Engine mount

admin

A few weeks ago a customer ran his car at event that had a rather rough road.Once the car returned home from the event, I did my usual "after race prep" on it.  However, before work begins, I aways ask the client,"is there anything wrong with the car."  This time the response was...nope...So I get 1/2 of the way through my inspection and notice that rear alignment looks out of sorts.  (As a side note, this particular car uses "Chapman Strut" rear suspension...so the axle acts as an active suspension link.)  Well....after a few minutes of rear end inspection I find a snapped engine mount....I get the customer on the phone and eventually to the shop where I show him the issue.  He then begins to state,"the car did have a lot of vibration in the rear during the 2nd day of running.".....ugggggSo here it is-Enjoy .....ut-ohbustednew mount...installed for final fittingstitch..weave...what say youold vs new cheers--Graham-Mechanical EngineerAutosport Mechanic/Fabricator
Reply:Hmmm do you know by chance what the original was built from? I have seen that failure mode MANY times....but im keeping my mouth shut until I know the alloy of the tubing.Ok Im still looking at this.....were those tubes cut and braze welded together butt fashion?Last edited by makoman1860; 08-19-2008 at 11:00 PM.
Reply:What's the plug behind the cutout on the top horizontal member of the original mount? It looks like it has a few afterthoughts/repairs/mods in the original design.How long did it take you to form that cone?!?!? -Matt------------------------------------------
Reply:I noticed that too.....It looks like it was worked on a couple times...Im wondering if the whole thing isnt braze welded.....if its english there is a good chance....or Itallian.
Reply:Originally Posted by makoman1860Hmmm do you know by chance what the original was built from? Ok Im still looking at this.....were those tubes cut and braze welded together butt fashion?
Reply:Graham, do you have to keep with original construction to keep the car legal for its' class?? Or did you do it the same just for historical correctness? Either way, very nice work.And then, after so much work...... you have it in your hand, and you look over to your side...... and the runner has run off. Leaving you holding the prize, wondering when the runner will return.
Reply:Yikes. Agree it was simply underbuilt. It already tried to "tell" us this when it cracked the first time as you sortof implied.The design at the chassis end is awkward as well- having that bolt go in along the axis of the mount seems like it would tend to creat a ot of unnecessary bendin load on the mount then the end tries to torque over. Can't see it being an issue now as long as the welds don't fail right at the end where the threaded insert is. It certainly isn't about to let go at the flange on the block side now.
Reply:I like that, nice work.  A huge improvement over what was there.David Real world weldin.  When I grow up I want to be a tig weldor.
Reply:Originally Posted by grahamtheengineerThe original material is nothing special...some type of plain carbon steel.The failure did not have anything to do with the material.  In my professional opinion the old mounts are under designed....they were also repaired incorrectly at one point.  (The lower of the two tubes broke through a brazed joint that was a crack repair.)  Lastly, I believe the mounts were installed improperly...meaning: they did not fit very well and as a result they were placed under a stressed condition once they were tightened in place.  The combination of all these things...plus the bumpy track resulted in the failure  I actually did not form the cone from scratch.  I started with a piece of DOM then cut and shaped it to form the upper portion of the mount.The mount required 3.5-4 hrs to make[/B]The mount is off a Lotus 18 which is an English car.  And the entire part, just like the rest of the chassis, is brazed.  The car is from 1960 and like most formula cars or racecars in general from that time, brazing was widely used whether it was English, American, German...etc etc.
Reply:Originally Posted by RojodiabloGraham, do you have to keep with original construction to keep the car legal for its' class?? Or did you do it the same just for historical correctness? Either way, very nice work.
Reply:Originally Posted by TractapacColin Chapman's theory was that a car only had to be strong enough to last long enough to cross the finish line. And many of his Lotus' did exactly that. What's DOM, please?Looks like a strong repair, should be around for another forty or so years.
Reply:GrahamOh I remember somebody mentioned your torch cooler as one of the best projects on WW. This one is beauty too. This horn belongs to art gallery and shiny  Since it's so shiny then this is SS?About old support - simply does not feel right.1. All structural strength in vertical direction and very little in any other...2. Sagnificant distance from center of support to the bolts without any material to accomodate bending moment...3. If for some reason (manufacturing or assembling) planes of support are not parallel - possibility of pre-stress with combination of p.1 and p.2....Of course the cone (I'd like to call it "the horn") answers most if not all of the above as long as it has enough material (i.e. wall thickness) to accomodate the stress...Thanks for the picturesAlways a pleasure
Reply:Originally Posted by NomandGrahamOh I remember somebody mentioned your torch cooler as one of the best projects on WW. This one is beauty too. This horn belongs to art gallery and shiny  Since it's so shiny then this is SS?About old support - simply does not feel right.1. All structural strength in vertical direction and very little in any other...2. Sagnificant distance from center of support to the bolts without any material to accomodate bending moment...3. If for some reason (manufacturing or assembling) planes of support are not parallel - possibility of pre-stress with combination of p.1 and p.2....Of course the cone (I'd like to call it "the horn") answers most if not all of the above as long as it has enough material (i.e. wall thickness) to accomodate the stress...Thanks for the picturesAlways a pleasure
Reply:The car and parts only have to last long enough to get across the finish line.  If they are still intact, then they were either overdesigned or you weren't running hard enough.That's one theory on racing anyway.Me, I usually like overbuilt.What's the weight of the new mount versus the old mount?  And good idea on making the mate for the other side.  Balance and symmetry visually and physically and mechanically is good.re: billet aluminum  You'd still have fatigue issues with aluminum, as you know.  And you didn't have a multi-axis CNC machining center at the stand-by?ScotchBrite it, prime and paint it.  Industrial grey like the original(?) was.Metric, UN, or Whitworth threads?    The best laid schemes ... Gang oft agley ...
Reply:I too noticed the design looked intended to be stiff in some planes, and not in others.  I will play DA here...do you suppose there was a reason for this. A designed lack of stiffness to prevent another problem? Ive noticed that true race designed vehicles, much like aircraft, sometimes do have to sacrafice fatigue life for weight or flexability to prevent another major failure. Aircraft exhaust systems for recip engines are a prime example, yes they fatigue and crack, some designs more then others, but that the game you play to save weight. There is no replacement for routine maintanence and importantly, inspection. Plus it keeps the maintanence shops in business! Now thats fine on parts easily inspected ( engine mounts ) but parts that are not easily gotten to sometimes are overdesigned due to a lack of serviceability. I would not only keep an eye on that new mount design.....but parts around it. Transmission mounts, other mounts, etc. You have now changed the "nature of the beast", and nothing can be taken for granted.
Reply:Nice fix!As a side note DOM isn't 'seamless'. It's made by a similar process to ERW but is then drawn to final size giving improved qualities (sizing, mechanical properties etc). Originally Posted by MoonRise....Metric, UN, or Whitworth threads?
Reply:Originally Posted by MoonRiseThe car and parts only have to last long enough to get across the finish line.  If they are still intact, then they were either overdesigned or you weren't running hard enough.That's one theory on racing anyway.Me, I usually like overbuilt.
Reply:Originally Posted by TractapacThen when not winning, look for where to remove weight. A constant tradeoff with acceptable risk.
Reply:GrahamtheengineerI like the "horn", I say we paint it up like a steer's horn!  Better not let your cast repair skills get rusty; because if it fails again, it'll probably be when the side pulls out of the block!But I do wonder about the small end; although I'm sure you've worked through all this, I'll mention it anyway. When looking at the original design as seen in picture #1, there seems to be a bolt passing through a sleeve on the chassis, and another sleeve on the engine mount; the bolt is retained with a nut. The original mount bolt seemingly serves more as a pivot pin between two sleeves than a retaining bolt.With the redesign the bolt looks like it will pass through the chassis sleeve and thread directly into the engine mount, without a sleeve on the mount. The original design looks to have mostly loaded only the bolt's shoulder in shear, between two sleeves;  and used the threads mostly only for retention. In comparison, the new design, in which the mount bolt passes through the chassis sleeve, and then threads directly into the mount; seems like it will carry a much greater overhung load on the bolt's end.So I wonder:Did the original bolt and nut jamb the assembly tight, or did the nut bottom on a shoulder and allow the assembly to pivot?If the original design allowed for movement, how can that be a achieved now that female threads are fixed to the mount? With the change, what sort of loads will be at the bolt's end, -where shoulder meets thread-compared to the original design which appears to have concentrated loads in shear on the bolt's  shoulder?And most important of all - Am I getting too specific for a casual internet observer who: didn't keep some of his own engines from flipping over, and doesn't understand what cooks with this car?Good Luck
Reply:Originally Posted by hotrodderNice fix!As a side note DOM isn't 'seamless'. It's made by a similar process to ERW but is then drawn to final size giving improved qualities (sizing, mechanical properties etc).
Reply:Better not let your cast repair skills get rusty; because if it fails again, it'll probably be when the side pulls out of the block!The single mounting bolt, which passes through the chassis, is the piece we want to fail. I forgot to mention that the bolt goes thru a rubber bushing at the point where it passes thru the chassis. The original mount bolt seemingly serves more as a pivot pin between two sleeves than a retaining bolt.Not the case.  That bolt is loaded to about 100 ft/lbs.  We do not want any "pivoting" of the mount.  The old mount and the new, both concentrate the load of the engine on the single shear plane of the mounting bolt that passes thru the chassis.....however we want the whole car to act as rigged/flexing unit....(definitely just contradicted myself).  The rubber mount will absorb some of that load and then transfer to the chassis....and presto, we get nice firm handling at the wheels !In comparison, the new design, in which the mount bolt passes through the chassis sleeve, and then threads directly into the mount; seems like it will carry a much greater overhung load on the bolt's end.Over hung load (not sure what you mean) ? If anything has changed, the new mount will reduce the shear load on the bolt and therefore translate more of a compressive force into the chassis.  So I wonder:Did the original bolt and nut jamb the assembly tight, or did the nut bottom on a shoulder and allow the assembly to pivot?As stated above...no pivoting.  The bolt and nut combo jam the mount very very tightly into the chassis.    With the change, what sort of loads will be at the bolt's end, -where shoulder meets thread-compared to the original design which appears to have concentrated loads in shear on the bolt's shoulder?The engine mounting in this car is extremly rigged....we don't want much twisted and bending occurring at the engine....believe it or not, the chassis will take that.  What we do know is that the mounts will most likely experience compressive forces on the topside and tensile on the bottom and vis versa depending on which way the car is twisting.   This is assuming the it will be fixed at the engine (which it is) and at the chassis (which it is)...Since the mount is rubberized at the chassis, but fixed through the rubber mount, most of the bending (clockwise moment) will translate into the rubber and then the chassis).And most important of all - Am I getting too specific for a casual internet observer who: didn't keep some of his own engines from flipping over, and doesn't understand what cooks with this car?Ha Ha Ha .....good stuff.  You hit some nice points and believe it or not I threw some of the same answers at the customer.  He was curious to know why his old mount looked so different as well.  I drew him a beautiful diagram showing him load vectors, forces and all types of neat stuff. .  But like I also stated to him....I became a mechanical engineer becasue I enjoy taking about this stuff and conceptually thinking about the mechanical function of components. P.S.  How come the other thread I created about some mounts I made for another formula car didn't get this much attention -Graham-Mechanical EngineerAutosport Mechanic/Fabricator
Reply:Can't really talk about this without being pedantic so my apologies to everyone bored by this sidetrack...DOM and CDS are different processes of producing tubing, they're covered by different standards and (unless i missed it) as the site you linked to doesn't state an ASTM (or equivalent) standard i don't know what they are sellingA513 covers rolled and welded tube including DOM A519 covers true seamless tube, extruded from solid bar
Reply:Originally Posted by hotrodderCan't really talk about this without being pedantic so my apologies to everyone bored by this sidetrack...DOM and CDS are different processes of producing tubing, they're covered by different standards and (unless i missed it) as the site you linked to doesn't state an ASTM (or equivalent) standard i don't know what they are sellingA513 covers rolled and welded tube including DOM A519 covers true seamless tube, extruded from solid bar
Reply:Originally Posted by MoonRiseThe car and parts only have to last long enough to get across the finish line.  If they are still intact, then they were either overdesigned or you weren't running hard enough.What's the weight of the new mount versus the old mount?  And good idea on making the mate for the other side.  Balance and symmetry visually and physically and mechanically is good.re: billet aluminum  You'd still have fatigue issues with aluminum, as you know.  And you didn't have a multi-axis CNC machining center at the stand-by?ScotchBrite it, prime and paint it.  Industrial grey like the original(?) was.Metric, UN, or Whitworth threads?
Reply:re: stiffness in various axes (no typo, that's the plural of "axis")  Ahhh, engine mount.  Longitudinal engine orientation, Chapman probably figured that there would be minimal longintudinal loading from engine torque and chassis reaction to same.  So the mostly planar tube/strut of the original mount was deemed 'enough'.  Obviously, he was a bit off in his sizing and/or calculations though.  Or the engine tuning and tweaking has gotten better since his era.  Or chassis loading has gotten higher from better tires.  Or some or all of the above.  Yup, your cone mount is stiffer and stronger (for similar wall thickness).  Hence my comment about having the mate for the other side, so there are matching properties on both mounts.For the unaware, aluminum WILL eventually fail in fatigue loaded situations.  It's just a matter of when.  You can't make it 'stronger', it will still fail eventually.With steel, you can make it so that it will last forever (from a fatigue life consideration anyway, it could still be overloaded and fail that way).When you work on British cars, do you have to use a spanner and take afternoon tea breaks?     The best laid schemes ... Gang oft agley ...Originally Posted by MoonRiseFor the unaware, aluminum WILL eventually fail in fatigue loaded situations.  It's just a matter of when.  You can't make it 'stronger', it will still fail eventually.With steel, you can make it so that it will last forever (from a fatigue life consideration anyway, it could still be overloaded and fail that way).When you work on British cars, do you have to use a spanner and take afternoon tea breaks?
Reply:Originally Posted by MoonRiseFor the unaware, aluminum WILL eventually fail in fatigue loaded situations.  It's just a matter of when.  You can't make it 'stronger', it will still fail eventually.With steel, you can make it so that it will last forever (from a fatigue life consideration anyway, it could still be overloaded and fail that way).
Reply:Originally Posted by CapnbondoMaybe I am misunderstanding... but it seems like you're saying any aluminum engine mount is going to be destined for failure... I must be misunderstanding... since that obviously isn't universally true...
Reply:Graham - I'm actually a little disappointed with the redesign...  Don't get me wrong; I think it's a good, perfectly strong part.  But, it just doesn't have the elegance of the original...  Nice, small diameter round tubes with complicated notching and fit-up, gusset wraps, fillet brazing - that stuff's real artwork!  May not be strong, but you have to appreciate it...  Only the British could dream up something that complicated to do something that simple!
Reply:Originally Posted by TubularFab...  Only the British could dream up something that complicated to do something that simple!
Reply:Originally Posted by TubularFabGraham - I'm actually a little disappointed with the redesign...  Don't get me wrong; I think it's a good, perfectly strong part.  But, it just doesn't have the elegance of the original...  Nice, small diameter round tubes with complicated notching and fit-up, gusset wraps, fillet brazing - that stuff's real artwork!  May not be strong, but you have to appreciate it...  Only the British could dream up something that complicated to do something that simple!
Reply:Originally Posted by hotrodderOi! Don't make me retort!
Reply:Capnbondo,Yup, if the aluminum is subjected to varying or cyclical loads, it WILL fail eventually.  It just a property of aluminum (and many other materials).Steel can be made to last forever in a cyclical load environment.If the load is constant and doesn't vary, then aluminum can last.  If the load varies, the aluminum will fail.Cyclical loading means that the load varies.  Worst case is full load reversal (from compression to tension, push to pull, bend back and forth, etc, etc).  A more moderate case would be load on and then load off (push OR pull and then let go, bend just one way and release, etc, etc)  No load variation would be just put a non-varying weight on a post and leave it there (no vibration, no shaking, no changing, etc, etc).Add in 'minor' surface defects or internal defects, and especially in a fatigue-life situation, and things can go to pot pretty quickly.  Such 'minor' defects could be a weld bead ending crater, or weld undercut, or a tiny internal crack/bubble/inclusion right from the mill, or a hole, or a slot, or a scratch, etc, etc, etc.Take a piece of aluminum wire/rod/bar/plate/whatever and bend it back and forth.  It will break.  Even if you only bend it back and forth just a tiny bit, it will wtill break eventually.  Take a piece of steel wire/rod/bar/plate/whatever and bend it back and forth.  For 'big' bends, you can break the piece.  But for small enough bends, the steel could last forever.Steel is nice stuff.  Aluminum has different properties and uses and limits.  In the right places, it is good stuff.  But it's not a 1-1 substitute for steel.  The best laid schemes ... Gang oft agley ...
Reply:I guess why you statement doesn't compute for me is that I can't even begin to guess how many manufacturers have and are producing cars with alumnium engine mount brackets. You don't see cars pulled over on the sid eof the road with broken off engine brackets too often. Plenty of cars that have been on the road 40+ years and 100's of thousands of miles with aluminum engine mount brackets that show no sign of impending fatigue fairlure. This is because the mounts were designed to take these loads into account. It isn't as simple as cyclic load = impending failure.My understanding is that for a given structure the fatigue life will vary depending on the amplitude of the cyclic force applied, if the cyclic load is less than a certain percentage of the yied strength of the part, the fatigue life of the part in that environment is effectively infinite. So my point is that fatigue failure can be rendered irrelevenmt if the structure is designed with enough strength that the cyclic load it sees does not have enough amplitude to induce a fatigue failure within a reasonable number of cycles. In my opinion, aluminum's excellent stiffness to weight ratio makes this pretty doable in many cases, but it requires a slightly different design approach. I do agree that since fatigue failure is less of a concern when fabricating with steel, it is easier to build a reliable weldment for use in an applicaiton with cylic loads than an aluminum design. I just disagree that no suitable aluminum design exists for these applications, when in many cases there is.  Originally Posted by MoonRiseCapnbondo,Yup, if the aluminum is subjected to varying or cyclical loads, it WILL fail eventually.  It just a property of aluminum (and many other materials).Steel can be made to last forever in a cyclical load environment.If the load is constant and doesn't vary, then aluminum can last.  If the load varies, the aluminum will fail.Cyclical loading means that the load varies.  Worst case is full load reversal (from compression to tension, push to pull, bend back and forth, etc, etc).  A more moderate case would be load on and then load off (push OR pull and then let go, bend just one way and release, etc, etc)  No load variation would be just put a non-varying weight on a post and leave it there (no vibration, no shaking, no changing, etc, etc).Add in 'minor' surface defects or internal defects, and especially in a fatigue-life situation, and things can go to pot pretty quickly.  Such 'minor' defects could be a weld bead ending crater, or weld undercut, or a tiny internal crack/bubble/inclusion right from the mill, or a hole, or a slot, or a scratch, etc, etc, etc.Take a piece of aluminum wire/rod/bar/plate/whatever and bend it back and forth.  It will break.  Even if you only bend it back and forth just a tiny bit, it will wtill break eventually.  Take a piece of steel wire/rod/bar/plate/whatever and bend it back and forth.  For 'big' bends, you can break the piece.  But for small enough bends, the steel could last forever.Steel is nice stuff.  Aluminum has different properties and uses and limits.  In the right places, it is good stuff.  But it's not a 1-1 substitute for steel.
Reply:So my point is that fatigue failure can be rendered irrelevenmt if the structure is designed with enough strength that the cyclic load it sees does not have enough amplitude to induce a fatigue failure within a reasonable number of cycles. In my opinion, aluminum's excellent stiffness to weight ratio makes this pretty doable in many cases, but it requires a slightly different design approach.I do agree that since fatigue failure is less of a concern when fabricating with steel, it is easier to build a reliable weldment for use in an applicaiton with cylic loads than an aluminum design. I just disagree that no suitable aluminum design exists for these applications, when in many cases there is.
Reply:Originally Posted by grahamtheengineer[I]When you work on British cars, do you have to use a spanner and take afternoon tea breaks?yummmm.... tea.....
Reply:Originally Posted by CapnbondoI guess why you statement doesn't compute for me is that I can't even begin to guess how many manufacturers have and are producing cars with alumnium engine mount brackets. You don't see cars pulled over on the sid eof the road with broken off engine brackets too often. Plenty of cars that have been on the road 40+ years and 100's of thousands of miles with aluminum engine mount brackets that show no sign of impending fatigue fairlure. This is because the mounts were designed to take these loads into account. It isn't as simple as cyclic load = impending failure.My understanding is that for a given structure the fatigue life will vary depending on the amplitude of the cyclic force applied, if the cyclic load is less than a certain percentage of the yied strength of the part, the fatigue life of the part in that environment is effectively infinite. So my point is that fatigue failure can be rendered irrelevenmt if the structure is designed with enough strength that the cyclic load it sees does not have enough amplitude to induce a fatigue failure within a reasonable number of cycles. In my opinion, aluminum's excellent stiffness to weight ratio makes this pretty doable in many cases, but it requires a slightly different design approach. I do agree that since fatigue failure is less of a concern when fabricating with steel, it is easier to build a reliable weldment for use in an applicaiton with cylic loads than an aluminum design. I just disagree that no suitable aluminum design exists for these applications, when in many cases there is.
Reply:Isn't it the serving wench brings the tea to the wrench who is using the spanner?  Capnbondo,If there is cyclical loading on the aluminum part, it WILL fail in fatigue even if everthing else is 'perfect'.  Even without overloading, or stress-concentration factors (sharp corners, scratches, weld craters, undercut, etc), or corrosion, or internal stress risers or crack-initiation sites (internal voids or grain separation or microscopic cracks or tears, etc) or any other 'defect', if there is cyclical loading then aluminum WILL fail from fatigue.  It may take 10^6 or 10^8 cycles (or more), but it will fail from fatigue.If there is cyclical loading, you can never make the aluminum part/piece strong enough to last forever.  Never.  I know, kind of a tough concept to accept.With steel, you can make it last forever (from a fatigue-life standpoint anway, overload and corrosion can break anything).Typically, if you can make the stress on the steel part 'bearable' for 10^6 load cycles, then that steel part will continue to handle that stress literally forever (with the caveats that NOTHING changes, no physical wear and no corrosion and no other physical changes, and no load increase).  The ratio of fatigue-limit stress/strength to tensile stress/strength for ferrous materials (steel) is roughly 0.45 to 0.25, depending on the material.Nonferrous materials do not have an endurance limit, or stress/strength where they can last indefinitely in cyclical loading.  They will always eventually fail from fatigue.Notice in all this discussion that fatigue only applies in cyclical load conditions.  If there is no load cycling going on, you can get a nonferrous material to last because then there is no fatigue.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_(material)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatigue_strengthNotice especially the nice 'typical' graph on the second link showing fatigue and the stress-to-cycles failure lifetime of a typical steel and typical aluminum.  To make the aluminum last "X" load cycles, you have to keep reducing the load to increase "X", but it never levels out.  You have to keep reducing the load to make "X" get bigger.  The best laid schemes ... Gang oft agley ...
Reply:Aluminum will fail…How depressing, how hopeless…We know that it will…“Thou know'st 'tis common; all that lives must die, Passing through nature to eternity…And then they cut it and melted it… And from that pain - the beautiful and young The Engine Block was born… - Light, Bright, Cooperative… But not for happiness but for torture… It was enslaved by Evil Lord the Crankshaft and its evil puppets The Cylinders armored with sleeves… The Block was chained by all kinds of supports, pipes, wires… And the Torture begins… The Cylinders are eating Arabian Oil - converted to the Gas by a Cursed Spell - just to provide enough Force for The Crankshaft to exert its brutal cyclic loads upon The Block… Furthermore, with magic of Universal Laws of Physics – The Crankshaft learned how to become a gyroscope… Every time when something happened to the car – break, pot hole, bumps etc - more and more pain cycles exerted upon Innocent Block… The Crankshaft manage to do it with 700 … 1500 …. 3000 … 6000 rpm…And more and more money fell into Arabian coffers… And less and less life remains in The Block… For it will fail… No escape from faith… And there is a Dark Mechanic who changes oil and filters all the time so The Crankshaft would be even more comfortable…BUT WAIT! Cold and immortal Odometer recording the Chronicles… 100K … 200K – God knows how many fatigue efforts was crashed upon the Block... It will be sufficient for 100 years of an AirCraft to fly – The Crankshaft and The Cylinders become shaky they need more and more oil and more Gas … 300K … 400K … 500K“The time is out of joint: O cursed spite, That ever I was born to set it right!…The Evil Lord The Crankshaft is dead… Once in lifetime everybody comes here – where the lifecycle completes – The Scrapyard. We will see the rows of perfectly usable Blocks. FOR THEY RESISTED AND THEY KEPT THEIR HONOUR!“We will see the light…CapnbondoKeep your faith and adhere to your principals. And you will become a Ray of Light in A Kingdom of Darkness…And Let the Force and the Elasticity Theory be with you…Last edited by Nomand; 08-22-2008 at 11:13 PM.