Brian
fully equipped rock polisher
Member since July 2020
Posts: 1,512
|
Post by Brian on Jan 19, 2021 12:10:30 GMT -5
jasoninsd Brian SiC 30 break down experiment for a fast step 1. It would be nice to have constant SiC 30 injection. SiC after 9 hours at 30 rpm with clay slurry. After 24 hours at 30 rpm the SiC was gone. Gravity and many clean water purges were used to separate the SiC from the rocks and slurry since SiC is dense. Separation steps - www.flickr.com/photos/67205364@N06/sets/72157677229423944This experiment surprised me much. A 6 inch I.D. barrel was used. SiC 30 break down: 30 rpm/6" barrel/fresh clay slurry/virgin SiC 30/3/4" to 2" agate  The captured SiC 30 was put in a jar and placed on a vibe to separate particle size:  The loss of volume of SiC 30 after 9 hours:  So, the "time release" got me thinking. I don't know that it would necessarily be cost effective to produce (maybe on a massive scale), but what if the SiC was contained in a glass (or similar) sphere? Differing thickness of the glass would allow differing "timed" release of the contained SiC as the glass sphere was ground down by the existing grit/rocks. This would be the same principle as a time-release medicine capsule. Differing thickness spheres could be added to the initial load, so as the thinner thickness broke down and released after (let's just say) two days, the thicker of the two would now be the thickness of the first release and then release after another two days of grinding. You wouldn't want a sphere the size necessary to contain enough replacement grit for the larger sized barrels, so multiple "smaller" spheres of the same thickness would likely have to be used... Just a thought... That would be interesting. I like the flow of ideas, Jason! If you knew a glass blower, it would be easy enough to try. My wife and I took a lot of glassblowing classes many years back. It would be a simple matter of gathering a molten blob of glass and rolling it in the grit, rinse and repeat. You could even do some simple shaping to get a manageable shape, but when it comes down to it, you could just break it up a bit when you were ready to use it. Whether it would actually work or not is a question I would leave to those experienced in glass tumbling ( jamesp). It may not break down fast enough to be useful, but you could also break it down to smaller chunks to counter that problem. |
|
Brian
fully equipped rock polisher
Member since July 2020
Posts: 1,512
|
Post by Brian on Jan 19, 2021 12:19:18 GMT -5
jasoninsd, to follow up on that, here is a picture of a bowl I made. The dark spots are the glass frit that is just tiny pieces of colored glass. You often start with clear glass from the furnace and roll it in frit to pick up the colored pieces to incorporate it into the glass. SiC would be a totally different beast, but I don’t see why you wouldn’t be able to incorporate it in the same manner. It would likely make it more fragile and likely to break, but that may ultimately help with release. 
|
|
NevadaBill
fully equipped rock polisher
Member since January 2019
Posts: 1,332
|
Post by NevadaBill on Jan 19, 2021 12:44:22 GMT -5
I just found another good reason for a log book, Brian.
For the past two or three weeks now it appears that one of my barrels has been eating away at the rollers which it is resting upon (Lortone 6lb.). Both sides of the barrel are shredding the rubber off the rollers where they touch the lid mostly. Creating small piles of rubber dust.
I wondered, how could this be. I've changed nothing!! 
I looked in my log book and noted (in red) that when I was doing the once a month maintenance on all of the tumblers (clean up, belt tension, and roller bearing oiling) that I "thought" that I might have switched the lids on 2 of them.
This is what has happened. Even though it appears at every clean out that both lids are inter-changable. They are not exactly the same.
At least I know how this happened. The log told me what it probably is. And I can fix it tomorrow.
Also, if you ever take a break from tumbling (like 6 months), you will forget little bits and pieces of how much grit you used, what type, for how long, and a log will serve you best long term.
|
|
|
|
Post by jasoninsd on Jan 19, 2021 16:44:03 GMT -5
jasoninsd , to follow up on that, here is a picture of a bowl I made. The dark spots are the glass frit that is just tiny pieces of colored glass. You often start with clear glass from the furnace and roll it in frit to pick up the colored pieces to incorporate it into the glass. SiC would be a totally different beast, but I don’t see why you wouldn’t be able to incorporate it in the same manner. It would likely make it more fragile and likely to break, but that may ultimately help with release. Brian, that is beautiful!!! Wowzers! I'll be curious what jamesp thinks of the "glass" idea for containing the grit...  |
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Jan 19, 2021 17:51:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Jan 19, 2021 18:00:30 GMT -5
I tried to find out a way to convert from Excel to uploading here, but gave up and so just took a photo of my computer screen. If anyone knows how to do what I was trying to do, let me know.
Haven't read this entire thread, just the beginning. I too started logging everything, but gradually over time realized it's a waste of time for me. This is the 21st version of this logging sheet! I have changed it many times. The bottom are the barrels, which I circle, so when I flip through the clipboard with these sheets it's easy to flip up the sheet and find the correct one for which barrel. So I have of these sheets in the clipboard at any given time, one for each barrel. I don't put processing date for end of batch, but only the starting date and # of days to run. I hardly ever use the What cols. I hardly ever use the cushioning cols anymore. These sheets get used until full, then thrown away. If like a few days ago I put in 3 agates from China with a batch of misc. rocks, I would write "3 rocks from China" in the Notes and either photo them or describe them (so I can keep the China rocks separate when done).
The 4 checkboxes in the Notes area are new. If I merely recharge the barrel and don't change grit levels and maybe add or take out a few rocks, I merely check "recharged". If though I add something special, such as that piece of hematite from CA desert, I will check "added" and write that beside it. If I remove a rock because of certain reasons, I check "removed" and beside that write "took out that piece of sodalite as got damaged". If I change all the rocks but grit level stays same I can check "all new" to save writing.
|
|
Brian
fully equipped rock polisher
Member since July 2020
Posts: 1,512
|
Post by Brian on Jan 19, 2021 20:43:04 GMT -5
I tried to find out a way to convert from Excel to uploading here, but gave up and so just took a photo of my computer screen. If anyone knows how to do what I was trying to do, let me know. Haven't read this entire thread, just the beginning. I too started logging everything, but gradually over time realized it's a waste of time. This is the 21st version of this logging sheet! I have changed it many times. The bottom are the barrels, which I circle, so when I flip through the clipboard with these sheets it's easy to flip up the sheet and find the correct one for which barrel. So I have of these sheets in the clipboard at any given time, one for each barrel. I don't put processing date for end of batch, but only the starting date and # of days to run. I hardly ever use the What cols. I hardly ever use the cushioning cols anymore. These sheets get used until full, then thrown away. If like a few days ago I put in 3 agates from China with a batch of misc. rocks, I would write "3 rocks from China" in the Notes and either photo them or describe them (so I can keep the China rocks separate when done). The 4 checkboxes in the Notes area are new. If I merely recharge the barrel and don't change grit levels and maybe add or take out a few rocks, I merely check "recharged". If though I add something special, such as that piece of hematite from CA desert, I will check "added" and write that beside it. If I remove a rock because of certain reasons, I check "removed" and beside that write "took out that piece of sodalite as got damaged". If I change all the rocks but grit level stays same I can check "all new" to save writing. Thanks for posting your logbook, Bob. I like how you keep a record of rocks you've added or removed. It makes for a quick and easy visual to see when you've changed something without having to read through each note. I'm impressed by the fact that is your 21st version of your log sheet! |
|
Brian
fully equipped rock polisher
Member since July 2020
Posts: 1,512
|
Post by Brian on Jan 19, 2021 20:44:34 GMT -5
jasoninsd , to follow up on that, here is a picture of a bowl I made. The dark spots are the glass frit that is just tiny pieces of colored glass. You often start with clear glass from the furnace and roll it in frit to pick up the colored pieces to incorporate it into the glass. SiC would be a totally different beast, but I don’t see why you wouldn’t be able to incorporate it in the same manner. It would likely make it more fragile and likely to break, but that may ultimately help with release. Brian, that is beautiful!!! Wowzers! I'll be curious what jamesp thinks of the "glass" idea for containing the grit... Thanks, Jason! It's one of my favorite pieces that I made (which is why it was nearby to take a quick picture ). |
|
rrod
having dreams about rocks
Member since December 2020
Posts: 72
|
Post by rrod on Jan 20, 2021 22:28:21 GMT -5
Maybe a brilliant mathematician ( Brian ?) will show up on RTH to derive a formula for rock removal(grams)/time(days) in step 1 coarse grind using a dimensional analysis formula by entering quantities for variables such a barrel rpm, size of SiC grit, diameter of barrel, amount of SiC grit, viscosity of slurry as compared to water, percent barrel fill, ratio of barrel length to barrel diameter, clean out rate, temperature, octagonal verses round barrel, etc etc. Complicated processes with lots of variables are often analyzed for performance by using dimensional analysis. Basically you are entering numbers for each variable and multiplying them together to get a final performance number be it high or low. Was going to stop lurking after my first labradorite tumble finishes up in a month, but there’s math to be done! The underlying theory and more efficient algorithms are based on the Buckingham π theorem, linked in that same article on dimensional analysis. Let’s take a simple example with four variables (and their units): t = tumble time (s) h = Knoop hardness (kg*m^-1*s^-2) r = amount of grit (g) a = surface area of rock (m^2) The nitty gritty (pun intended) is left for the reader, but the end result of the theorem is that you end up with the following relationship for *this choice of variables*: t^4 = C * h^2 * a * r^-2, where C is some constant You can see already some implications, some interesting and some obvious, of this tumbling model: 1) More grit = less time 2) Harder material = more time 3) Tumbling time is maintained by tracking total grit with the Knoop hardness 4) More surface area (which here is proxy for total amount of rock) increases tumbling time, but not as quickly as increasing hardness 5) Increasing grit lowers the tumbling time much more quickly relative to decreasing the amount of rock There’s lots of nuance in picking the important variables, and adding a lot of variables means a *much* more complicated relationship you have to figure out (you don’t just get a constant to deal with). Also sometimes what you get is total garbage because you’ve missed some important variable. For instance, here we're missing the viscosity of the slurry, the barrel speed, etc. Maybe for another day! |
|
Brian
fully equipped rock polisher
Member since July 2020
Posts: 1,512
|
Post by Brian on Jan 21, 2021 6:30:28 GMT -5
Maybe a brilliant mathematician ( Brian ?) will show up on RTH to derive a formula for rock removal(grams)/time(days) in step 1 coarse grind using a dimensional analysis formula by entering quantities for variables such a barrel rpm, size of SiC grit, diameter of barrel, amount of SiC grit, viscosity of slurry as compared to water, percent barrel fill, ratio of barrel length to barrel diameter, clean out rate, temperature, octagonal verses round barrel, etc etc. Complicated processes with lots of variables are often analyzed for performance by using dimensional analysis. Basically you are entering numbers for each variable and multiplying them together to get a final performance number be it high or low. Was going to stop lurking after my first labradorite tumble finishes up in a month, but there’s math to be done! The underlying theory and more efficient algorithms are based on the Buckingham π theorem, linked in that same article on dimensional analysis. Let’s take a simple example with four variables (and their units): t = tumble time (s) h = Knoop hardness (kg*m^-1*s^-2) r = amount of grit (g) a = surface area of rock (m^2) The nitty gritty (pun intended) is left for the reader, but the end result of the theorem is that you end up with the following relationship for *this choice of variables*: t^4 = C * h^2 * a * r^-2, where C is some constant You can see already some implications, some interesting and some obvious, of this tumbling model: 1) More grit = less time 2) Harder material = more time 3) Tumbling time is maintained by tracking total grit with the Knoop hardness 4) More surface area (which here is proxy for total amount of rock) increases tumbling time, but not as quickly as increasing hardness 5) Increasing grit lowers the tumbling time much more quickly relative to decreasing the amount of rock There’s lots of nuance in picking the important variables, and adding a lot of variables means a *much* more complicated relationship you have to figure out (you don’t just get a constant to deal with). Also sometimes what you get is total garbage because you’ve missed some important variable. For instance, here we're missing the viscosity of the slurry, the barrel speed, etc. Maybe for another day! Thanks, rrod! That equation actually makes quite a few things click for me to visualize how the variables are interacting. Particularly the impact of the surface area compared to the amount of grit. One thing I would like to see added is the variables surrounding the grit itself (size, friability, relative hardness to rocks, etc.) Thanks for ending the lurking on this topic and posting! I love seeing this type of information! |
|
Brian
fully equipped rock polisher
Member since July 2020
Posts: 1,512
|
Post by Brian on Jan 21, 2021 6:53:20 GMT -5
And welcome to the forum, rrod! I didn’t realize that was your very first post. That is an excellent entrance, too! I have not heard the name phrase buckingham pi in quite some time! |
|
|
|
Post by jasoninsd on Jan 21, 2021 9:36:37 GMT -5
Maybe a brilliant mathematician ( Brian ?) will show up on RTH to derive a formula for rock removal(grams)/time(days) in step 1 coarse grind using a dimensional analysis formula by entering quantities for variables such a barrel rpm, size of SiC grit, diameter of barrel, amount of SiC grit, viscosity of slurry as compared to water, percent barrel fill, ratio of barrel length to barrel diameter, clean out rate, temperature, octagonal verses round barrel, etc etc. Complicated processes with lots of variables are often analyzed for performance by using dimensional analysis. Basically you are entering numbers for each variable and multiplying them together to get a final performance number be it high or low. Was going to stop lurking after my first labradorite tumble finishes up in a month, but there’s math to be done! The underlying theory and more efficient algorithms are based on the Buckingham π theorem, linked in that same article on dimensional analysis. Let’s take a simple example with four variables (and their units): t = tumble time (s) h = Knoop hardness (kg*m^-1*s^-2) r = amount of grit (g) a = surface area of rock (m^2) The nitty gritty (pun intended) is left for the reader, but the end result of the theorem is that you end up with the following relationship for *this choice of variables*: t^4 = C * h^2 * a * r^-2, where C is some constant You can see already some implications, some interesting and some obvious, of this tumbling model: 1) More grit = less time 2) Harder material = more time 3) Tumbling time is maintained by tracking total grit with the Knoop hardness 4) More surface area (which here is proxy for total amount of rock) increases tumbling time, but not as quickly as increasing hardness 5) Increasing grit lowers the tumbling time much more quickly relative to decreasing the amount of rock There’s lots of nuance in picking the important variables, and adding a lot of variables means a *much* more complicated relationship you have to figure out (you don’t just get a constant to deal with). Also sometimes what you get is total garbage because you’ve missed some important variable. For instance, here we're missing the viscosity of the slurry, the barrel speed, etc. Maybe for another day! Welcome to the forum from South Dakota! Thank you for taking the time to make this your first post...of many I hope! It's kind of exciting in a way for me to see the calculations. I have a tendency to forget that while variables are fluctuating within a given scenario, they can be tracked and accounted for... (That makes sense in my head! LOL) |
|
Brian
fully equipped rock polisher
Member since July 2020
Posts: 1,512
|
Post by Brian on Jan 21, 2021 10:11:58 GMT -5
Was going to stop lurking after my first labradorite tumble finishes up in a month, but there’s math to be done! The underlying theory and more efficient algorithms are based on the Buckingham π theorem, linked in that same article on dimensional analysis. Let’s take a simple example with four variables (and their units): t = tumble time (s) h = Knoop hardness (kg*m^-1*s^-2) r = amount of grit (g) a = surface area of rock (m^2) The nitty gritty (pun intended) is left for the reader, but the end result of the theorem is that you end up with the following relationship for *this choice of variables*: t^4 = C * h^2 * a * r^-2, where C is some constant You can see already some implications, some interesting and some obvious, of this tumbling model: 1) More grit = less time 2) Harder material = more time 3) Tumbling time is maintained by tracking total grit with the Knoop hardness 4) More surface area (which here is proxy for total amount of rock) increases tumbling time, but not as quickly as increasing hardness 5) Increasing grit lowers the tumbling time much more quickly relative to decreasing the amount of rock There’s lots of nuance in picking the important variables, and adding a lot of variables means a *much* more complicated relationship you have to figure out (you don’t just get a constant to deal with). Also sometimes what you get is total garbage because you’ve missed some important variable. For instance, here we're missing the viscosity of the slurry, the barrel speed, etc. Maybe for another day! Welcome to the forum from South Dakota! Thank you for taking the time to make this your first post...of many I hope! It's kind of exciting in a way for me to see the calculations. I have a tendency to forget that while variables are fluctuating within a given scenario, they can be tracked and accounted for... (That makes sense in my head! LOL) , that is one of the reasons why I posed the original question about the logbook (and why I have enjoyed seeing this thread branch out beyond that original question). As I was reading this forum and other information on tumbling, I continuously ran into comments about various materials that people find challenging (such as the labradorite that rrod mentioned) or struggled with. Often, there were follow-up posts with specialized tips for certain materials. It suggested that there must be a rhyme or reason to tumbling that may make it easier to predict outcomes. As I may have mentioned a few (hundred) times already, I love figuring out how things work and knowing which variables affect things and how they affect the outcomes. As many on this forum have proven, experience and skill can clearly deliver amazing results. For those of us with less experience, learning as much as we can through the wisdom of others who have graciously shared and through our own mistakes is the best we can do. |
|
|
|
Post by jasoninsd on Jan 21, 2021 10:59:10 GMT -5
Welcome to the forum from South Dakota! Thank you for taking the time to make this your first post...of many I hope! It's kind of exciting in a way for me to see the calculations. I have a tendency to forget that while variables are fluctuating within a given scenario, they can be tracked and accounted for... (That makes sense in my head! LOL) , that is one of the reasons why I posed the original question about the logbook (and why I have enjoyed seeing this thread branch out beyond that original question). As I was reading this forum and other information on tumbling, I continuously ran into comments about various materials that people find challenging (such as the labradorite that rrod mentioned) or struggled with. Often, there were follow-up posts with specialized tips for certain materials. It suggested that there must be a rhyme or reason to tumbling that may make it easier to predict outcomes. As I may have mentioned a few (hundred) times already, I love figuring out how things work and knowing which variables affect things and how they affect the outcomes. As many on this forum have proven, experience and skill can clearly deliver amazing results. For those of us with less experience, learning as much as we can through the wisdom of others who have graciously shared and through our own mistakes is the best we can do. Well, I for one am glad a "certain" someone is no longer a fly on the wall here...without you posing the right questions and in the manner in which you did, who knows how long it would have taken to get comments, questions, and answers like you have in this thread! Not to mention being the catalyst for rrod to join and chime in! Big kudos to you! Now, just continue what you're doing...ignore any extra weight you feel, as if someone is grasping on tightly to your coattails!  |
|
Fossilman
Cave Dweller 
Member since January 2009
Posts: 20,723 
|
Post by Fossilman on Jan 21, 2021 11:02:05 GMT -5
I have been doing journals my whole life... Yuppers on tumbling also.. Everything I do, see or act on goes on paper...
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Jan 21, 2021 12:27:36 GMT -5
By the way, I have edited my post to change "waste of time" to be "waste of time for me" because that was my intent. The way I wrote it was rude and unintended. When I had only one 12lb tumbler and was learning, my writing down everything obsessively helped me learn. I kept notes about slurry and rock damage and RPMs and ambient air temps and other data. But I'm now doing about 420 barrel recharges/year, that's an average of over one each evening, so I'm able to remember by doing so frequently almost everything that I learned in the past as far as info that isn't on my log sheet. If I still had just one barrel and it was a week between recharges, I might forget stuff. I also have notes in a place about procedures learned for special materials.
Let me explain the Cushion column codes. PP = plastic pellets. black/white/new/good/bad is a holdover from the past that I've not yet deleted. I buy small quartz chat on Ebay in large quantities to use for smalls. It comes in white, black, or mixed. I like using white with mostly dark colored rocks to visually separate easily, and vice versa. And I used to sort out the keepers in the smalls and go forward with good or bad chat in that way and new chat if not yet known. I will probably delete this Cushion column entirely in my next revision.
If I take off for a small trip and leave the barrels going, it's easy for me to have a friend come over and stop barrel this on that date, that barrel on another date, and so forth, by giving them a copy of these sheets before I leave, plus I always take a copy of them with me also. By stop I don't mean opening the barrels, but just setting them aside as sometimes rock damage occurs with running too long.
|
|
Brian
fully equipped rock polisher
Member since July 2020
Posts: 1,512
|
Post by Brian on Jan 21, 2021 13:15:37 GMT -5
By the way, I have edited my post to change "waste of time" to be "waste of time for me" because that was my intent. The way I wrote it was rude and unintended. When I had only one 12lb tumbler and was learning, my writing down everything obsessively helped me learn. I kept notes about slurry and rock damage and RPMs and ambient air temps and other data. But I'm now doing about 420 barrel recharges/year, that's an average of over one each evening, so I'm able to remember by doing so frequently almost everything that I learned in the past as far as info that isn't on my log sheet. If I still had just one barrel and it was a week between recharges, I might forget stuff. I also have notes in a place about procedures learned for special materials. Let me explain the Cushion column codes. PP = plastic pellets. black/white/new/good/bad is a holdover from the past that I've not yet deleted. I buy small quartz chat on Ebay in large quantities to use for smalls. It comes in white, black, or mixed. I like using white with mostly dark colored rocks to visually separate easily, and vice versa. And I used to sort out the keepers in the smalls and go forward with good or bad chat in that way and new chat if not yet known. I will probably delete this Cushion column entirely in my next revision. If I take off for a small trip and leave the barrels going, it's easy for me to have a friend come over and stop barrel this on that date, that barrel on another date, and so forth, by giving them a copy of these sheets before I leave, plus I always take a copy of them with me also. By stop I don't mean opening the barrels, but just setting them aside as sometimes rock damage occurs with running too long. No offense taken at all, Bob! Given the fact that you still kept a log (and modified it 20 times) I knew what you meant and appreciated your comments, as well as seeing your log. Thanks for clarifying the cushion codes. I was curious what those referred to, especially the white and black, which I assumed were used pellets vs new pellets. Experience is the greatest teacher and I would be surprised if the more experienced people on this forum would have a need for overly detailed notes. There is no substitute for being able to diagnose problems by the sounds of the tumbler alone or the consistency of the slurry. As a beginner, information and the wisdom of others is my greatest ally. This forum, and this thread, have been extremely helpful. |
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,606
|
Post by jamesp on Jan 21, 2021 14:39:20 GMT -5
Step 1 is heavily affected by these items in a given size tumbler assuming a constant feed of abrasives are being supplied.
1) size of the abrasive
2) sharpness of the abrasive
3) hardness of abrasive as compared to material being abraded
4) the rate/speed of abrasion
5) lubrication to assist abrasion
6) circulation/distribution of abrasives
7) the pressure applied to the material being abraded
Mohs 9 SiC and Mohs 7 is the most common situation for 1),2),3).
Speeding the tumbler affects 4).
Slurry might be the best way to improve 5),6),7).
IMO it is the correct slurry - both slick and sticky.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Jan 21, 2021 15:20:53 GMT -5
jamessp, I had posted this recently in another thread, and wondering what you think?
"This is sort of a tangent but also related. I converted tablespoons to cups years ago, and throw 1/2 cup of grit or polish in the 6lb barrel, 1 cup in the 12lb barrel, 2 in the 20lb, and 4 in the 40lb. It seems close enough and works well.
What would happen if we went overboard or underboard? Has anyone ever tried it to see what happens? I'm going to take a guess, but this is only a guess.
If batches usually are just right after a week (a timing which I kind of like also) wouldn't using too little grit merely mean the batch would get done sooner because the grit would be worn out sooner? Or would the grit still "last" a week just a lot less grinding would happened?"
Is the reverse true? What if I threw in 2 cups (twice normal) of coarse grind grit in a 12lb barrel? Would it grind twice as much rock off in a week so would not be a waste of money? Or would the grit last longer than a week?
|
|
rrod
having dreams about rocks
Member since December 2020
Posts: 72
|
Post by rrod on Jan 21, 2021 20:19:36 GMT -5
Welcome to the forum from South Dakota! Thank you for taking the time to make this your first post...of many I hope! It's kind of exciting in a way for me to see the calculations. I have a tendency to forget that while variables are fluctuating within a given scenario, they can be tracked and accounted for... (That makes sense in my head! LOL) Greetings back from Virginia! No problem at all taking the time. I hope to do some controlled experiments to start verifying certain interactions of tumbling variables, but that will mean I need more than one 3lb barrel! Planning to get the QT66 once it's back in stock but it seems COVID really hit Lortone hard. One thing I have begun to experiment with is recording tumbling sessions and tracking changes in loudness over time; will make a thread on that once this load finishes. As far as the original topic, I've started logging things in JSON format so I can be a bit more customized with log format. For instance, the overall object would be for a given tumble, with sub-objects for each stage or barrel change. Once I start my calcite tumble I'll post an example here. |
|
