Dione Transits Saturn!

[Paul G. Abel]

Thank you for clearing that up, however I would like to respond to your comments which I feel are incorrect- I think in the end we shall have to agree to disagree.

Before I respond, I should like to say that the drawing above is not what I see straight away when I look at Saturn; it is rather the summation of a systematized view of the whole planet. I have a method which I have devloped for this. Before starting a drawing I spend about 5-10 mins just looking at Saturn.

When I'm ready to draw, I start with the South Polar Region and have my eyes just concentrate on that region. In the early days it was very difficult and my eyes used to 'slide' all over the disk, however with years of practice I can now get my eyes to view sections of the planet.

Starting with the SPR, I work down all the way through viewing sections at a time until I reach the NPR. I then start on the rings working out from A-Ring through to the C-Ring. The use of averted vision also gives out many fine features. All of this comes together to give me a disk drawing.

I feel the mottling detail in the bands is dubious, as are the renderings of encke minima in the rings, which seem to appear in most of the saturn sketches.

Firstly the mottling, thankfully I'm not alone in seeing in. Other people have reported it including two very good visual observers David Gray and Richard Baum. They have reported the mottling in the SEB recently. David Gray who is based in Co. Durham also reports a mottling in the NEB. You can find his drawings here:

THE BRITISH ASTRONOMICAL ASSOCIATION

I must say this mottling seems to be a recent phenomena, for the past few years I have always seen both components of the SEB as fairly smooth. Now we have seen a number of white spots break out on Saturn recently so it is quite possible that Saturn seems to be undergoing some sort of increased atmospheric activity. This year I have viewed the mottling not only with my own telescope, but also with Patrick Moore's 12.5 and 15 inch reflectors, and the University of Leicester's 16 inch Cassegrain. The number of different instruments used and the number of different observers who have seen it allows me to conclude the phenomena is real.

Next the Encke minima. I have always found that for ring tilts greater than 3 degrees that the outer third of A-Ring is noticably darker than inner part. To my eyes I'm afraid it's simply unmistakable. Again I am not alone in recording it, you will see in in David Gray's drawings to. I did not know what it was until the director of the Saturn section told me- at first at belived it to be some sort of contrast effect however it was he who suggested it was probably the Encke minima.

why do i feel this way?

1) the instrument used, whilst an ok scope, is not exactly optimized for high resolution planetary detail, and nowhere in comparision to really high quality instruments dedicated to planetary work of that aperture.

I must dissagree with you on that and not wishing to be rude- this sounds a little snobbish in attitude. I wonder if you have used one for a whole planetary apparition? I have owned and used a variety of telescopes- my main one before coming to the University of Leicester was a rather fine 4.5 inch refractor which gave wonderful views of the planets.

I have found that my 8 inch Skywatcher is a very good telescope and given the focal ratio, I am surprised by just how good it is for planetary observing. Of course having it mounted permanatly on a good Epsilon pier and adding a drive also helps. Over the last few years I have learnt how to get the best out of it, (people seem, to go through telescopes so quickly today)-for example, I know where planets are best placed in the eyepiece to get the best details and so on, what are the best atmospheric conditions to use it in and so on.

I should also like to point out that not all my drawings are as detailed as the one above simply because the conditions are not always good (although I even send these into the BAA), here is a view I had of Saturn in decidedly poor conditions:

I don't post drawings like this because I do not regard them as the best views obtained by my telescope. I'm quite sure the imagers here only post their best results as well!

2) The eyepiece is not one that is of the highest quality for resolution of difficult low contrast details.

I did not state what eyepiece I used for this here, however I will now. I used my WA Lunar and Planetary Plossl eyepiece which gives a magnification of 312x. I have found this eyepiece to be very good and provides some excellent resolution of the fine details on Saturn. Again I am compelled to ask if you have used the same make of eyepiece on a 8 inch Skywatcher telescope consistently rather than just one or two looks?

3) the typical seeing conditions are well under optimum needed to see this level of detail. If we were talking Chile i could accept it.

Paul even states the seeing is average.

As I mentioned earlier, it is not just about seeing, although that is an important factor, it is also about having mist and murk in the atmosphere which seems to help enormously. Those dark transparent nights so good for deep sky observing, like the one's in Chile no doubt, I have found not to be very good for lunar and planetary observing.

check out the attached HST image taken in February.

even in the prefection of outer space you will not see the degree of the detail rendered.

Hardly a fair comparision at all- this is an image and has been processed and normalised to someones conditions. It does not compare with a drawing made in real time by the human visual system rather than just a camera.

I should like to close by saying that all of my drawings of the Moon, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn are all sent to the relevant sections directors of the BAA. These chaps tell me what I'm seeing is accurate and compares well not only with CCD images but with other much more experienced visual observers.

I have often shown my drawings to Patrick Moore who always likes to see my observations after I have used his telescopes and he is quite convinced that the details I record are accurate and objective. Pete Lawrence has also seen them- he too used to make observations visually (I would like to know his thoughts on the matter.) All of these people cannot be wrong.

I think what we are seeing here is a consequence of a decline in the number of visual observers. The techniques for bringing out visual details on planets, so essential to a previous generation of observers and the practicies which used to be common knowledge now seem to be being lost and becoming obscure so that only a handful of us today know how to look through a telescope, a point recently highlighted to me by the wonderful visual observer Richard Baum whom I would like to quote:

[many people today]..have little or no background and usually are ignorant of observational history. Without that essential knowledge how can they ever place anything in context or come to the understanding that observational history is an evolutionary process with each generation building on the experience and knowledge of those gone before...

It is my hope that many of the visual observers who have recently started here on stargazers lounge will develop their skills and soon produce drawings similar if not better quality than mine. It doesn't take a vast expensive telescope, specialist eyepieces and magical seeing conditions; just the ability to learn how to look. I shall continue posting my best drawings here in the hope that it will encourage other people to start drawing at the eyepeice.

All best wishes,

-Paul.

[Andrew Robertson]

Hi Paul, after the BAA exhibition meeting I was impressed at the level of detail you were seeing with an 8" reflector and discussed it with friends. At the time I assumed you must be using a long focus newtonian reflector say F8 with say a 1" secondary optimised for planetary work. I've since had this thread pointed out to me and see this is not the case and I presume it's either F5 or F6. Could I ask you please what the focal ratio is of your scope and the size of the secondary obstruction.

Many thanks, Andrew.

[Paul G. Abel]

Hi Andrew,

My 8 inch is a Skywatcher and is F5. I'm not sure of the central obstruction size but it is not so much that (for me) planetary disk surface contrast is an issue, unless of course the seeing is bad.

-Paul.

[Andrew Robertson]

Hi again Paul,

Got your reply, thanks. I did some digging and found a value of 56mm for the secondary. I presume yours is the same. I would describe an 8” F5 Newtonian as a good all round telescope but not one that’s optimised for the best planetary views. It may well be that your scope has exceptional if not perfect optics but there is a limit to the performance of an 8” F5 reflector with a 28% obstruction no matter how good the optics on low contrast surface details. The detail you describe is incredible – you clearly have a powerful level of observation so I do feel it needs putting into some form of perspective.

I’ve been interested in astronomy since a youngster and was inspired by Patrick Moore’s books on the subject. I remember reading about the detail you could see with various sized telescopes and wanted to see that for myself but when I was a youngster, financially such a telescope was out of the question. Youngsters nowadays are in a much better position with relatively inexpensive but good telescopes imported from China. It’s only in the last 20 years or so that I’ve been able to afford telescopes good enough to reveal decent detail on the planets. Whilst not in a city I did live in a town in Essex for 20 years or more and planets was my main target and as you allude to I did notice a steadying in the atmosphere when observing over a town from within a town. I systematically pursued better and better planetary telescopes, not out of any snobbery but just to get the best views that I could afford at the time. N.B. I am purely a visual observer.

For a while I had an optically very good 8” F6 Newtonian that I further enhanced by putting in a high quality quartz secondary of 45 mm diameter (22.5%). I had some very good views with it. Then 9 years ago at astrofest I came across what I considered at the time to be the ultimate planetary scope (within a reasonable budget) – an Intes-Micro 7” F6 Maksutov-Newtonian. This had all the attributes, 20% central obstruction, no spider vanes, sealed tube for no tube currents (I acknowledge that in larger apertures the sealed nature of Maks can cause thermal problems), heavy baffling, 1/7th – 1/8th wave optics all with spherical surfaces giving rise to smooth contrasty optics and without the price tag of a 6” Apo – then over £8,000. I bought it and it took me to another level of planetary observing. At star parties I found there was nothing to choose on visual planetary images between this and top end 6” Apo refractors. Although initially I thought the Apo’s had a slight edge until I realised I was using what I thought was good Plossl eyepieces and they were using TAK LE’s. Upon inserting the TAK eyepieces the performance improved to the same level. Good eyepieces do make a difference, it’s just like Hi-Fi – only as good as the weakest element in the chain.

I later acquired an 8” F6 Mak-Newt (19% obstruction) then traded them both in for a 7” F8 one, special order with 1/10th wave quartz optics (very smooth and excellent thermal properties) and a 13% obstruction. This is a stunning planetary scope and outperforms any 6” apo that I have compared it to in side by side comparisons at star parties.

However my main observatory scope is a Takahashi Mewlon 300 – a 12” Dall-Kirkham Cassegrain. DK’s are reputed to have the highest contrast on axis of any cassegrain type telescope (like for like). I have to say, this telescope is awesome and gives outstanding views of both the planets and deep sky objects taking me to another level above the Mak-Newt on the planets. At a current price tag of £12,000 for the OTA alone it should do!

Over the years I have made countless observations of Saturn and the other planets not just through my telescopes but others including Tak FS 152’s, 6” TMB apo’s, 6” and 7”Astrophysics apo’s, an 8” TEC Apo refractor (recently at the April star party under very good seeing at high power x360), several 10” Tak Mewlon’s, another 12” one, several C14’s, a Meade 14” SCT, a Meade 16” AFC (excellent scope), numerous 16”, 18” and 20” Dobsonians with excellent mirrors, even a pair of TAK FS 128’s made into a binoscope professionally and I have never, never seen detail like you’re describing, especially in relation to the banding on the globe. I have discussed this with several of my equally experienced observing friends and none of them have seen such detail either. On nights of very good seeing I have sometimes seen 5 or 6 bands very subtly and very rarely a couple more but these are more variations in intensity blending into each other whereas your drawing depicts 15 quite distinctly. In fact your recent submission in the latest (Jul – Sept) SPA magazine shows 19 with quite definite detail. The bandings on Saturn are in my view low contrast surface features and quite difficult to discern. An 8” F5 Newtonian with a large obstruction is fine for high contrast features but not the optimum design for low contrast features. I have seen Encke’s Division on several occasions as well as Encke’s minima plus the level of detail you depict in the rings but only on nights of exceptional seeing and when the rings are well presented with Saturn at high altitude. In the current apparition where the rings have been close to edge on or at a very shallow inclination the best I have managed to tease out is a hint of Cassini occasionally.

With regards to the transit, I made numerous attempts to detect one with my Mak-Newt and 12” Mewlon, both high contrast scopes. Totally unsuccessful with the Mak but on one occasion believe I detected the shadow of Tethys with the 12” Mewlon. Not only have you seen the shadow of Dione in transit (only marginally easier to see than Tethys I believe) you have seen the transit of the moon itself. Now my experience of transits of the 4 Galilean moons on Jupiter is that the Shadows are invariably easy to see but not always the moons themselves – depends on seeing and the background colour/brightness of what it’s over. Dione is far smaller than any of the 4 main Jupiter moons and at almost twice the distance (equating to between a 1/5th to a 1/9th the angular diameter). It’s also about 5 magnitudes fainter yet you depict it readily with an 8” F5 telescope.

I am really really awful at drawing so I rarely attempt one but I do sit at the eyepiece for 2 or 3 hours and scrutinise out the detail in just the same way as someone making a drawing – I love the hobby and I love extracting out that exquisite detail.

However equipment is just objective, eyesight and what one can see is subjective. Even at age 55 my optician states my eyesight is still in the top 2% for visual acuity but I suppose that relates to high contrast objects. Now I’m not questioning what you can see, only an individual can answer that for themselves. It could well be that you are one of these rare individuals that have exceptional eyesight, especially in relation to low contrast features. E.E. Barnard was such a person as was/still is Stephen O’Meara. O’Meara observed the spokes on Saturn before they were discovered/confirmed by the Voyager probes.

Whilst I agree that one can improve ones observing skills in obtaining the maximum amount of information by regular observing I also believe the equipment used does make a difference also. For example I have seen the central star in M57 with a 16” telescope and on one very steady night observing with a friend (whom has better eyes than me at glimpsing faint objects) saw it with my 12” Mewlon at x480. My friend confirmed it readily. Now seeing the central star in M57 is not just about detecting a faint object, it’s about contrast as well as it’s embedded in nebulosity. I do not believe I would ever see this object in an 8” reflector. It’s why a lot of keen amateurs have more than one telescope. I would describe an 8” F5 Newtonian as a good all round telescope but not the optimum for certain branches of astronomy.

It is clear you have exceptional eyesight, my concern is that relative beginners with equally modest equipment will see your drawings and have an expectation they will see the same just as I was encouraged by Patrick Moore’s books as a youngster. Rather than be encouraged to emulate I fear it will put them off unless they realise your depictions are the exception rather than the norm and that is the purpose of this entry.

Regards,

Andrew

[Paul G. Abel]

Dear Andrew,

Thank you for posting this, you're clearly a thoughful and intelligent visual observer and I hope we can discuss things together in person one day.

You post many good points here and I think they need to be addressed. At this point in the thread, I can't really generalise any further and all I can do is answer the points you make from my point of view. I think I will just discuss Saturn here since all of my arguments can be generalised to any visual observation, and I think I had better start at the beginning of my observing career.

Like you I started off with a very small telescope, I had many 'scopes form the age of 8 but my first decent telelescope was aquired at the age of 14 and was a Tal-1 Mizar- a 4.5 inch reflector. It was a fine telescope but my views of the palnets were dissapointing. Thankfully I got in touch with Richard Baum (who was head of Mercury Venus Section at the BAA) and he explained to me the techniques of getting the best out of a telescope.

I really did push this telescope to the max visually, and I realised at an early age that I could get the best out of any telescope by doing the following exercises:

(i). First assess the seeing- all important as it dictates the power you can use during an observation.

(ii). Second spend about 15-20 minutes just looking at Saturn, get all the details you can and rteally be sure what's there.

(iii). Once you know what magnification you can use, attempt a disk drawing. This must be done in a methodical way. Start with the Southern Polar Region and work down.

It's always tempting to start with the obvious features, but in fact that will hamper your ability to detect the fine detail. I start with the SPR and ask my eyes, where does it start, where does it end, wher eit ends, does it end abruptly or in a zone etc. Once I feel I have the answer to these questions I put pencil to paper.

I do this for the whole planet. In days gone by the whole drawing took over half and hour and was inaccurate because of Saturn's rotation! I can now do it under 15 minutes.

Gradually I progresed to bigger telescopes, but strictly keeping to this ritual allowed me to see more and more. By following Richard's advice and guidance (i.e. by ignoring the urge with a big telescope to quickly get a powerful eyepiece in and draw) I stuck to the routine I had devloped as a teenager to get the best out of my small telescope.

I flatter myself, but as a reuslt of doing this for 10 -15 years, I have developed such a relationship with my eyes that I can literally ask them to search out details on the disk.

In the early days, my drawings were rough and crude and it has taken me over a decade (borrowiong techniques from artists and professional draftsmen) to perfect the Saturn drawings I post today. Even now, the drawings don't resemble what I see straight away in the eyepiece, but what I see when I have 'scanned' the planet's disk for 15 minutes, section by section.

I always get my drawings and observations refereed. Normally by Patrick Moore and Richard Baum (my tutors) Mike Foulkes (for Saturn) Bill Leartherbarrow (lunar drawings), Richard McKim (Mars) and John Rogers (Jupiter drawings). We must remember that neither a drawing or an image is the literal truth- both have shortcommings, both rely on, in the end, a human brain with all it's complex subjectivitives to process the image either hitting the retina or the CCD, the point is we can become good obsevers/imagers if we train ourselves, and know how to get the best not only out of our equipment, but out of ourselves.

The reason I started to post on Stargazers lounge and other places was because I was seeing stunning images populate our magazines and literature, and somehow drawing at the telescope was seen as inaccurate and old fashioned and I wanted to re-address that balance.

You are absolutely right however, I am an advanced visual observer the bands and colours on Saturn are as tangible to me as a sunset over the grand canyon, and just as moving; but in trying to get the message over that visual observing is just as valid, my drawings may well have misled people into thinking that that, just as with the good CCD images, this is what is visible through the eyepiece. This is rather ironic really given that this was the very reason I decided to post my drawings in the first place.

All I can say is that I deeply and proundly appologise if anyone feels mislead, that was never my intention.

The point I have been trying to make is that I am nothing special; with the right amount of practice and discipline, anyone can adapt a decent telescope to their way of seeing and get the best out of it. I learnt from Patrick Moore, Richard Baum and all the great visual observers that all you have to do is be as scientific and as objective as possible, develop techniques that work for you and have your observations refereed, and soon, after many years you will piece togethet how the planets look and behave. Sure you will make mistakes, big ones! But they will be the stepping stones to a better way of seeing the Universe for the way it is.

My journey in visual astronomy has allowed me to view not just the solar system but the world around me in a different way- if I want to look at something properly, I can switch on my astronomers eyes. All I wanted to do was share this with the newcommers and say to them that you don't need a vast telescope and a powerful computer to see the wonders of the Universe, just an open mind and a little discipline.

I hope this (rather long response) answers the many points raised in this thread,

All best wishes,

-Paul.

[Paul G. Abel]

Dear Andrew,

Thank you for posting this, you're clearly a thoughful and intelligent visual observer and I hope we can discuss things together in person one day.

You post many good points here and I think they need to be addressed. At this point in the thread, I can't really generalise any further and all I can do is answer the points you make from my point of view. I think I will just discuss Saturn here since all of my arguments can be generalised to any visual observation, and I think I had better start at the beginning of my observing career.

Like you I started off with a very small telescope, I had many 'scopes from the age of 8 but my first decent telelescope was aquired at the age of 14 and was a Tal-1 Mizar- a 4.5 inch reflector. It was a fine telescope but my views of the planets were frankly, dissapointing. Jupiter was a small sqauashed disk with a couple of bands, if I squinted I could make out the rings of Saturn and as for Mars, well I could barely see it at all.

Thankfully I got in touch with Richard Baum (who was head of Mercury Venus Section at the BAA) and he explained to me the techniques of getting the best out of a telescope and more importantly, the ethos of becoming a visual observer. Similarly Patrick Moore explained the importance of patience in astronomy and how good results came from order and method, Finally Richard McKim always provided honest feedback to any drawing sent (frequently in the early days the feedback was bad news from my point of view! However it was honest and the only way to learn reality from fiction.)

I really did push this telescope to the max visually, and I realised at an early age that I could get the best out of any telescope by doing the following exercises when I wanted to observe Saturn:

(i). First assess the seeing- all important as it dictates the power you can use during an observation. Use a couple of tight binaries (from your telescope spoint of view) and see how they resolve under different magnitudes. I also try and estimate the magnitude of the faintest start I can see with the nakes eye.

(ii). Second spend about 15-20 minutes just looking at Saturn, get all the details you can and rteally be sure what's there.

(iii). Play around with the magnification. Once you know what magnification you can use, attempt a disk drawing. This must be done in a methodical way. Start with the Southern Polar Region and work down.

It's always tempting to start with the obvious features, but in fact that will hamper your ability to detect the fine detail. I start with the SPR and ask my eyes, where does the SPR start, where does it end, where it does end- does it end abruptly or in a zone etc. Once I feel I have the answer to these questions I put pencil to paper.

I do this for the whole planet. In days gone by, the whole drawing took over half and hour and was inaccurate because of Saturn's rotation! I can now do it under 15 minutes.

Gradually I progressed to bigger telescopes, but strictly keeping to this ritual allowed me to see more and more. By following Richard Baum's advice and guidance (i.e. by ignoring the urge with a big telescope to quickly get a powerful eyepiece in and draw what you see) I stuck to the routine I had devloped as a teenager to get the best out of my small telescope and I found I had hit on something which allowed me to get the best out of me, quite frankly.

I flatter myself, but as a reuslt of doing this for 10 -15 years, I have developed such a relationship with my eyes that I can literally ask them to search out details on the disk.

In the early days, my drawings were rough and crude and it has taken me over a decade (borrowiong techniques from artists and professional draftsmen) to perfect the Saturn drawings I post today. Even now, the drawings don't resemble what I see straight away in the eyepiece, but what I see when I have 'scanned' the planet's disk for 15 minutes, section by section.

I always get my drawings and observations refereed. Normally by Patrick Moore and Richard Baum (my tutors) Mike Foulkes (for Saturn) Bill Leartherbarrow (lunar drawings), Richard McKim (Mars) and John Rogers (Jupiter drawings). We must remember that neither a drawing or an image is the literal truth- both have shortcommings, both rely on, in the end, a human brain with all it's complex subjectivitives to process the image either by light hitting the retina or the CCD, the point is we can become good obsevers/imagers if we train ourselves, and know how to get the best not only out of our equipment, but out of ourselves. If we can honestly say to ourselves, I can see a white spot in that region but IS NOT real!

The reason I started to post on Stargazers lounge and other places, was because I was seeing stunning images populate our magazines and literature, and somehow drawing at the telescope was seen as inaccurate and old fashioned and I wanted to re-address that balance. I feared the arrival of a time where amateur astronomy had moved away from science, and became an art, a place for boys with big toys taking great images with clever techniques, but these images being novleties which took up room on the hard drive and were, in the long run, no scientific use since they rarely saw the light of day, or their observational details were lost.

I am now a theoretical physicist at the University of Leicester and I owe so much thanks to amateur astronomy for getting me there, for showing me the scientific method, one of the most useful remarkable things the human mind is capable of.

You are absolutely right however, I am an advanced visual observer the bands and colours on Saturn are as tangible to me as a sunset over the grand canyon, and just as moving; but in trying to get the message over that visual observing is just as valid, my drawings may well have misled people into thinking that, just as with the good CCD images, this is what is visible through the eyepiece. This is rather ironic really given that this was the very reason I decided to post my drawings in the first place.

All I can say is that I deeply and proundly appologise if anyone feels mislead, that was never my intention.

The point I have been trying to make is that I am nothing special; with the right amount of practice and discipline, anyone can adapt a decent telescope to their way of seeing and get the best out of it. I learnt from Patrick Moore, Richard Baum and all the great visual observers too many to name here and many of them all gone now, that all you have to do is be as scientific and as objective as possible, develop techniques that work for you and have your observations refereed, and soon, after many years you will piece togethet how the planets look and behave. Sure you will make mistakes, big ones! But they will be the stepping stones to a better way of seeing the Universe for the way it is.

My journey in visual astronomy has allowed me to view not just the solar system but the world around me in a different way- if I want to look at something properly, I can switch on my astronomer's eyes. All I wanted to do was share this with the newcommers and say to them that you don't need a vast telescope and a powerful computer to see the wonders of the Universe, just an open mind and a little discipline.

I hope this (rather long response) answers the many points raised in this thread.

I will continue to post my drawings and hope that newcommers who see them will realise that they are the result of many years of training and experimenting on my part, just as, say , Damian Peache's glorius images of the planets are also the poroduce of similar efforts. Neither my drawings or his images are what you will see when you first look through the eyepiece of your telescope, but rather, they are what is possible if you pursue amateur astronomy for all it's worth.

I don't think I can add anymore, please view everything through an eyepiece or on the screen with this in mind.

All best wishes,

-Paul.

[Talitha]

... in trying to get the message over that visual observing is just as valid, my drawings may well have misled people into thinking that, just as with the good CCD images, this is what is visible through the eyepiece. This is rather ironic really given that this was the very reason I decided to post my drawings in the first place.

All I can say is that I deeply and proundly appologise if anyone feels mislead, that was never my intention.

Don't be silly Paul, your sketches haven't 'misled' anyone. There's absolutely no need to apologize for being a superbly accomplished observer/sketcher who has trained his eyes and artistic abilities to see/show what the rest of us wish we could.

Never apologize for being the best you can be.

NEVER

[rawhead]

Hi Paul,

Thanks for taking time to answer the points raised so thoroughly.

As another wise head (from the forum) has told me in the past 'there's looking and 'there's looking.'

I'm still very much learning to look...

Great to see such fantastic results from (relatively) basic equipment.

Hope for us all on modest budgets.

Cheers and thanks again.

Jon

[Paul G. Abel]

Many thanks Rawhead! Once you've learned the knack of looking you won't believe how satisfying it is! I've always said you don't need a vast telescope to do astronomy! Do post your results as soon as you are happy with them, I for one look forward to seeing them!

All best wishes,

-Paul.

[Paul G. Abel]

Thanks Carol, I just had manic moment of no consequence!