Waterjetting 15d – More thoughts on cut surface quality.

When a high-pressure stream of water hits a surface, the arrival of subsequent lengths of the waterjet stream forces the initial water away from the initial impact point, into and along any weakness planes in the target material. As a result there is some preferential cutting of the material, especially where there are defined weakness planes in the material. One illustration of this is where a jet that contains cavitation bubbles impacts on a rock surface (figure 1) and as the water enters the narrow eroded channels where preceding lengths of water have preferentially eroded out the weaker rock the pressure in the channel increases, collapsing the remaining cavitation bubbles and further exacerbating the damage within that narrow channel, causing it (them) to grow preferentially relative to the surrounding rock.

Figure 1. Looking down into a channel cut by a cavitating jet that traversed from left to right, at a speed of 0.4 inches/minute. Note the preferential attack into weakness planes within the rock.

As the weakness planes grow and join, so individually larger pieces of rock can be broken free from the target and the path, and pressure profiles of the water in the cutting zone change quite significantly. For this cavitation to have a significant impact on the erosion pattern, however, the traverse speed over the surface must be controlled, and be relatively low. At more effective speeds the cutting process does not allow for the development of this fracture mechanism. Rather, with plain jets, the process concentrates just on crack growth around individual grains. Optimum cutting speeds are much higher, depending on the intended result.

The efficiency of waterjet cutting has, historically, been assessed in terms of how much energy is required to remove unit volume of material. This we call the specific energy of the cutting process, and a common unit is joules/cubic centimeter (j/cc). When using a waterjet to cut into material, in part because of the interference between different segments of the jet stream, pre and post impact, the most efficient cutting speeds are quite high.

Figure 2. The change in cutting efficiency with traverse speed of a high-pressure waterjet cutting stream

The downside to using higher cutting speeds (apart from the simple inertial problems in driving systems at higher speeds in other than straight lines) is that the depths of cut achieved become smaller on individual passes, as the jet has less cutting time on each path increment.

Figure 3. Change in cut depth as a function of traverse speed, for varying different rock types.

In linear cutting systems it is sometimes possible to align secondary or a higher multiple array of nozzles along the cut, so that thicker materials can be cut with a sequence of jet cuts along the same path. Alternately a single nozzle can make multiple passes along the cut path and sequentially deepen the slot.

Unfortunately while this is an effective way of solving some problems, it becomes less efficient as the slot gets deeper.

Figure 4. The change in cutting efficiency with increase in the number of cutting passes.

At higher pass numbers with the target surface at a growing distance from the nozzle, and with the edges of the cut starting to interfere with the free passage of the jet to the bottom of the cut, less energy is arriving at the bottom of the slot and thus the effectiveness falls.

While there are differences between abrasive waterjet cutting (where the optimal cutting speed is much lower than that for a plain high-pressure water jet) the form that the cutting jet takes through the target material is of similar shape in both circumstances.

Figure 5. An abrasive waterjet cut through 1-inch thick glass

As the jet cuts through the piece, so the cutting edge curves backwards from the top of the cut to the bottom. The rate of this curvature is, inter alia, a function of how fast the nozzle is moving over the surface. Dr. Ohlsson showed this effect in cutting through 0.4-inch thick aluminum and mild steel plates, back as part of his doctorate at Lulea in 1995.

Figure 6. Change in the cutting edge profiles and cut groove patterns in metals as a function of cutting speed (L. Ohlssson PhD Lulea, 1995)

The growth of the striations in the cut surface, as the depth of cut increases is one of the larger concerns with cut surface quality, since customers are often concerned that these be minimized, and further if they become large enough they can make it difficult to separate the pieces, particularly if the parts are cut with a complex geometry.

Early in the understanding of the way in which waterjets work, it was thought that the jet would incrementally cut strips from the material in front of the previous cut, inducing steps into the cutting plane that worked their way down the material.

Figure 7. Early concept of cutting front development (L. Ohlssson PhD Lulea, 1995)

However, as higher speed cameras recorded the development of the cutting front, this concept has been rethought. Henning, for example at the 18th ISJCT, used a camera taking 520 frames per second to establish the development of the cut profile as the jet cut through clear plastic. In figure 8 the profiles are shown as they developed at 35 frames/sec to allow them to be distinguished.

Figure 8. Cutting front development as an abrasive jet cuts from right to left (Henning 18th ISJCT)

As Ohlsson had shown this profile develops as the abrasive laden jet impacts then bounces, then impacts and cuts further into the material, as it moves down the cut.

Figure 9. Frames showing a sequence as an abrasive waterjet cuts through 2-inches of glass. ((L. Ohlssson PhD Lulea, 1995)

In his work Henning correlated the change in the “bounce angle” with the jet properties, while Ohlsson also correlated with the traverse speed.

Figure 10. Change in the “bounce” angle as an abrasive jet moves down the cut (Henning 18th ISJCT)

Two things should be remembered in this analysis, since they also explain causes of the increased roughness of the cut each time the jet bounces. The first is that the jet is not only laden with any initial abrasive, but as it cuts into the material, and removes it so that cut material is entrained in the jet, so that there is some abrasive cutting, even with a plain waterjet once the initial cut has been made. The second point is that when the jet bounces it is not constrained to bounce just in the plane of the cut, but can and does take up some deflection into the sides of the cut. Thus, with each bounce and reflection, the cut becomes rougher as that side cutting becomes more pronounced.

However the number of bounces can be slowed by slowing the speed at which the nozzle moves over the surface.

Figure 11. Change in the angle along the cutting edge as the speed of cutting and the jet pressure are changed (H. Louis, Waterjet Conference, Ishinomaki, 1999)

Henning uses a different term, but nevertheless it is clear that increasing the jet pressure and changing the diameter of the jet stream also controls the edge profile, and as discussed, with a smaller number of bounces so the edge quality improves.

Figure 12. The effect of changing jet pressure and jet diameter on the gradient of the cutting edge profile (Henning 18th ISJCT)

Waterjetting 10a - Beginning to cut

In the last few posts I have been discussing what happens under a water jet as it first hits, and then penetrates into a target material. In many cases it is recommended that the nozzle move slightly relative to the target during this piercing process so that the water escaping from the developing hole does not have to fight its way past the succeeding slug of water entering the hole.

Now it might be thought that this problem would go away if the nozzle starts at the side of the target and then cuts into it. But this depends on a number of different factors, one of the more critical being as to whether the jet is cutting all the way through the material, or is only cutting a slot part of the way through it. As with a number of other topics, I am going to illustrate some of the concerns using granite as the target material, since it makes it easier to demonstrate some of the points I want to make.

If you were to look at one of the many statues that have been carved from granite over the thousands of years since the rock was first shaped into an art form, the rock usually appears as a relatively homogeneous material. That means (to those who don’t work with rock) that the rock has the same properties regardless of which direction you test them in.


Figure 1. The Italian Carver’s Memorial, Dente Park, Barre, VT (From the Barre Granite Association via State Symbols USA)

However, if you were to ask a skilled quarry man he would tell you differently. Because of the way that granite cools from the molten state in which it is injected up into the ground, it picks up an orientation to the crystals, as they are formed. One of these orientations is roughly horizontal, and called the Lift or grain of the rock. A second is perpendicular to this, and vertical and is known as the Rift. The third plane, orthogonal to the other two is called the Hard-Way, because it is generally more difficult to work. These names relate to the ways in which the grains of the rock, and the cracks around them, align. They are virtually impossible for a lay person to detect, and a quarry man may need to feel the rock to tell you which way they lie. But they are used in splitting out the major blocks from the granite massif, and come into play in breaking the large blocks down into handle-able sized pieces.


Figure 2. The A) Hard-Way B) Rift, and C) Lift planes of crystal orientation in granite

If, however, you were to shoot a short slug of water at high-pressure at a piece of granite (and we used the granite from Elberton in Georgia for this) then, depending on which direction the pulse came from relative to the three planes, the amount of rock that would break around the impact point would change.

In an earlier post discussing the splitting that occurs when pressure builds up within the cavity under a jet, I mentioned that the pressure would grow cracks that already existed. And it is for this reason that when the jet impacts perpendicular to the existing crack planes, that the volume of material broken out is greater than it is where the jet fires along the cracks. This can be shown using the cavity profiles from oriented samples into which the jets were fired.


Figure 3. Profiles from the cavities created around the impact points where the jet impacted granite blocks at different orientations.

One can use this information if, for example, one wanted to cut a thin line in granite, where the cut should be made in the direction of the crystals, i.e. making cuts along the lines shown in the A plane of figure 2.


Figure 4. Linear cuts into granite along the lines shown in Figure 2.

In this set of cuts the jet is cutting along the favored orientation of the crystals, and the rock only spalls when two jet paths approach each other in the lower right of the block.

If, however, the cuts are made in a direction perpendicular to the orientations, i.e. in the B and C planes, then the results are quite different.


Figure 5. Cratering along the linear passes in cutting granite perpendicular to the Rift plane.

Where the jet strikes perpendicular to the Rift or Lift, then the pressurization under the jet is enough to cause those cracks to grow out to the surface, and cause spallation along the cut. In many cases this removes all the rock between two adjacent passes, even if they are more than an inch apart.

If one is to use the high-pressure waterjet system for slotting granite in a quarry, for example, then this can be a very useful tool, since by merely putting two jets on either side of the desired slot the spalling will remove the material between them, without any further jet action. If the jets attack in the perpendicular plane, then the jet has to be rotated over the cut to get the same material removal rate.

In most cases, when cutting in a quarry, because the rock does vary in structure, and grain size, it is better to ensure that all the rock is removed before the nozzles move into the cut, by rotation, but in smaller applications, such as where the excess rock is being removed around a planned sculpture, then enhancing the spall around the impact point can lower the time and amount of energy required in removing unwanted rock.

That is, however, a relatively specialized application, and in most cases it is desirable that the cut be clean, and smooth, and this requires the use of abrasive in the waterjet stream, and so this will be the topic of the next few posts.


Figure 6. Cutting through one inch thick glass, showing the cut through the side of the glass.

Waterjetting 6c - Cutting foam and testing with it.

Last week’s post discussed a simple test which helps to show not only how to compare the effect of different operating conditions (varying abrasive type, nozzle design, AFR etc) as a way of finding a possibly better and cheaper cut. It is also often handy to know when a nozzle is starting to wear out, so that different cutting operations might be scheduled to allow the nozzle to continue to work, without threatening the quality of critical product.


Figure 1. Change in the cutting depth of a jet stream, at 50,000 psi, when traversed over ASTM A108 steel as a function of the time that the nozzle had been in use.

While we have found that nozzles from a given manufacturer roughly agree in cutting performance and times before they wear out, the pattern of wear and performance change differs from one nozzle design to another. Also there is some variation in performance between nozzles even of the same design and under the same conditions.

There are also times when cuts are made without abrasive, or when the cutting/cleaning jet is hand held – what to do in those cases? Mainly we have used foam as the cutting target, set up so that the jet won’t cut all the way down through the foam all the way along the cut, so that, as with the steel, some idea of not only cutting depth but also cut quality can be seen.


Figure 2. Cuts through thick stiff packing foam. Note the rough edge at the bottom of the extracted pieces, but the good initial quality of cut that was achievable for some 14-inches.

There is a caution in cutting foam, in that some of the softer varieties are going to fold into the cut, and give a slightly inaccurate measure of true performance, although for a quick comparison to see how a nozzle is lasting that is not a real issue. When cutting thicker material, and also when going for higher quality cuts, that is, however, something that should be borne in mind.

The white expanded foam that is used as a packing material is also very easy to cut, even with the pressures that can be found with a pressure washer type of system. Thus, if you are going to clean a deck or other surface it helps to check, by swiping the jet across such a piece of material, to be sure that you have a good nozzle on the end of your lance before you start.

This may seem fairly logical, after all you just went to the hardware store and bought a new packet of nozzles. Well, as with the other nozzles we have looked at, quality is only assured after testing. In this particular case we ran as many different variety of fan nozzles as we could to see how they would perform when cutting across a piece of packing foam. It is not hard to cut packing foam with a high pressure jet. And since domestic cleaning is usually carried out at either 1,000 psi or 2,000 psi we ran tests at both levels.


Figure 3. Results from a good, top, and a poor nozzle with cuts at 1,000 and 2,000 psi. and with the foam moved through the jet at a distance of 3 inches. The number identifies the nozzle and note that at 3 inches number 18 could barely remove the top of the foam.

A fan jet is defined by the amount of water that it will allow to pass at a set pressure, and by the angle of the cone with which the jet spreads out from the orifice. In passing we found that the cone angle that the jet actually spread at was a little larger than that designated on the package.

The worst nozzle design that we found had difficulty in cutting into the foam, even at a very close range:

On the other hand the best nozzle was still able to cut the material with the nozzle held some nine inches from the foam.


Figure 4. Cutting result with the good nozzle held at nine inches above the foam target. At this distance the jet is removing as much material as the poor jet did at a 3-inch standoff.

A very typical result would have the jet fail to cut into the foam much beyond four inches from the nozzle. (I’ll use some photographs in a couple of weeks to explain in more detail why that is). And as a short editorial comment to those of you who clean around your house with a domestic unit, how many of you hold the nozzle that close to the surface? (Or at the car wash?) If you don't you are losing most of the power that you are paying for, and you are in the company of most of the students that I ran this demonstration with in my classes).

However there is one other feature to the photographs of the cuts that I would point out. Fan jets distribute the water over a diverging fan shape. But the results of the design fell into two different types, one where most of the water still concentrated in the middle of the jet, (as in Figure 4) and those where it was focused more on the side.


Figure 5. Cutting pattern with the jet streams more at the side of the flow. (arrow points), note that the two pressure cuts are on the other sides of the sample here).

The benefit of using foam is that it allows this picture of the jet structure to be easily seen, with very little time taken to swipe the nozzle over a test piece of material at the start of work, to make sure that the jet is still working correctly.

This is both an advantage and a disadvantage. Because the foam is relatively easy for a jet to cut, even at a lower pressure, this means that the cut can become more ragged with depth, where deep cutting is required.

One of the programs that we ran, some years ago, looked at how deeply you could cut into the stiff packing foam that is used in some industrial plants, where the item being packed needs to be held firmly, yet will be released easily when needed. This requires that the foam be cut to a very tight tolerance, and at the time, pieces were still being cut by hand and then glued together. (Figure 2 above)

We found that we could cut up to about a foot of material, before the small cut particles became sufficiently caught up in the cutting jet that the edge quality of the cut fell below specification. But in order to get to that depth we did have to add a small amount of a polymer to the cutting water. This helped to hold the jet more coherent over a greater distance, and also reduced the amount of particulate that got caught up in the jet, allowing the greater cutting depth.

Foam works as a simple sample to give some sense of the jet shape, where the pressures are lower. When they are higher then a stiffer material is needed, though it should still be cuttable by water without the need for abrasive. Plywood is a useful target in this case, and I will write about those tests next time.

Waterjetting 6b - The Triangle comparison test

This post is being written in Missouri, and while the old saying about “I’m from Missouri, you’re going to have to show me,” has a different origin than most folk recognize*, it is a saying that has served well over the years. We did some work once for the Navy, who were concerned that shooting high-pressure waterjets at pieces of explosive might set them off, as we worked to remove the explosive from the casing. We ran tests under a wide range of conditions, and said, in effect, “see it didn’t go off – it’s bound to be safe!” “No,” they replied, “ we need to know what pressure causes it go off at, and then we can calculate the safety factor.” And so we built different devices that fired waterjets at pressure of up to 10 million psi, and at that pressure (and usually a fair bit below it) all the different explosives reacted. And it turned out that one of the pressures that had been tested earlier was not that far below the sensitivity pressure of one of the explosives.

That is, perhaps a little clumsily, a lead in to explain why just getting simple answers, such as “yes I can clean this,” or “yes I can cut that” doesn’t often give the best answer. One can throw a piece of steel, for example, on a cutting table, and cut out a desired shape at a variety of pressures, abrasive feed rates (AFR) and cutting speeds. If the first attempt worked then this might well be the set of cutting conditions that become part of the lore of the shop. After a while it becomes “but we’ve always done it that way,” and the fact that it could be done a lot faster, with a cleaner cut, less abrasive use and at a lower cost is something that rarely gets revisited.

So how does one go about a simple set of tests to find those answers? For many years we worked on cutting steel. Our tests were therefore designed around cutting steel samples, because that gave us the most relevant information, but if your business mainly cuts aluminum, or titanium or some other material then the test design can be modified for that reason.

The test that we use is called a “triangle” test because that is what we use. And because we did a lot of them we bought several strips of 0.25-inch thick, 4-inch wide, ASTM A108 steel so that we would have a consistent target. (Both quarter and three-eighths thick pieces have been used, depending on what was available). The dimensions aren’t that important, though the basic shape that we then cut the strips into has some advantage, as I’ll explain. (It later turned out that we could have used samples only 3-inches wide, but customs die hard, and with higher pressures the original size continues to work).

>br>Figure 1. Basic Triangle Shape

The choice to make the sample 6-inches long is also somewhat arbitrary. We preferred to make a cutting run of about 3 minutes, so that the system was relatively stable, and we had a good distance over which to make measurements, but if you have some scrap pieces that can give several triangular samples of roughly the same shape, then use those.

The sample is then placed in a holder, clamped to a strut in the cutting table, and set so that the 6-inch length is uppermost, and the triangle is pointing downwards.


Figure 2. The holder for the sample triangle.

The nozzle is placed so that it will cut, from the sharp end of the triangle, along the center of the 0.25-inch thickness towards the 4-inch end of the piece. The piece is set with the top of the sample at the level of the water in the cutting table. The piece is then cut – at the pressure, AFR, and at a speed of 1.25 inches per minute, with the cut stopped before it reaches the far end of the piece, though the test should run for at least a minute after the jet has stopped cutting all the way through the sample.

The piece is then removed from the cutting table, and, for a simple comparison the point at which the jet stopped cutting all the way through the triangle is noted.


Figure 3. Showing the point at which the jet stopped cutting through various samples, as a function of the age of the nozzle – all other cutting conditions were the same. (A softer nozzle material was being tested, which is why the lifetime was so short). The view of the samples is from the underside (A in Fig 1.)

An abrasive jet cuts into material in a couple of different ways - the initial smooth section where the primary contact occurs between the jet and the piece, and the rougher lower section where the particles have hit and bounced once on the target, and now widen and roughen the cut. Since some work requires the quality of the first depth, we take the steel samples, and mill one side of the sample, along the lower edge of the cut until the mill reaches the depth of the cut, and then we cut off that flap of material, so that the cut can be exposed. Note that the depth is measured to the top of the section where the depth varies.


Figure 4. Typical example of a steel triangle that has been cut and then sectioned to show the quality of the cut.

I mentioned, in an earlier article, that we had compared different designs from competing manufacturers. Under exactly the same pressure, water flow and abrasive feed rates, the difference between the cutting results differed more greatly than had been expected.


Figure 5. Sectioned views of six samples cut by different nozzle designs, but at the same pressure, water flow, AFR and cutting speed.

There was sufficient difference that we went and bought second, and third copies of different nozzles and tested them to make sure that the results were valid, and they were confirmed with those additional tests. Over the years as other manufacturers produced new designs, these were tested and added into the table – this was the result after the initial number had doubled. (The blue are results from the first nozzle series tests shown above).


Figure 6. Comparative depths of cut using the same pressure and AFR but twelve different commercially available nozzle designs.

There were a number of reasons for the different results, and I will explain some of those reasons as this series continues, but I will close with a simple example from one of the early comparisons that we made. We ran what is known as a factorial test. In other words the pressure was set at one of three levels, and the AFR was set at one of three levels. If each test ran at one of the combination of pressures and AFR values, and each combination was run once then the nine results can be shown in a table.


Figure 7. Depths of cut resulting from cutting at jet pressures of 30,000 to 50,000 psi and AFR of 0.6, 1.0 and 1.5 lb/min.

The results show that there is no benefit from increasing the AFR above 1 lb/minute (and later testing showed that the best AFR for that particular combination of abrasive type, and water orifice and nozzle diameters was 0.8 lb/minute).

Now most of my cutting audience will already know that value, and may well be using it, but remember that these tests were carried out over fifteen years ago, and at that time the ability to save 20% or more of the abrasive cost with no loss in cutting ability was a significant result. Bear also in mind, that it only took 9 tests (cutting time of around 30 minutes) to find that out.

__________________________________________

* The reason that the “I’m from Missouri, you’ll have to show me,” story got started was that a number of miners migrated to Colorado from Missouri. When they reached the Rockies they found that, though the ways of mining were the same, the words that were used were different. (Each mining district has its own slang). Thus they asked to be shown what the Colorado miners meant, before they could understand what the words related to.

Waterjetting 5a - Making gift items

There is a time, which can come in late Winter and very early Spring, when demand declines and there is some free time for the occasional home project. Although many of us now know and understand how well waterjets and abrasive waterjet streams can cut material, this is still not that widely recognized by the General Public. This slack time can help to remedy that problem.

Uninformed ignorance of jet capabilities was certainly true for many years on our campus, and seems to become more so again as the years pass since I retired. Further, at Conferences, I often heard the complaint that the industry needs to get its message out more clearly to a wider audience. The vast majority of potential industrial users are unaware of how well waterjetting in one of its forms could help solve their problems.

Now there are lots of ways of solving that problem, but today I want to talk about just one, the one we used to help us with the problem. It had to be something that would be used by those we gave it to. It had to be small, relatively cheap and quick to make, and yet demonstrate some of the capabilities we wanted to show off. The answer ended up as a business card holder.

Figure 1. Business Card Holder - Missouri Miner female figure.

University labs are generally cash strapped, and so the material had to be relatively cheap, so we used sheets of a light foam. This allowed us to cut out the figure parts using water alone (at around 20,000 psi) which significantly reduced the cost. Early in the design of the female figure (this was the third in a series , where we cut a different shape each year) it was pointed out that relative body size was more critical with female figures, and so two different thicknesses of foam were used. The first was half-an-inch thick and used for the body and pins, while a quarter-inch sheet was used for the legs and arms.

Figure 2. Foam miner front view – showing the two thicknesses of material

Putting a small hole in the position of the eye allowed the model to show how precise and small a cut could be made through thicker material. The five pieces that made up the total were held together with two rectangular pins that were cut from the thicker stock and fitted through slots cut to their shape in the different parts.

One of the advantages of cutting these (and we cut parts for around 300 figures, and used virtually all of them each year) is that it was also possible, with relatively little trouble, to cut the campus identifier on a leg of the figure. With not a lot of space this was originally UMR, and then changed to “S & T” when the campus changed its name.

Figure 3. A later model of the card holder with the campus ID cut into the leg.

For speed in cutting we only cut the letters in half the legs, though you may note that in this later version we also cut the connecting pins as round rod, rather than rectangular. In this way the figure could be repositioned, as the owner decided what they wanted to do with them.

Basically however they served as card holders, and having passed them around, (and provided them to senior campus officials as place card holders for dinner meetings) it has been amusing to see how avidly they were sought and kept by some of those to whom they were given.

Now we did not get to these figures in one step. The initial idea was to carve something out of rock, since the overall department was known as The Rock Mechanics and Explosives Research Center. However, if you are making something out of rock, particularly a person’s shape, they need to be larger, because of the weak strength of the rock.

Figure 4. Comic-book Miner cut out of Missouri Granite

The cost was also high, since the cuts had to be made with abrasive, and the rock had to be polished before it was cut. (Trying to polish the pick points after cutting led to several breakages, and this is something that is either perfect or worthless).

There are several good ideas that individual companies have, that help sell their name and capabilities where the gifts are of metal, and can be used for opening bottles or of some other benefit. But we could not afford the cost to cut a lot of pieces using abrasive, and nothing that we tried in metal had the cachet of the small miners.

In this case the mascot of the campus is the Missouri Miner, and while the first model that we cut followed along the shape of that cartoonish figure, many of our graduates were going into coal mining, which is also my background, and so the second and third versions had coal mining helmets, and as a further demonstration of capabilities, a small circular cut in the helmet allowed a yellow rod to be put into the helmet to illustrate the miner’s cap lamp.

Where we were asked to prepare small souvenirs for another event we did use the Missouri Granite, but had learned this time to buy tiles that were already polished. Then all we had to do was to cut the shape of the state into the tiles, and then put a University logo sticker on the piece and we had our memento for the guests.

Figure 5. Small memento of the state shape carved out of granite tile.

This was for a specific occasion where the sponsor was willing to pay for both the cutting costs and the materials, but in order to keep costs down (since these were given away) the pieces had to be small. This particular run was one of the more difficult to keep inventory on, since several disappeared during the short time of the cutting runs (which we have found is an occupational hazard with “artistic” pieces where there are lots of temporary folk involved in our work).

Which is, I suspect, an entry for the last piece of advice on making such gifts, and that is to plan on making more than you think you need, and, if possible, be able to make more if needed. In a later post I will write about where you can get some artistic help for relatively little cost to help with ideas such as this.