AMCA - Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (HAL)

[ersakthivel]

Even ISRO does not have this facility. There is none in India. This software is controlled by the govts of the nation as a national secret and subject to govt sanction. What I got done was from a freelancer org and even their RCS measurement is indicative but not true.
Only Americans & British have it and that is subjected to very very strong controls.
I have been quietly reading posts here from members who have claimed various RCS for LCA. Can you recall my last post about LCA thread? What they do not know is that LCA defies the very basics of stealth shaping by having diff angles for its wing itself due to compound delta design. It has a huge tailplane and its nose itself is flat before the intakes with nothing to suppress the bottom fuselage and even nothing to suppress the external attachments. Mark my words, LCA has higher RCS than MIG-29 in intercept profile with AAMs.
I have challanged the NAL & HAL and they went quite on the subject and asked me to go to GOI for security clearance before they can communicate with me further. I sent them my highest security clearance documents and they fell silent.
LCA has allowed two generations to earn their pension and now the third generation also has more than 50% people who are children of these retired pensioners. You do not know how bad it is in DRDO & HAL. EARN PENSION AND ---- INDIA IS THE MOTTO OF HAL.

Don't post on stuff you don't understand.

Even F-22 has two angles in wing shapes and back side of the F-22 wing also has the same shape as that of LCA.

In addition the LCA does not have as the extra two horizontal tail fins as that of F-22

And the huge vertical tail fin of LCA you are referring to provides nil contribution to the frontal RCS of Tejas because viewed from front it presents a shape of knife edge to the enemy radar.

Also the cross section[on a vertical cutting plane] of the tail fin of LCA is not rectangular it is triangular if you see it in the close up photos from behind.


So even for a side on radar illumination most of the radio waves will scatter away from the enemy radar.

And the front fuselage, and air intakes all have subtle angles spread all along.

SO your challenge to HAL and NAL is absurd on this count. The same software is used to design the AMCA as well and recently after the third ASR revision IAF was very happy with the RCS reduction measures on AMCA.

There is nothing top secret about RCS reductions. The US did not invent it either.

Those calculations sere first formulated by the russian technician in the 1970s itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petr_Ufimtsev

Ufimtsev became interested in describing the reflection of lasers while working in Moscow. He gained permission to do work on it after being advised that work was useless and would curtail his advancement. Because the work was considered of no military or economic value, Ufimtsev was allowed to publish his work internationally.[3]

A stealth engineer at Lockheed, Denys Overholser, had read the publication and realized that Ufimtsev had created the mathematical theory and tools to do finite analysis of radar reflection.[4] This discovery inspired and had a big role in the design of the first true stealth aircraft, the Lockheed F-117. Northrop also used Ufimtsev's work to program super computers to predict the radar reflection of the B-2 bomber.

In the 1960s Ufimtsev began developing a high-frequency asymptotic theory for predicting the scattering of electromagnetic waves from two-dimensional and three-dimensional objects. Among such objects were the finite size bodies of revolution (disk, finite cylinder with flat bases, finite cone, finite paraboloid, spherical segment, finite thin wire). This theory is now well known as the Physical Theory of Diffraction (PTD).

The first results of PTD were collected in the book: P.Ya. Ufimtsev, Method of Edge Waves in the Physical Theory of Diffraction, Soviet Radio, Moscow, 1962. In 1971 this book was translated into English with the same title by U.S. Air Force, Foreign Technology Division (National Air Intelligence Center ), Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, 1971. Technical Report AD 733203, Defense Technical Information Center of USA, Cameron Station, Alexandria, VA, 22304-6145, USA.

According to the following publications, this theory played a critical role in the design of American stealth-aircraft F-117 and B-2.[5][6][7]

See also the Forewords written by K. Mitzner to the books:

Ufimtsev, P.Ya. Theory of Edge Diffraction in Electromagnetics, Tech Science Press, Encino, California, 2003.
Ufimtsev, P.Ya. Fundamentals of the Physical Theory of Diffraction, Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey, 2007.

In these two books, P.Ya. Ufimtsev presented the further development and application of PTD and its validation by the exact mathematical theory. In particular, a new version of PTD, based on the concept of elementary edge waves, is presented in his book Fundamentals of the Physical Theory of Diffraction (2007). With appropriate modifications the modern PTD can be utilized for the solution to many practical problems. Among them are the design of microwave antennas, mobile radio communication, construction of acoustic barriers to decrease a noise level, evaluation of radar cross sections for large objects[8] (tanks, ships, missiles, etc.).

Dr. Ufimtsev has been affiliated with a number of research and academic institutions, including the Institute of Radio Engineering and Electronics of the USSR Academy of Sciences (Moscow), Moscow Aviation Institute, the University of California (Los Angeles, Irvine) and most recently, the Moscow State University (Russia, 2007) and the Siena University (Italy, 2008). Currently he is a retiree and a consultant in the field of electromagnetics. Among his honors and awards are the USSR State Prize and the Leroy Randle Grumman Medal.[9]

Ufimtsev taught at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), which is the same school that Ben Rich, developer of the F-117 "Stealth Fighter", studied for his graduate degree.

And it was based on these equations F-22 was built. There was not enough software simulation tech and manufacturing tech in those days to reproduce the shape of the equations. And the advent of composites makes it more feasible as well.

Now it is there , that's all. There are enough software skills in India to develop the needed software.It is a child's play these days for huge organizations with monumental super computing power.

When we can develop fly by wire software that is many times more complex than the RCS calculation software your statement that it is a top secret tech is not correct.

What is top secret is the composition of the stealth coatings that further aid in RCS reduction not the equations and software simulations to compute the RCS of different objects which is purely mathematical and can be developed by a team of dedicated technicians of which we have no shortage in numbers.

So any one can program and predict the RCS on a super computer as LM did . You should know that the LCA was initially designed in IIT delhi computer labs and India does have parallel processing super computers .

If it was out of bounds for a freelancer like you it does not mean it is out of bounds for big research organizations like ADA, NAL. HAL played no part in designing the LCA, so if HAL remained silent then there is nothing to be surprised about.

And your comment that LCA has more RCS than the Mig-29 is the joke of the century.

You don't even know the biggest contributor to the frontal RCS are exposed engine blades of the two mighty engines of Mig-29.

In LCA air intake is Y duct shaped and no engine blade is exposed. So don't be so sweeping in making generalized comments.




.

 

[Decklander]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v699/xu-an/radar_return_mechs.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v699/xu-an/sphere_wave_behav_1.jpg
Electronic Warfare and Radar Systems Engineering Handbook - Radar Cross Section (RCS) - RF Cafe
Creeping wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

will it be sufficient or do you want me to post more to tell you about the RCS of LCA.

 

[Decklander]

I am not here to teach anything. You might be a stalwart in RCS.
I am just saying that RCS for LCA was calculated using ray bouncing technique for a 1:1 model of LCA considering diffraction effects and shadowing effects way back in 1996 and lot of water has flow through Ganges since then and I say that RCS for LCA must have been calculated using efficient codes (C codes too exist). I am just answering your previous post saying that you cannot find even a single person working in RCS and deny the fact that no defense organization has a solver to solve for RCS.

when and where did they create 1:1 model of LCA and which chamber is big enough to take this size in India? Pls don't shoot from the hip. No indian agency has the means to calculate the RCS properly. One more thing which you need to understand is that scale modelling is not best way as if you use a 1/5th model, you need to multiply the frequency also by a factor of five. have you ever heard of near field, far field, outdoor and compact field ranges in RCS measurements?
Lastly I will not reply anymore on this topic as I have no intention to teach people basics of RCS measurement.

 

[A chauhan]

Is creeping wave that big a factor?

 

[ersakthivel]

Can you pls elaborate and name even one DRDO agency which can do RCS calculations? I have tried them all and none has this facility. They have anechoic chambers only for missiles and small UAVs. They are themselves looking for a software to do RCS calculations. Only IISc has a software licensed from FEKO. They too are trying to develop one of their own with limited success.
HCL has one anechoic chamber in Chennai and most DRDO work is done there. RCI, Imarat and NAL claim to have this facility but they have no expertise in RCS measurement of an aircraft. I can't share the details here but I have it all in writing from them.

Huge Anechioc chambers were needed when the computer processing power was in infancy.

Nowadays even nuclear warhead explosions are predicted on software once we have enough data.

those Anehocic chambers will only validate the RCS calculations done using sophisticated software with huge processing power.

Even if we take your argument that RCS reduction on Tejas is impossible without those Huge Anechioc chambers the LCA is flying for 12 years. SO the IAF would certainly know the RCS. And ADA would have validates their RCS software based on the observations made on test flights.

If it's RCS is higher than Mig-29 as you claim to be it would have been out in the open now. You would have been aware of the huge lobby against Tejas in IAF which leaks various fancy faults on Tejas at the drop of the hat. SO such dirty secrets can not be kept by ADA for decades.

 

[dvdiyen]

when and where did they create 1:1 model of LCA and which chamber is big enough to take this size in India? Pls don't shoot from the hip. No indian agency has the means to calculate the RCS properly. One more thing which you need to understand is that scale modelling is not best way as if you use a 1/5th model, you need to multiply the frequency also by a factor of five. have you ever heard of near field, far field, outdoor and compact field ranges in RCS measurements?
Lastly I will not reply anymore on this topic as I have no intention to teach people basics of RCS measurement.

Please understand what I am saying. I am talking about robust codes used for calculating RCS in a computing environment not in anechoic chamber. Calculation of RCS in anechoic chamber does not require any software code.

 

[Decklander]

Is creeping wave that big a factor?

LCA has a nose which is cylindrical and that creates huge return. Also the max RCS of a missile is only due to its cylindrical shape which creates creeping waves. If you look at the nose shape and fuselage shape of F-22, F-35 and Pak-FA, you will notice that they have shaped them like a box to avoid creeping waves.

 

[ersakthivel]

Is creeping wave that big a factor?

Who is going to direct the creeping wave on the surface a fighter plane back to the fire control radar?

it is a known fact that there are huge beyond the horizon early warning radars that use the radio wave bending ability of Ionosphere with huge earth based power and computing backups.

but then the same principles applies to all 5th gen and 4th gen fighters. Sure it can not apply to fighters like LCA and AMCA made by ADA alone!!!!!!!!!!

But to say a small 1 meter dia fire control radar of a fighter can catch the creeping waves on the surface of the enemy fighter is too much of an imagination.

 

[Decklander]

Please understand what I am saying. I am talking about robust codes used for calculating RCS in a computing environment not in anechoic chamber. Calculation of RCS in anechoic chamber does not require any software code.

Ohh, really!!!. Pls check again whomever you know in DRDO or anyother organisation. Once again I request you to please cross check what you post here. We have members here who are very well educated on these aspects.
can you please explain to me that while a russian engg developed stealth and US exploited it first time, why does US still use outdoor far field range with full scale model for calculation of RCS. I am sure that you will agree that US has far better software and hardware than DRDO for this kind of job.

 

[ersakthivel]

LCA has a nose which is cylindrical and that creates huge return. Also the max RCS of a missile is only due to its cylindrical shape which creates creeping waves. If you look at the nose shape and fuselage shape of F-22, F-35 and Pak-FA, you will notice that they have shaped them like a box to avoid creeping waves.

correction . It is not cylindrical. It is conical. So don't bluff.

Cones reflect nothing back to the source. so the max RCS of cylindrical body of the missile has no meaning here.

The F-22 and F-35 use just a higher amount of below 0.1 meter RCS return since they carry their missiles in side.

The Tejas does not need it since it carries it's weapons outside.

If you notice the AMCA design then it has the same shape of F-22. Why. The RCS reduction measures there are enhanced since it also carries it's primary weapons inside,

If LCA too was designed with an internal weapon bay it too would have had the same F-22 nose cone shape to further the RCS reduction measures.

SInce the external weapon carriage of Tejas gives it a bigger RCS such high degree RCS measures were not needed on the nose is the explanation.

 

[Decklander]

correction . It is not cylindrical. It is conical. So don't bluff.

I am including the cockpit also in the nose. The radome is conical but rest of the nose is cylindrical.

 

[Decklander]

correction . It is not cylindrical. It is conical. So don't bluff.

first you do not know what a creeping wave is and I have to educate you on that. Than within minutes you claim that they hardly contribute to RCS. So tell me who is bluffing? We have had tons of garbage posted by you here and it is for this reason that I have just stopped posting in LCA thread or to even reply to you.

 

[ersakthivel]

Ohh, really!!!. Pls check again whomever you know in DRDO or anyother organisation. Once again I request you to please cross check what you post here. We have members here who are very well educated on these aspects.
can you please explain to me that while a russian engg developed stealth and US exploited it first time, why does US still use outdoor far field range with full scale model for calculation of RCS. I am sure that you will agree that US has far better software and hardware than DRDO for this kind of job.

Out door facilities were built before the age of today's huge computing power. US is using this to validate since it has them.

Even without them ADA has a much simpler means of checking it on Tejas.

They can simply shine a radar on tejas from all directions while flying and validate their calculation far easily, So why are you not accepting it?

the F-22 was designed in the 1980s. Are you still insisting the computing power of India in 2010 is below that?????

 

[ersakthivel]

first you do not know what a creeping wave is and I have to educate you on that. Than within minutes you claim that they hardly contribute to RCS. So tell me who is bluffing? We have had tons of garbage posted by you here and it is for this reason that I have just stopped posting in LCA thread or to even reply to you.

Creeping waves are there. What is their percentage of contribution compared to directly bouncing off waves?

i asked you to post a link on the subject in case you know.

If you know about creeping waves that can be caught by a small fire control radar of a fighter please post a link.

You don't even know the difference between a cylinder and a cone.

And still tomtoming the stable flight profile F-15 is the be all and end all of fighter design doubting all the unstable fly by fire fighters as repeatedly sold shit. If we accept your argument then TYPHOON, RAFALE, F-22 , FGFA and Grippen are all repeatedly sold shit perhaps.

So why bother contradicting tons of garbage posted by me as your divine duty?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_technology

The possibility of designing aircraft in such a manner as to reduce their radar cross-section was recognized in the late 1930s, when the first radar tracking systems were employed, and it has been known since at least the 1960s that aircraft shape makes a significant difference in detectability. The Avro Vulcan, a British bomber of the 1960s, had a remarkably small appearance on radar despite its large size, and occasionally disappeared from radar screens entirely. It is now known that it had a fortuitously stealthy shape apart from the vertical element of the tail. In contrast, the Tupolev 95 Russian long range bomber (NATO reporting name 'Bear') appeared especially well on radar.

Another important factor is internal construction. Some stealth aircraft have skin that is radar transparent or absorbing, behind which are structures termed re-entrant triangles. Radar waves penetrating the skin get trapped in these structures, reflecting off the internal faces and losing energy. This method was first used on the Blackbird series (A-12 / YF-12A / SR-71).

The most efficient way to reflect radar waves back to the emitting radar is with orthogonal metal plates, forming a corner reflector consisting of either a dihedral (two plates) or a trihedral (three orthogonal plates). This configuration occurs in the tail of a conventional aircraft, where the vertical and horizontal components of the tail are set at right angles. Stealth aircraft such as the F-117 use a different arrangement, tilting the tail surfaces to reduce corner reflections formed between them. A more radical method is to eliminate the tail completely, as in the B-2 Spirit.

In addition to altering the tail, stealth design must bury the engines within the wing or fuselage, or in some cases where stealth is applied to an extant aircraft, install baffles in the air intakes, so that the compressor blades are not visible to radar. A stealthy shape must be devoid of complex bumps or protrusions of any kind; meaning that weapons, fuel tanks, and other stores must not be carried externally. Any stealthy vehicle becomes un-stealthy when a door or hatch opens.

Planform alignment is also often used in stealth designs. Planform alignment involves using a small number of surface orientations in the shape of the structure. For example, on the F-22A Raptor, the leading edges of the wing and the tail surfaces are set at the same angle.

Careful inspection shows that many small structures, such as the air intake bypass doors and the air refueling aperture, also use the same angles. The effect of planform alignment is to return a radar signal in a very specific direction away from the radar emitter rather than returning a diffuse signal detectable at many angles.

Stealth airframes sometimes display distinctive serrations on some exposed edges, such as the engine ports. The YF-23 has such serrations on the exhaust ports. This is another example in the use of re-entrant triangles and planform alignment, this time on the external airframe.

Shaping requirements have strong negative influence on the aircraft's aerodynamic properties. The F-117 has poor aerodynamics, is inherently unstable, and cannot be flown without a fly-by-wire control system.

So who gave you the right to brag that our software and shaping tech in 2010 is lower than the shaping tech used on Avro Vulcan?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_cross-section

The surfaces of the F-117A are designed to be flat and very angled. This has the effect that Radar will be incident at a large angle (to the normal ray) that will then bounce off at a similarly high reflected angle; it is forward-scattered. The edges are sharp to prevent there being rounded surfaces. Rounded surfaces will often have some portion of the surface normal to the Radar source. As any ray incident along the normal will reflect back along the normal this will make for a strong reflected signal.

From the side, a fighter plane will present a much larger area than the same plane when viewed from the front. All other factors being equal, the plane will have a stronger signal from the side than from the front so the orientation between the Radar station and the target is important.

so are you claiming here that creeping waves that are present on conical and cylindrical surfaces which magnify the RCS in Tejas are absent in F-117 because it's surface was flat?

If you claim so , then F-22 does not have all flat surfaces like F-117. So are you trying to suggest it is less stealthy?

Where is it mentioned that waves that creep on the surface and glide past the surface can be received back by fire control radar to magnify the RCS?

Read the passage below which explicitly tells that increase in computing power is the reason for better strealth , not huge anechoic chambers as you claimed,

Purpose-shaping can be seen in the design of surface faceting on the F-117A Nighthawk stealth fighter. This aircraft, designed in the late 1970s though only revealed to the public in 1988, uses a multitude of flat surfaces to reflect incident radar energy away from the source.

Yue suggests[citation needed] that limited available computing power for the design phase kept the number of surfaces to a minimum. The B-2 Spirit stealth bomber benefited from increased computing power, enabling its contoured shapes and further reduction in RCS. The F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II continue the trend in purpose shaping and promise to have even smaller monostatic RCS.

 

[Twinblade]

this is what is official

ITO coatings on canopy are a fairly basic process. ITO in itself is not a radar absorbing material, rather it's application on canopy increases the conductivity of the surface manifold thereby increasing the radar reflectivity. It is applied on the canopy to have a more controlled reflection due to the shaping of the canopy, compared to the innards of the cockpit which reflect em waves right back. There is domestic research going on for radar absorbing optically transparent (RAOT) materials but it is still at very nascent stage. Also, NAL's EM anechoic chambers are for smaller sized scale models, not full size production standard aircraft. Most major aicraft manufacturers have huge facilities where they can test full scale prototype to sort out radar return issues.

Vs this

Without those facilities it is fairly difficult to sort out a lot of different types of radar returns due to surface and edge discontinuities and creeping wave returns.

 

[ersakthivel]

I am including the cockpit also in the nose. The radome is conical but rest of the nose is cylindrical.

You still don't know a cylinder from a cone!!!!!!!!!!!!

both the top and bottom sides of the cylinder are supposed to have the same diameter circles!!!!!!!!!

It is correct in missiles. But In tejas the fuselage shape varies rapidly through out the length, No way you can call it a cylinder!!!!!!

Huge chambers were there from 1970s. they can only measure the return for validation of the model.

But to design such low RCS models we need huge computing power .

SO low RCS fighters are designed to be so by high power computers, which then gets checked on the chambers,

Even if there are no chambers simply flying them in dense radar covered skies in all possible angles will validate the model.

If we have huge chambers like this we can do it before flying them. If we don't have them then we can check the validity of the model in flight a more time consuming but not so impossible process.

Purpose-shaping can be seen in the design of surface faceting on the F-117A Nighthawk stealth fighter. This aircraft, designed in the late 1970s though only revealed to the public in 1988, uses a multitude of flat surfaces to reflect incident radar energy away from the source.

Yue suggests[citation needed] that limited available computing power for the design phase kept the number of surfaces to a minimum. The B-2 Spirit stealth bomber benefited from increased computing power, enabling its contoured shapes and further reduction in RCS. The F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II continue the trend in purpose shaping and promise to have even smaller monostatic RCS.

 

[ersakthivel]

Optimization methods

Thin non-resonant or broad resonance coatings can be modeled with a Leontovich impedance boundary condition (see also Electrical impedance). This is the ratio of the tangential electric field to the tangential magnetic field on the surface, and ignores fields propagating along the surface within the coating. This is particularly convenient when using boundary element method calculations. The surface impedance can be calculated and tested separately. For an isotropic surface the ideal surface impedance is equal to the 377 ohm impedance of free space. For non-isotropic (anisotropic) coatings, the optimal coating depends on the shape of the target and the radar direction, but duality, the symmetry of Maxwell's equations between the electric and magnetic fields, tells one that optimal coatings have η0 × η1 = 3772 Ω2, where η0 and η1 are perpendicular components of the anisotropic surface impedance, aligned with edges and/or the radar direction.

A perfect electric conductor has more back scatter from a leading edge for the linear polarization with the electric field parallel to the edge and more from a trailing edge with the electric field perpendicular to the edge, so the high surface impedance should be parallel to leading edges and perpendicular to trailing edges, for the greatest radar threat direction, with some sort of smooth transition between.

To calculate the radar cross-section of such a stealth body, one would typically do one dimensional reflection calculations to calculate the surface impedance, then two dimensional numerical calculations to calculate the diffraction coefficients of edges and small three dimensional calculations to calculate the diffraction coefficients of corners and points.

The cross section can then be calculated, using the diffraction coefficients, with the physical theory of diffraction or other high frequency method, combined with physical optics to include the contributions from illuminated smooth surfaces and Fock calculations to calculate creeping waves circling around any smooth shadowed parts.

Optimization is in the reverse order. First one does high frequency calculations to optimize the shape and find the most important features, then small calculations to find the best surface impedances in the problem areas, then reflection calculations to design coatings. One should avoid large numerical calculations that run too slowly for numerical optimization or distract workers from the physics, even when massive computing power is available.

So all creeping and non creeping wave calculations directly depend upon computing power available, not entirely dependent on the size of the chambers.

it is the calculations based on huge computing power than builds the model. Nothing can go wrong because it is a simulation based on concrete mathematics. Chamber or no chamber flying the fighter in dense radar skies will show whether you are right or wrong.

Those huge facilities will fine tune VLO 5th gen stealths to further higher degree. But for a 4.5th gen like Tejas , with today's computing power it is fairly possible to have an optimum RCS even without these chambers. because it's RCS is not going to go below 0.001 like 5th gen VLOs

 

[ersakthivel]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v699/xu-an/radar_return_mechs.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v699/xu-an/sphere_wave_behav_1.jpg
Electronic Warfare and Radar Systems Engineering Handbook - Radar Cross Section (RCS) - RF Cafe
Creeping wave - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

will it be sufficient or do you want me to post more to tell you about the RCS of LCA.

Any one in NAL or ADA doing the job of RCS reduction knows thousand times more than the few sketches you have presented here.

You may have as big a chamber to tweak the RCS, But the first prerequisite for RCS reduction is software codes that formulate a model which can not be got from any chamber however big it may be.

And the effect of creeping waves can also be factored into RCS calculation by Fock calculations.

SO nothing earth shattering about the unpredictable effects of creeping waves. All can be calculated in simulation.

he cross section can then be calculated, using the diffraction coefficients, with the physical theory of diffraction or other high frequency method, combined with physical optics to include the contributions from illuminated smooth surfaces and Fock calculations to calculate creeping waves circling around any smooth shadowed parts.

Even if there are no chambers. the two TDs are flying from 2000. I am sure it and 10 or so PVs and LSPs will be painted by radars for eons for ADA to know whether their claim is true or false.

Now tell me why are we making a fool of whole of India by stating that RCS of LCA is lowest of all fighters in IAF? When you can't calculate and have no such facility, than where did you do it and what is the basis of those claims? use of composites does not make an ac LO.

If you can't get the RCS of your model measured in India it does not mean ADA , NAL are fooling the nation on RCS figure of tejas!!!!!!

It is not their prerogative to use the software they developed for tejas to measure your model. Whether they are permitted by the GOI to do so or nor is another entirely different matter.

 

[Decklander]

@ersakthivel, you are barking up the wrong tree. Move on.

 

[ersakthivel]

@ersakthivel, you are barking up the wrong tree. Move on.

Same to you, thanks for the advice.