
<br>Defining efficiency varies from one source to another; Pejsa defined it as a ratio of energy delivered at the muzzle as compared to the energy wasted in recoil. No mention was made in the examination of energy loss due to heat, etc. and the honors are always pointed toward the heaviest firearm. Another popular theory for efficiency is the ratio of velocity gained per grain of powder used. The major problem with this method is that the scale is tipped toward the smallest cartridge and bullet. In other words, the old .22 Rimfire Short will usually come out on top. As we have shown, efficiency can be based on the most effective use of the energy contained in the gunpowder. And in this light, the .300 Hawk really shines.
<br>
<br>http://www.z-hat.com/Efficiency%20of%20the%20300%20Hawk.htm
<br>
<br>
<br>__________________________________________
<br>
<br>Bill Tibbe
<br>
<br>

Bill, my answer is - �so what�. (I am not putting you down, only the "research")
<br>
<br>It appears to me to be questionable marketing hype of the same vein which Weatherby has been accused of through the years. What does case efficiency have to do with accuracy? So you can use a few less grains of powder to achieve a comparable velocity. Other than saving a few cents of powder, what�s the benefit? Efficiency does not automatically equate to any improvement in accuracy. I think their marketing team is working overtime.
<br>
<br>Granted, case designs have changed over the years from long, belted cases to short, fat, non-belted cases. While this case design does improve burning efficiency, this was not the motivation for removing the belt and resorting to a shorter powder column. Proper bullet/bore alignment was the primary reason for the design. The bench rest guys figured out that short and fat was beneficial in keeping everything perfectly in tangent. A side benefit of this design was better burning efficiency.
<br>
<br>This is sort like expounding upon the strength and resiliency of the cardboard used to package their cartridges..... so what.
<br>

There are many ways to figure "efficiency," which is simply the actual compared in some way to an ideal. The "official" definition of a load's efficiency is the percentage of the powder's innate energy actually delivered as kinetic energy (cf Hatcher's Notebook). The innate, chemically bound energy of the IMR powders is (IIRC) about 178 ft-lb/gr, and a load that produces as much as 25% to 30% of this in the actual kinetic energy of the bullet at departure (muzzle) velocity is relatively very efficient.
<br>
<br>This definition of efficiency strikes me as pedantically neat but practically lacking and weak.
<br>
<br>I've already posted a breakdown of where the innate energy goes and will post it again when I find it again.
<br>
<br>Much more important -- practically speaking -- for the shooter (as distinct from the manufacturer) is effectiveness. A highly efficient load that isn't very effective in its intended use (not an unusual characteristic) isn't worth ol' Cactus Jack Garner's pitcher of warm spit to the shooter, no matter how profitable its efficiency makes it for its producer.
<br>
<br>The shooter-handloader is more interested in practical "efficency" as figured in terms, for example, of delivered kinetic energy per thousand pounds per square inch. Or perhaps as how many thousand rounds he can fire before the accuracy of his barrel goes unretrievably south. The "official" efficiency of the most practically desirable loads is often a good bit less than ideal from the theoretical view of "efficiency."

Ken:
<br>
<br>Thanks for the response.
<br>
<br>Another thought occurred regarding "efficiency". Not too long ago someone elsewhere raised the question of relationships of barrel lengths and here is what I said:
<br>
<br>"The short magnums have only been out a "short" time. So there may not be as much reloading and results as many other calibers. Essentially the short mags have been burning "factory" powder. No-one knows exatly what it is and cannot buy it. So you cannot duplicate short mag "factory" performance.
<br>
<br>There are now at least 114 different powders on the market with more being added regularly. The list starts with the fastest and ends with the slowest. Large rifle powders that are suitable for many rifles can easily number 15 different types and manufacturers. Among that selection it is very feasible to have one type of powder produce a certain "X" pressure and by using a different powder have it perform essentially the same velocity with 25% less powder. Yes, that is correct! You can extract the powders performance by simply applying sixth grade basic arithmetic. So before we begin showering the short mags with accolades, we first must determine how much of the short mags enhanced efficiency is attributed to the type of powder and how much is attributed to the shape of a short, fat case.
<br>
<br>After that we can move on the relationship between barrel length and velocity. Establishing a range of barrel lengths in one inch increments from 16" to 29" we find that as the barrel gets longer the velocity continues to increase. There is a practical point where a barrel may get too long and the friction of bullet engraving, by the rifling, overcomes any length advantage but so far it hasn't occurred in some calibers on up to a 36" barrel!
<br>
<br>There is a difference in velocity gain in shorter barrels and longer barrels. It isn't a straight line correlation on a graph. The line has a "knee" in it. That means it changes direction as barrels grow from 16" to 29". Picturing the pressure curve of a firing, there is an initial "jump" to about 5,000 psi. That is due to the primer igniting. Then the pressure peaks rather quickly in the first few inches of the barrel. That occurs in fractions of a millisecond. *( A millisecond is 1/1000 th of a second ). Then the pressure begins to drop as the bullet slides down the barrel exposing more volume for the gas to occupy. When the bullet exits the muzzle the gas is dumped and the bullet is "on it's own" flying without supplemental propulsion. That all occurs in about 2 to 3 milliseconds. When the gas is retained in the barrel by a longer barrrel there is a steady gain in velocity from 16" on up to 29" ( at least ). That general overall averaged gain is very roughly 26 fps per inch of barrel length.
<br>
<br>While it is true that some unburned powder does get blown out of the muzzle, sometimes in some rifles, it is not always the case. The burn rate of powders is taken into consideration by the producers of reloading manuals based on test gun firings. Case length and case volume are not necessarily directly related to barrel length. "
<br>
<br>

Zero:
<br>
<br>I didn't read into the situation the same conclusions that you did. I was impressed:
<br>
<br>" One thing is very clear from Figure 7. The .300 Hawk cartridge is considerably more efficient than other smaller or larger .308 caliber cartridges, based on the effective use of energy conversion. ".
<br>
<br>The researchers were independent with no vested interest in Hawks product. They set out to evaluate Hawks ( Fred Zeglin's ) claim and they agreed that he was right. Take a look at their website to see who these people are!
<br>
<br>It is possible to simply take a standard 30-06 rifle, run a reamer in the chamber and significantly improve its performance. That to me is something to think about. The rifle will then shoot almost like a 300 Winchester Magnum or a 300 Weatherby, with the same cases, no boltface or magazine alterations and the same essentuial dies can be used for reloading.
<br>
<br>By necking it up to a Hawk .411 you then are pushing up against a .375 H&H Magnum in energy!
<br>
<br>The human mind is inquisitive and creative. That's how progress is made. I'm for it.
<br>
<br>On the other hand I have said in the past that you can take 75% of all cartridges existing in the world today, dispose of them, and you will still have more than you can possibly deal with in a lifetime. Now I will say take 95% and we will still have more than enough.
<br>
<br>Comparing a whole range of cases, ( which I have sitting on my desk at this moment ) in the grandiose, macroscopic, scheme of things, considering human strength and dexterity, there really isn't very much difference in a few fractions of an inch or a few ounces of weight, when sticking a load into a chamber. However, when taking the microscopic view and getting down into the nitty gritty of research and development then the Hawk development is significant within it's context. We crawl before we walk and we walk before we run. We build a building one brick at a time. One little brick may not be important but the conglomeration of all bricks ensemble is.
<br>
<br>Bill Tibbe

I dunno guys. Every time I see, or hear, about "a more efficent cartriage/case shape", it always turns out to be a longer barrrel or a higher pressure load. Or some special loading technique such as used in the Lt. Magnum/Hi Energy ammo types.
<br> And when you do get your "free" 100-150 fps., my computer's ballistics program reminds me of just what little I really have way out there where I'm looking for more. I sure don't need it up close.
<br> My shouder, my nerves, and my check book remind me what I'm paying for it. E

Bill - First, this is not a personal attack, please do not take my comments the wrong way. Second, I have seen this information several times. It is apparently being used as an advertising piece. From a marketing point of view, burning efficiency is not a consumer trigger. In other words, people don�t flock to a new cartridge design because it is more efficient. If powder cost $250 a pound, then burning efficiency would certainly come into play. Until this time, it is fairly meaningless to the average guy.
<br>
<br>While the article is interesting, I would have rather seen information on what makes an efficient cartridge from a design point of view. If they altered shoulder angles and case design and recorded changes in burning efficiencies, I would have been interested. I would have been much more interested if they performed detailed chamber pressure analysis for a large cross section of popular .30 caliber cases and powders. Throw in some barrel harmonic analysis for two or three premium barrels and I would have been riveted to the screen!
<br>
<br>All this article does is expound upon the greatness of ONE case design as it compares to a very limited cross section of �old� case designs. We have no idea of the testing parameters, nor the equipment used, nor the lab conditions present during the testing. All we wind up with is a grade school definition of thermodynamics and a very vague testing of a handful of cartridges. It would have been interesting to compare the Hawk to the Dakota, Lapua, UltraMag, Kong, Imperial Mag, Apex, Petersen, Short Mags, Lazzeroni, or even the Weatherby case designs.
<br>
<br>I love knowledge. I soak up useful information. I did not find the article particularly interesting or useful - I am not planning on chambering a Hawk, and I don't know anybody who is.
<br>
<br>I wish writers would write about useful information. All I see today is very jaded, tilted, subjective reporting. Some serious lab and range work would be refreshing. Unfortunately, no one is going to fund objective, honest testing. I long for useful information, I�m just having trouble finding it. This is one of the reasons why I hope to see Dr. Howell�s new work. (A little brown-nosing never hurt).

To define efficiency first we have to define what the job to be done will be. There can be a world of difference between what is right for velocity, accuracy , pressure and practicality for hunting.
<br>
<br>Sometimes shooters get too hung up on the theoretical aspects of cartridge design rather than the practical application for the job they intend to do.
<br>
<br>If a 250-3000 does all the real work in the field that you need then using a 25-06 is not efficient. If you actually need the extra range, and no more, that the 25-06 may provide then a 257 Weatherby is inefficient by comparison assuming you are using full velocity loadings in both cartridges. You can carry this line of thought as far as you want or ignore it altogether depending on your own interests. We all recognize that a lot of us like to play with different rifles and cartridges and that doing so does more to sustain our interests and curiosity than not playing with them.
<br>
<br>After 50 years of hunting I have learned that biggest, fastest, newest is often neither efficient nor practical and I don't own a rifle chambered in a cartridge that was designed less than 40 years ago (and most are a lot older than that). They do the job well and that's the best measure of efficiency I know.
<br>
<br>I remain curious though and find it interesting that some cartridges do provide better "efficiency" in terms of bullet velocity for the amount of powder used than other cartridges which are marginally larger in capacity using the same bullets and powders (in greater amounts.) This variation may better or more easily be explained by differences within the rifles used rather than any magic in the cartridge.
<br>
<br>The shooter who is interested purely in accuracy would ascribe a different requirement for efficiency than I do. Long as we're having fun what matter?
<br>besto.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>

ZeroDrift, The sad truth is you are 100% correct in your assessment of the so called knowlegable gun hacks. They write to a common denominator, the average shooter who is looking to buy his next gun. These hacks are pitch men for their advertisors. True knowledge, like the kind we are privlidged to get from Dr. Howel is a scarce commodity. And only a limited few of us would try to desipher what is presented. The average trigger yanker would be lost after the introduction. There are often times that I must read an article or even a sentence several times in order to comprehend it's message. Joe trigger yanker is long lost and wouldn't read such material thus we get the hack writer or the fellow who is trying to make a complex subject understandable for the masses so he may realize his next payday.
<br>I need Doc Howels new book so I can see how dumb I really am.{smile]
<br>
<br>Bullwnkl

I'm not a bit sad that my cartridges aren't "efficient" according to the classic definition. I designed the cartridges in the one family of Howell cartridges (SOME adopted by AHR) to satisfy criteria that are at odds with "efficiency" -- to provide more propelling gas behind the bullet, so that the gas thus produced doesn't have to build to a peak pressure as high as SAAMI's safe maximum to propel the same or a heavier bullet as fast or faster. This is exactly what they do, too.
<br>
<br>"Better efficiency" would call for using less powder (producing, of course, less propelling gas) to propel the same bullet at the same velocity (same kinetic energy) -- which of course requires a higher peak pressure and involves as a concomitant and unavoidable result a faster deterioration of pressure as the bullet travels toward the muzzle.
<br>
<br>So you can see that in a sense, the "efficient" use of a given amount of powder can be considered an INefficient use of the peak pressure it produces, as well as an INefficient use of the barrel's limited useful accuracy life. Using a little more powder, at a significantly lower peak pressure, producing the same or a higher velocity, with a significant reduction in throat erosion, strikes me as a more practical kind of "efficiency."
<br>_________________________________________
<br>
<br>It's gratifying to hear someone confess to a thirst for knowledge. Unfortunately, the typical shooter-handloader's thinking is locked onto the premise that good cartridges (and good loads in 'em) HAVE to operate at or above the maximum determined by SAAMI to be SAFE -- and that MUZZLE velocity is the sole criterion suitable for useful comparison of cartridges and loads.
<br>
<br>And it's a bit discouraging, to a writer-student-experimenter like me, that so few shooter-handloaders have any thirst for solid knowledge (especially new knowledge) about cartridges and their important characteristics. Note that my post on the Powley Center hasn't inspired even one response. Haven't gotten any here by other media, either. Sad, sad, sad. I thought there was more thirst for knowedge among serious shooters than this lack of response suggests that there is.
<br>
<br>This makes me somewhat less than optimistic that "Inside the Rifle," the Powley-Howell introduction (for enthusiasts) to the interior ballistics of high-velocity rifles, will enjoy much of a market. I'll keep plugging away as usual, and the Powley Center WILL become a reality, where you all WILL be welcome, but at this point, it looks as though I'll be there, experimenting alone, the vast majority of the time, with only an occasional and very rare visitor. So be it. There's still a place in all this for the solitary writer-experimenter, and I look forward to continued enjoyment of the role, no matter how much MORE and richer fun it'd be to have frequent, interested, sophisticated, appreciative company sharing that enjoyment. "Having fun -- wish you were her -- uh, here!"

<br>Ken - You write it, we'll buy it...
<br>