______________S_E_C_U_L_I_N_E_____C_O_N_S_U_L_T_I_N_G_____________

Ref: SC-GVS-070921-001A

Date: 21 Sept 2007

To: HFGW Working Group

Cc: Distribution

From: G. V. Stephenson

Subj: 2nd International HFGW Working Group Meeting Minutes

Introduction

The Second International High-Frequency Gravitational Waves (HFGW)

Workshop was held from 17 Sept 2007 to 20 Sept 2007 at the UT Pickle
Research Center in Austin, Texas.

The conference host was the Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin.
Conference chairs were Dr. Robert M. L. Baker, Jr. (Honorary Chairman), Dr.
Hal Puthoff (Co-Chairman), and Dr. Eric W. Davis (Co-Chairman and workshop
organizer). What follows are my meeting minutes for this workshop.

Monday, 17 Sept 2007

8:30am - Welcome Dr. Hal Puthoff

Dr. Hal Puthoff opened the workshop by welcoming attendees and providing a
few highlights on the research interests of the Institute for Advanced Studies at
Austin (IASA). Research areas of interest include the theoretical development
of the Polarizable Vacuum (PV) Model of General Relativity (GR) in which
gravity may be represented by an index of refraction equivalent to optics.
Experimental research is also conducted at IASA, including a test of the
Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) model as an alternative to dark matter.

Welcome Dr. Eric Davis

Dr. Eric Davis welcomed the workshop attendees. He provided the encouraging
announcement that the American academic General Relativity Group (GRG) had
finally acknowledged that HFGWs is a viable research area and has projected
future participation in the 8 to 12 year time frame. Eric also announced that he
is writing a new book with his co-author/co-editor Marc Millis of NASA, to be
titled Frontiers in Propulsion Science. Publication in the fall of 2008 was
announced.

______________S_E_C_U_L_I_N_E_____C_O_N_S_U_L_T_I_N_G_____________
1
 ______________S_E_C_U_L_I_N_E_____C_O_N_S_U_L_T_I_N_G_____________

8:45 am Attendee Self Introductions

After introductory remarks by Dr. Hal Puthoff and Dr. Eric Davis, the other
attendees introduced themselves, including Dr. Giorgio Fontana, Dr. Robert M.
L. Baker, Jr., Dr. Fangyu Li, Dr. Zhenyun Fang, Mr. Biao Li, Mr. Jie Zhou, Dr.
Leonid Grishchuk, Dr. Valentin Rudenko, Dr. Christopher (Kit) Green, and
myself. Dr. Clive Woods was not present on the first day but did attend the
Tuesday session.

Dr. Kit Green announced that he is chairing a committee on the development

of advanced technologies for the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that is
interested in how to provide more support for the development of HFGWs and
other future advanced technologies.

9:30 am Dr. Baker Birmingham and Genoa Detectors

For background purposes Bob first presented design details for existing HFGW
detectors that have already been fabricated and tested in the laboratory.
While both have provided null results, they have provided upper limits to the
strength of gravitational waves in the high frequency regime. The Birmingham
detector consists of a microwave waveguide loop with counter-rotating
radiation that is sensitive to 1040 radians, translating to a strain sensitivity h =
1014. The Genoa detector consists of a pair of coupled resonant cavities that
measure changes in resonance properties and is sensitive to h = 1022. While
these levels are not scientifically interesting, they do point out the current
state-of-the-art, and how far there is to go to in order to achieve the
scientifically interesting levels of h = 1030 to 1034 for relic HFGWs, (i.e.,
HFRGWs).

10:00 am - Dr Fangyu Li Two Approaches for HFGW Detectors

Dr. Li presented two HFGW detector approaches that could in principal achieve
sensitivities down to h 1032. The first design has the GW traveling along the
z-axis, along with a Gaussian Beam (GB) of EM energy at a tuning frequency
of interest (half the HFGW frequency), a strong static magnetic field (5 to 10
Tesla) along the y-axis, and a fractal membrane in the yz-plane directing signal
photons (a.k.a. Perturbative Photon Flux) along the x-axis in both directions,
to detectors some 37 cm away.

A geometric distribution difference is predicted between the signal photons

and the background photons that was a matter of debate in the question and
answer period. The existence of signal photons on the x-axis was also a topic of
discussion, since this would imply a big change in momentum vector in these
photons if they were originally part of the Gaussian Beam. It was recommended
by the audience that the role of the fractal membranes also be clarified,
possibly by separating this component out and including in a separate paper.

______________S_E_C_U_L_I_N_E_____C_O_N_S_U_L_T_I_N_G_____________
2
______________S_E_C_U_L_I_N_E_____C_O_N_S_U_L_T_I_N_G_____________

A second design option was also presented, in which the HFGW enters a
resonant cavity (RC) filled with a strong magnetic field, bounded on both ends
by superconducting fractal membranes, such that only the perturbative photon
flux is transmitted, and background photon flux is not. Q of the cavity
approach is predicted to be in the range of 1011 to 1012. This design was not
analyzed as vigorously as the first. Both detector options would need to be
cryogenically maintained in the milli-Kelvin temperature range.

12:00 pm Lunch Break

1:00 pm Discussion Period

In accordance with the guidance that extraordinary claims require

extraordinary proof, and because the possible sensitivities quoted for the
preceding detectors were judged to be quite extraordinary, after lunch a
number of issues were discussed regarding the formulations of the sensitivity
calculations:
x-axis Propagation - There was a question of whether there would
be photons propagating along the x-axis for the GB design, or
whether or not there would simply be a field fluctuation at this
point, without corresponding photon travel. Dr. Li responded that
the energy-momentum tensor affected (or perturbed) the travel
of existing photons in the Gaussian Beam, and no new photons
were created.
Non-resonant Gertsenshtein Path Length - There was a question
about whether the GB design could take advantage of the
Gertsenshtein Effect without a resonant cavity, since the
Gertsenshtein Effect usually predicts very long path lengths to
build up the necessary (high-Q) synchro-resonance signal. Dr. Li
responded that in this case the magnetic field created synchro-
resonance in conjunction with the Gaussian Beam, and that this
resonance, because of the spatial difference in signal photon, the
background photon flux did not require a high Q nor did it depend
on a resonant cavity for the GB case.
Apparent Geometric Signal Torque - For the GB case, the
difference in distribution between the signal and background
photons seemed to be asymmetric, in that some octets had more
signal photons than others creating a net torque style term that
seems to have no reason to arise. The authors Li, Baker, and I
agreed to revisit the calculations. Eric Davis also reviewed the
calculations and could not find errors in this area, but
nevertheless we will revisit these calculations.
Limits on Gertsenshtein Path Length - For the resonant cavity (RC)
case, caution in using the Gertsenshtein Effect was advised on
two fronts: there is the effect of Faraday Rotation on the

______________S_E_C_U_L_I_N_E_____C_O_N_S_U_L_T_I_N_G_____________
3
______________S_E_C_U_L_I_N_E_____C_O_N_S_U_L_T_I_N_G_____________

resultant photon flux, as this limits the coherence length of the

photon signal flux and there is, per Zeldovich, the effect of
matter (e.g., an imperfect vacuum) on coherence length. These
together will place a limit on Q. A Q of 1011 to 1012 was estimated
as a reasonable upper bound, but it was agreed that these limits
required further study.
Effects of Q on Signal-to-Noise-Ratio - For both designs, the effect
of Q is more pronounced for monochromatic HFGWs (such as
would be produced in the lab) than stochastic HFGWs (such as
from relic cosmological or local astrophysical origin). When
determining the theoretical limit on strain sensitivity, the root of
the energy to quantum limit ratio can be linearly divided by Q for
sensing a monochromatic source, but only as the root of Q for a
stochastic source. This limit was calculated in the workshop and
seemed to indicate a limit of roughly h 10-26, so Li, Baker, and I
agreed to revisit this calculation to determine if other hidden
sources of Q may improve the results of the calculation, such as
for instance, the geometric filtering of the signal from the
background due to the energy-momentum tensor or the signal
focusing (and background defocusing) effects of the fractal
membranes.

2:00 pm Biao Li Numerical Simulation of Gaussian Beam

Biao Li presented a paper on the progress on numerically simulating the

Gaussian Beam for use with the GB detector. Three-dimensional energy
distribution was modeled in cylindrical coordinates along the z-axis, radially in
R, and through the range of values. Even at z = 0, some radial energy
distribution was seen beyond the boundary of the beam cylinder, perhaps due
to diffraction.

During discussion it was pointed out that it was difficult to see what
percentage of the overall energy would make it to the detectors at x = 37 cm
where z = 0. This is an important value since it would result in background
photon flux at the detectors which would potentially drown out the signal
photons. However, the effect of the fractal membrane was not considered and
it was recommended that baffles also be added to the simulation to determine
their effectiveness in reducing overall background at the detector location.
Because of the importance of the design and layout of the detection
mechanism to overall RF signal properties, it is important that the RF or
microwave engineer take a leading role in determining the optimum design and
physical arrangement of all RF and microwave components so as to maximize
signal and reduce noise to a minimum.

3:00 pm Jie Zhou Signal Processing for Weak HFGW Detection

______________S_E_C_U_L_I_N_E_____C_O_N_S_U_L_T_I_N_G_____________
4
 ______________S_E_C_U_L_I_N_E_____C_O_N_S_U_L_T_I_N_G_____________

A signal processing trade study was presented for the signal processing options
that may be relevant to HFGW detection. In the case where we can pick one
frequency, such as with a lab generated or other monochromatic source, a
phase-locked amplifier /-filter approach may be used. Where this is not
applicable, such as with relic HFGWs, Fast-Fourier-Transforms (FFTs and matrix
FFTs) may be used to extract signals with specific spectral energy distributions.
If the signature of specific sources of HFGWs can be theoretically calculated in
advance, matched filters could also be used to extract signals with particular
signatures. Adaptive filters such as line enhancers and adaptive noise
cancellation may also be necessary to cope with a structured background
environment. Harmonic retrieval can also be helpful in determining which
signals are genuine when both signals and noise are stochastic.

A number of issues were raised regarding this topic during the discussion
period. The first was that we need to determine from the cosmological
community what the expected signatures will be for HFGWs there are a range
of possible sources and the signatures will potentially be different for each
type of source. Once these temporal and spectral signatures can be modeled,
these models can be used in simulation of the signal processing, and the signal
processing simulation can then try various types and combinations of algorithms
until the optimum set is identified and implemented. The second issue was the
use of multiple detectors. While it is true that multiple detectors (or even
multiple detectors in multiple locations) would assist greatly in signal
processing of a detection event, it is important to consider the full range of
correlation functions to preserve all detections, taking into account that the
HFGW source may not be isotropic, and that arrival times could vary
significantly depending on the incident angle to each detector and the relative
locations of the detectors. In general, it is clear that we will need more
definition of the signal characteristics before further progress can be made on
simulating the signal processing options. Investigating and determining the best
guesses as to signal signatures is always a big part of the signal processing job.

4:00 pm Gary Stephenson Ultra- High Sensitivity HFGW Detector

I presented an overview of the Li-Baker GB option HFGW detector and outlined

possible ultra-sensitive microwave detectors that could be used to pick up the
PPF signal. The first detector option presented was a standard microwave horn
coupled to an HEMT (High Electron Mobility Transistor) amplifier. The second
option presented was a Rydberg Atom cavity that uses excited atom transitions
to detect a photon, and the third option presented was a circuit-QED (Quantum
Electronics Device) type detector that uses a state change in a Josephson
Junction coupled cavity pair (Cooper Boxes) to look for the detection of a
microwave photon. During discussion the suggestion was made to also look at
other prepared state quantum detections to possibly get below the quantum
noise limit by using squeezed states or other special non-linear quantum optics
methods.

______________S_E_C_U_L_I_N_E_____C_O_N_S_U_L_T_I_N_G_____________
5
______________S_E_C_U_L_I_N_E_____C_O_N_S_U_L_T_I_N_G_____________

5:00 pm Discussion / Wrap up

A brief discussion was held to wrap up the day. The difficulties seen in the GB
detector option were reviewed, and it was observed that due to the
differences in design constraints and signal processing requirements, it might
be better to think about attempting relic HFGWs with a different detector type
than for lab generated HFGWs. Alternatively, it was pointed out that a null
result for relic HFGW detection would be difficult to prove unless there were
first tests of the detector, and the best test of the detector would be with an
HFGW generator. See the 1 pm discussion on 17 Sept 07 for related issues.

5:30 pm Adjourned for the day

Tuesday, 18 Sept 2007

8:30 am Dr. Baker - Introduction

Bob introduced the session by suggesting the audience consider a broadband

relic HFGW detector a spherical cavity filled with a strong magnetic field,
lined with reflective fractal membranes, with multiple detectors placed around
the circumference in all 3 dimensions. The result would be something of an
echo chamber for GW, with a Q that would have to be calculated for a range
of frequencies. If it could be made sufficiently sensitive to be of scientific
interest, the idea would be to tune-in on and simply listen, so that the noise
and any signals could be characterized and compared with theory.

9:00 am Dr. Fontana - HTSC GASER

Giorgio presented a design for a gravitational laser similar to his presentation

at the 2003 Mitre Conference. It is based on work by Halpern & Desbrandes (see
also Halpern & Laurent) which predicts that a small fraction of transitions
result in the generation of gravitons versus photons. The ratio is nominally on
the order of 1036 for protons and 1043 for electrons. A design was presented
that enhances this ratio by creating a transition that favors graviton production
via a LTSC to HTSC Josephson junction with a transition of spin = 2. With a
Cooper pair density of 1020/cm3 and an operating frequency of 1.3 THz, an
energy of 1 mJ is predicted resulting in a peak power of 100 W for a plane
HFGW wave with amplitude of h = 1028.

Issues raised during discussion: What can be used to synchronize all of the
graviton emission? What causes the particular operating frequency - carrier
statistics in combination with geometry? Does the device need to be smaller
than the wavelength of emission? What is the mechanism for maintaining an
inverted population of gravitons in the superconducting material without
destroying the superconducting state are these conditions mutually exclusive?

______________S_E_C_U_L_I_N_E_____C_O_N_S_U_L_T_I_N_G_____________
6
 ______________S_E_C_U_L_I_N_E_____C_O_N_S_U_L_T_I_N_G_____________

10:30 am Dr. Woods Variable Focus HFGW Lens

Similar to several of his papers presented at STAIF, Clive presented designs for
variable focus HFGW lenses based on the work of Li & Torr (1993) which
predicted superconductors have an index of refraction n = 300. The assumption
of LI & Torr was the main point of contention during the discussion period.
However, it was agreed that if superconductors or any other material is found
to have a non-unity index of refraction, then this work will still ultimately be of
value.

12:00 pm Lunch Break

1:00 pm Dr. Fang High Energy Gravitons

Zhenyun Fang started his talk by reviewing the hierarchy problem, which can
be stated as the question, Why is gravity so weak when compared to the other
forces of nature? One answer to this may be the use of extra space
dimensions, which depend on the model selected. Alternative cosmological
models were then presented, each with their own unique dimensionalities and
graviton emission models. The search for extra dimensions is currently ongoing
using Tevatron at Fermilab, HERA at DESY, Hamburg, and LEP at CERN, Geneva.
In discussion it was stated that even if the detection and measurement of
HFRGW is successful, this alone will not be enough to differentiate between
the quantum gravity models, since the owners of each model will simply adjust
their parameters to match the result. In other words, there are no clear cut
differential predictions by any of the models in the area of graviton or HFGW
distributions or energies.

3:00 pm Dr. Rudenko HFGW of Astrophysical Origin

Valentin Rudenko presented an overview of the astrophysical origins of HFGW.

The following sources are expected to provide significant contributions to the
HFGW background:
(1) Thermal GW emission from stars
(2) EM-to-GW synchro-resonance conversion in cosmic & interstellar
media
(3) GW relic background from the big bang
(4) Primordial black hole evaporation
These sources added together are predicted to provide h = 1024 to 1025 for
LIGO frequency ranges and 1030 to 1037 for HFGW ranges. Valentin judged h =
1034 as the most likely amplitude for HFGW. Unfortunately, based on his
analysis of the sensitivity formula, which takes the root of the energy ratio to
the quantum limit, and divides by the root of Q (for stochastic signals),
Valentin predicted that the most sensitive single HFGW detector currently

______________S_E_C_U_L_I_N_E_____C_O_N_S_U_L_T_I_N_G_____________
7
______________S_E_C_U_L_I_N_E_____C_O_N_S_U_L_T_I_N_G_____________

possible is at the h = 1026 level. Improvements may be possible by dropping the

quantum noise level, such as through the use of squeezed light via QED or QND.

5:00 pm Adjourned for the day

6:00 pm Dinner cruise on Lady Bird Lake

Wednesday, 19 Sept 2007

9:00 am Dr. Grishchuk - HFRGW and Its Detection (Part 1 HFRGW)

Leonid presented his formulation of GWs as a set of parametric excited

oscillators, inevitably generated (Grishchuk JETP, 1974) via an engine-driven
cosmology (quote from Wheeler) exciting the gravitational wave equation. In
the context of most cosmologies, the cutoff frequency is about 3 1010 Hz. The
spectrum falls-off in strength as 1/f noise does with some uncertainty in the
slope. His energy density predictions for the HFGW range result in strain
estimates of h = 5 1030 to 5 1034, with a nominal value of 1032. The form
of the HFGWs is predicted to be a stochastic collection of mixed polarizations.

10:30 am - Break

11:00 am Dr. Grishchuk - HFRGW and Its Detection (Part 2 Detection)

The second part of Leonids presentation focused on detection options for

HFGWs. Three options were presented: use H (static magnetic field), use E
(static E-field), or use some combination of E and H. In the first case, signal
energy ~ hQH, in the second case ~ hQE, and with H & E, ~ hQEH. For
relic HFGWs the noise goes as Q, so the signal-to-noise ratio equation is the
same as presented by Valentin, the root of the energy ratio to the quantum
limit, divided by Q. Energy may be improved by increasing integration volume,
Q may be improved by increasing the integration time, and the cross
correlation of multiple detectors can help going ideally as the root of N,
where N is the number of detectors. Further improvement in sensitivity below
the quantum limit will require the use of squeezed quantum states.

Leonid also suggested we investigate a GW-to-phonon approach using a large

crystal like a Weber bar with the various modes of periodic boundary conditions
in the crystal being used to assist in the integration of resultant signals.
References for this approach include Grishchuk (1984) and MTW (1973), p 1035.

12:00 pm Lunch Break

1:00 pm Detection Roundtable Discussion

______________S_E_C_U_L_I_N_E_____C_O_N_S_U_L_T_I_N_G_____________
8
______________S_E_C_U_L_I_N_E_____C_O_N_S_U_L_T_I_N_G_____________

The main points from this discussion were incorporated into the minutes of the
1 pm discussion of 17 Sept 2007.

2:00 pm Dr. Green Whats Gone Wrong? - A Profile of HFGW

Kit Green presented his view and analysis of why it is that HFGWs has not
received more mainstream attention and funding. His judgment is that the
following problems apply:
(1) No Gravitas (no importance seen)
(2) Not enough people (no infrastructure)
(3) Importance not understood
(4) Applications are not believed
The result of the above problems is that the subject is marginalized and,
therefore, not followed by the mainstream physics community. Kit suggested
the following approach for improving the subject matters standing prior to the
next working group meeting:
Generate new hypotheses (vs. testing old ones)
Invent new knowledge (not just confirm old)
Focus on near-term realistic applications (do not over-promise)
Investigate the unexplained, rather than explain the uninvestigated.
Kelleher & Knapp (2005)

3:00 pm Gary Stephenson Calculating Technology Readiness Level (TRL)

I presented an overview of the concept of technology readiness levels and

presented the TRL Calculator (available free on the web), a spreadsheet that
assists in determining the TRL level of a technology. Based on the results of
this calculator, HFGW is judged to currently be at TRL = 2.

4:00 pm Dr. Green - Funding Plan Roundtable Discussion

Kit Green led this discussion which centered on the plan forward as it related
to funding constraints. His question to the group was as follows: if IASA were
given a seed grant of the $20K, $30K, or $50K range to organize the field of
HFGW, would this amount be of value, and if so, how best would it be spent?

Also asked of the attendees: what should the future structure be of the HFGW
working group? Should we form a non-governmental organization (NGO)? Should
we incorporate and form a non-for-profit (503.c) organization? Or should we
simply continue as an informal working group, inviting new members as
deemed necessary for the advancement of this field? These were open
questions posed to the collected group that were answered during the closing
session on Thursday afternoon.

5:00 pm - Adjourned

______________S_E_C_U_L_I_N_E_____C_O_N_S_U_L_T_I_N_G_____________
9
______________S_E_C_U_L_I_N_E_____C_O_N_S_U_L_T_I_N_G_____________

Thursday, 20 Sept 2007

8:30 am Dr. Baker HFGW Generators

Bob presented the quadrupole formulation of a mass dipole that predicts that
HFGW power goes as the third-derivative of motion. Two different types of
generators were presented that take advantage of this formulation a
MEMS/FBAR (Micro-Electromechanical System/Film Bulk Acoustic Resonator)
HFGW generator which uses the oscillation of MEMS/FBAR elements to create
the HFGW, and a synchronized X-ray laser pulse HFGW generator that uses the
motion of the X-ray laser targets to create HFGWs. Both could be strengthened
by synchronizing the multiple elements in phase.

It is predicted that if the MEMS/FBAR type generator operates at 4.9 GHz GW

output, then it will require on the order of 2 MW to operate. Bob indicated that
his business partner Fred Noble could provide this power from his 10 MW
experimental substation at Palm Springs if power provisions become a major
obstacle to building and running a generation experiment.

9:30 am Gary Stephenson HFGW Generator Animation

An animation was presented that gave a time sequenced overview of the

theoretical operation of a MEMS/FBAR HFGW generator & its detection, a
synchronized X-ray laser pulse HFGW generator & its detection, and a possible
application of HFGW as a Frequency Time Standard (FTS). During discussion it
was pointed out that the MEMS/FBAR HFGW generator should have had a more
sinusoidal motion, and that the frequency of the generated HFGWs should have
been twice the frequency of the resonant motion of the FBARs.

10:00 am Dr. Fontana Summary of Rapagnani Presentation

Giorgio presented the highlights of a presentation that Dr Rapagnani had

originally presented for a conference in Rome on 13 Dec 2005. The
presentation was an overview of the state of the art in HFGWs. The summary
statement from the presentation was that the field of HFGWs has transitioned
from the impossible to the impractical.

10:30 am Dr. Li Discussion of Gaussian Beams and Fractal Membranes

Fangyu Li presented his clarification points on why he is using a Gaussian beam

(GB) and why he is using a Fractal Membrane in his detector design. He is using
the Gaussian beam because it is required for the particular solution to General
Relativity, because it provides the photons that are redirected by the energy-
momentum tensor to provide the perturbative photon flux (PPF), and because
the PPF and BPF (B = background) will have different geometric distributions,

______________S_E_C_U_L_I_N_E_____C_O_N_S_U_L_T_I_N_G_____________
10
______________S_E_C_U_L_I_N_E_____C_O_N_S_U_L_T_I_N_G_____________

different phases, and different decay patterns. The fractal membrane is used
to improve the reflection of the PPF, so that it may be measured up to 1 meter
from the GB where the BPF will be negligible. Co-authors Li, Baker, and I
agreed to revisit the calculations, and to possibly split the paper into separate
pieces to help clarify how the physics and the formulations are related.

12:00 pm Lunch Break

1:30 pm Closing Session: Follow-up Actions

In the closing session it was resolved by the collected group in attendance that:

(a) The HFGW Working Group should continue as an informal but

permanent working group, at least for the present, and
(b) If funding is offered it would be best spent by hiring one or
more postdoctoral research candidates trained in General
Relativity to organize and further the field of HFGW.

Dr. Grishchuk indicated that if more than one postdoctoral candidates could be
hired, and that if at least one could be assigned to study at Cardiff University,
that under those circumstances he would be willing to entertain the notion of
providing academic sponsorship for the HFGW Working Group and greater
community.

The follow-up actions below were developed and recorded:

(1) Provide for the formation of a permanent HFGW Working Group

(2) Investigate the Solid State HFGW Antenna Approach (phonon detection)
(3) Resolve Membership Determination Criteria
(4) Hire and Assign one or more postdoctoral candidates to organize the
field of HFGW research
(5) Develop a draft roadmap (Formulate our program)
(6) Compile a comprehensive HFGW bibliography
(7) Develop an exchange student program
(8) Encourage peer reviewed paper production

As representatives of IASA, Hal Puthoff and Eric Davis indicated their

willingness to expand the HFGW Working Group website as necessary to provide
for the continued communications of working group members, including any
discussions necessary to resolve the above follow-up actions.

2:30 pm Workshop Adjourned

3:00 pm Tour of IASA Facility

5:00 pm Social Mixer / Farewell

______________S_E_C_U_L_I_N_E_____C_O_N_S_U_L_T_I_N_G_____________
11