<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII" http-equiv=Content-Type> <META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18928"></HEAD> <BODY style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 10pt" id=role_body bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 rightMargin=7 topMargin=7><FONT id=role_document color=#000000 size=2 face=Arial> <DIV>If Graham keeps this up he's likely to just wear the thing out. Yeah. Once again this is not any sort of prediction -- I think the 7h 36m interval is fantastic -- but I can recall there being discussions as to whether it was possible for the false indicator series of the past to be the result of too much energy in the system. Awfully frequent, long durations, joined in 1994 by Dome and Giantess, and etc. So, I wonder, could this be more of the same. (Just trying to keep you all a-thinkin'.)</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> <DIV>In a message dated 8/10/2010 7:13:17 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time, meechg@verizon.net writes:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" color=#000000 size=3 face="Times New Roman">Well my comment yesterday about having to wait till next week to see Beehive do something different was pessimistic, I should have said "wait till tomorrow".  The apparent mid-cycle  indicator that started ~7h25m after the prior Beehive turned out to be a real indicator - Beehive interval just ~7h36m!  Looking at Ralphs data, the shortest interval recorded since the electronic logs started in 2003 was over 8 hours, so this was a lot shorter than that.  Having been blamed for breaking  Beehive earlier, do I get praised for making it erupt with such a short interval now?</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>