 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
nuckollsr(at)cox.net
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 27, 2007 8:58 pm Post subject: The simple ideas . . . |
 |
|
At 10:18 PM 1/27/2007 -0500, you wrote:
| Quote: | Bob: You said, "I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding and
substance in your last postings" in your response to George's comments on
internally regulated alternators. But isn't he just saying pretty much
what the Plane Power people, brochures, and product specs say? Tough for
us "pilots" out here to know the "electrical truth" when the experts are
this far apart on the "facts".
|
<snip>
| Quote: |
Scratching my head in South Carolina,
Lee...
|
I can see why you're confused. Please allow me to summarize
about 3 or 4 years of the discussions about IR vs. ER alternators
in terms of the simple-ideas.
First, I have NEVER advised against the use of internally regulated
alternators out of any perceptions or beliefs that they were not
a really great product and an excellent value. Unlike the
products our TC aircraft brethren are stuck with, the OBAM
aviation community is free to take advantage of a technology
that get better, lighter and less expensive everything the
designs roll over. I firmly believe IR alternators are worthy
of considerable attention.
I'm a systems designer with no small amount of experience both
in seeking customer satisfaction and getting hardware
qualified onto certificated aircraft. I believe I have a unique
perspective from which I have crafted the following DESIGN GOALS
for incorporating this marvelous technology into OBAM aircraft.
(1) Seamless integration of the IR alternator into ANY aircraft
such that it is transparent to the pilot as to what kind of machine
may be churning out the watt-seconds under the cowl. For my
design goals this means absolute ON/OFF control under any conditions,
any time without concern for the safety of other systems components
or the alternator itself. This is a feature our brothers flying
TC aircraft have enjoyed since day-one. Whether my detractors
embrace this idea is irrelevant. If I'm going to put my name on
a recommendation for any material or process, I first have to
believe it's at least support if not enhancement of the
best-we-know-how-to-do.
(2) We've all heard numerous reports of what I'll call
anomalous output voltage conditions that have caused batteries
to get fat . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery/Odyssey_OV/Odyssey_OV_1.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery/Odyssey_OV/Odyssey_OV_3.jpg
. . . pegged ammeters, and various system components to be damaged.
My detractors would have us believe these were not "real" runaway, OV
events but "mild" aberrations in regulator performance that
simply did not warrant any over-reactions that might suggest these
admittedly marvelous products are not bullet-proof. My detractors
suggest that folks who suffered these events were just asleep at
the stick. Had they been paying attention, would would have caught
the event in progress and pulled the b-lead breaker before anything
bad happened.
Only a couple of things wrong with this. First, there has been
(under my design goals which echo the industry) to move b-lead
breakers off the panel and get the b-lead protection under the
cowl. This has been a solid feature in all the Z-figure drawings
for over 20 years . . . it's been a practice on many aircraft
for longer than that. Question: Is it consistent with anyones
design goals to (1) reinstate the b-lead breaker's proud position on
the panel simply to (2) afford the alert pilot a means by which
he can jump on his white horse, don his white hat and ride
over the hill to rescue electro-whizzies in distress from
the ravages of an aberrant alternator?
Consider that an alternator in a true, unrestrained OV condition
has a rate-of-rise in output voltage that is nothing
less than spectacular. If you think the heat and fire
from an arc-welder's stick is impressive at 70 volts DC,
imagine the possibilities from 100-200 volts DC.
I seriously doubt that the contact clearances in the panel
mounted, finger operated circuit breaker will successfully
open runaway alternator's output without itself being
destroyed by a tiny sun within that represents the alternator's
highest energy dump just before it self destructs.
None-the-less, many folks have adopted this policy including
those who install Van's wiring as suggested using ANY popular
alternator.
There are further considerations for integrating the IR alternator
into aircraft. Since day-one, we have been able to make the
electrical system dead-cold from the pilot's seat by flipping
a switch . . . to date I'm aware of NO IR alternator that
can be turned off by any means other than stopping the engine.
Further, if you have more than one alternator installed would
it not be especially convenient if the pilot can turn each one
on and off at will during pre-flight to check functionality
of the alternators in independent operation and in concert?
Finally, there has been much ballyhoo with respect to the
"built in" protections afforded us by modern IR alternators.
Being right next door to the "Show-Me" state, I'm reluctant to
embrace these claims without benefit of what is commonly called
critical design review. I.e., "tell me how it works."
My most recent detractor cited this device an prima facie
evidence of these features . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Semiconductors/MC33092A.pdf
So far this is the ONLY regulator schematic I've been able
to dissect in detail and I would offer the following points
of inspection for the casual observers:
The last "bang for the buck bullet" on the first page
says:
"Undervoltage, Overvoltage and Phase Fault (Broken Belt) Detection"
May I emphasize the word DETECTION? A study of the
schematic on Page 3 confirms not only that OV detection
shares the same sense pathways and control as the
regulator portion, an OV event only serves to light the
warning light . . . it makes no attempt to shut the
alternator down. Further, if transistor Q2 in the
schematic shorts, there's nothing the regulator could
do about it other than light the light.
My detractors may say, "Well, that's an old chip.
the new ones are better." Nobody would be happier than
I to see the schematic and to know which devices might
be compliant with my design goals. But to date, I've
not seen it.
So what's a mother to do? My design goal includes
being able to walk into any parts store, purchase
any alternator I can make fit the engine and have
it operate per the control features described above
which happen to include separate, stand-alone OV
protection and automatic shut-down of the offending
device.
If I achieve those goals, I can offer the OBAM
builder a means by which any alternator can be tried
with the risks being no worse and hopefully better than
those suffered by our spam-can flying brethren.
I would have hoped those who so stridently support the
IR alternator's future in aviation would have
championed my cause and been pleased that I was
"joining their side". But alas, just as we have
observed in other arenas of the human condition,
detractors of ideas are not really about the ideas,
they're about counting coup. If I submitted totally
to their demands, they'd find some new mission to
launch.
So, while my detractors make much smoke and brush
aside other pilot's experience with smoke, I'm
spending a lot of time and cash to acquire testing
facilities that will allow me to duplicate the
conditions under which my vision of the future
needs to operate. Yes, it's slow. This is my
night-time, fun-job. I still need to pay bills.
But it's moving along much faster than I had
hoped.
My detractors have pounded me soundly about the
head and shoulders when I related first-hand knowledge
and experience about B&C's products yet one of them
now champions products by Plane Power. I knew the
internal workings of B&C's products because I was
involve in their design, fabrication and field
service. Now we might ask from what perspective
does he tout Plane Power? Has he done critical
design review? Has he even seen information about the
product that goes beyond the sales literature?
In fact, one of my detractors made some rather ungentlemanly
remarks about a List member who shared his alternator failure
experience with us. This was noted by the last two individuals
who contacted me directly about their own experiences. Seems
they did not want to risk the same abuse and saw fit to
keep their experiences private.
Know that my goal is for the OBAM airplane builder
to be able to install ANY brand, ANY part number alternator
with ANY pedigree or service record with the confidence
that their choice can result in nothing more serious
than a service event. I.e. FAILURE TOLERANT.
Now, for those of you who are bewildered by the
differences of opinion in what appears to be a
"battle of two learned titans" understand this.
My detractors have yet to come forward with any
simple-ideas that describe either (1) how what
I've described can be improved upon, (2) how
what I've described cannot function to the design
goals or most important (3) why the design goals
as stated are not worthy of the $time$ it takes
to bring them to practical fruition.
If I am successful, my customers will enjoy access
to a product with performance claims supported by
repeatable experiment and a life-time warranty.
Their customers are told to "suck it up Jack . . .
and learn to be quicker on that b-lead breaker".
Therefore I submit to you that one of us "learned
titans" is not only dead wrong but has a mean streak
to exercise when his facade begins to crack. I leave
to you to decide who is teacher and who are no more
than net-hooligans.
Bob . . .
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sportav8r(at)gmail.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 5:30 am Post subject: The simple ideas . . . |
|
|
Bob: great reply that deserves its own place in the 'Connection
Appendices for future reference by all new purchasers of the book.
You leave me wondering two things pertaining to the system I've
cobbled together and will use until your control unit becomes
available:
1. how quickly will a 17AH Odyssey swell and fail under the full
output of a runaway IR 55 amp machine; am I okay if I can disconnect
within 10 seconds or less? Within 5?
2. will the venreable battery contactor reliably part its contacts
under those same runaway conditions when its solenoid is de-energized?
(I think it will, but I'm depending on it to do so).
Thanks,
-Bill B
On 1/27/07, Robert L. Nuckolls, III <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
At 10:18 PM 1/27/2007 -0500, you wrote:
>Bob: You said, "I'm not going to respond to the lack of understanding and
>substance in your last postings" in your response to George's comments on
>internally regulated alternators. But isn't he just saying pretty much
>what the Plane Power people, brochures, and product specs say? Tough for
>us "pilots" out here to know the "electrical truth" when the experts are
>this far apart on the "facts".
<snip>
>
>Scratching my head in South Carolina,
>
>Lee...
I can see why you're confused. Please allow me to summarize
about 3 or 4 years of the discussions about IR vs. ER alternators
in terms of the simple-ideas.
First, I have NEVER advised against the use of internally regulated
alternators out of any perceptions or beliefs that they were not
a really great product and an excellent value. Unlike the
products our TC aircraft brethren are stuck with, the OBAM
aviation community is free to take advantage of a technology
that get better, lighter and less expensive everything the
designs roll over. I firmly believe IR alternators are worthy
of considerable attention.
I'm a systems designer with no small amount of experience both
in seeking customer satisfaction and getting hardware
qualified onto certificated aircraft. I believe I have a unique
perspective from which I have crafted the following DESIGN GOALS
for incorporating this marvelous technology into OBAM aircraft.
(1) Seamless integration of the IR alternator into ANY aircraft
such that it is transparent to the pilot as to what kind of machine
may be churning out the watt-seconds under the cowl. For my
design goals this means absolute ON/OFF control under any conditions,
any time without concern for the safety of other systems components
or the alternator itself. This is a feature our brothers flying
TC aircraft have enjoyed since day-one. Whether my detractors
embrace this idea is irrelevant. If I'm going to put my name on
a recommendation for any material or process, I first have to
believe it's at least support if not enhancement of the
best-we-know-how-to-do.
(2) We've all heard numerous reports of what I'll call
anomalous output voltage conditions that have caused batteries
to get fat . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery/Odyssey_OV/Odyssey_OV_1.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Battery/Odyssey_OV/Odyssey_OV_3.jpg
. . . pegged ammeters, and various system components to be damaged.
My detractors would have us believe these were not "real" runaway, OV
events but "mild" aberrations in regulator performance that
simply did not warrant any over-reactions that might suggest these
admittedly marvelous products are not bullet-proof. My detractors
suggest that folks who suffered these events were just asleep at
the stick. Had they been paying attention, would would have caught
the event in progress and pulled the b-lead breaker before anything
bad happened.
Only a couple of things wrong with this. First, there has been
(under my design goals which echo the industry) to move b-lead
breakers off the panel and get the b-lead protection under the
cowl. This has been a solid feature in all the Z-figure drawings
for over 20 years . . . it's been a practice on many aircraft
for longer than that. Question: Is it consistent with anyones
design goals to (1) reinstate the b-lead breaker's proud position on
the panel simply to (2) afford the alert pilot a means by which
he can jump on his white horse, don his white hat and ride
over the hill to rescue electro-whizzies in distress from
the ravages of an aberrant alternator?
Consider that an alternator in a true, unrestrained OV condition
has a rate-of-rise in output voltage that is nothing
less than spectacular. If you think the heat and fire
from an arc-welder's stick is impressive at 70 volts DC,
imagine the possibilities from 100-200 volts DC.
I seriously doubt that the contact clearances in the panel
mounted, finger operated circuit breaker will successfully
open runaway alternator's output without itself being
destroyed by a tiny sun within that represents the alternator's
highest energy dump just before it self destructs.
None-the-less, many folks have adopted this policy including
those who install Van's wiring as suggested using ANY popular
alternator.
There are further considerations for integrating the IR alternator
into aircraft. Since day-one, we have been able to make the
electrical system dead-cold from the pilot's seat by flipping
a switch . . . to date I'm aware of NO IR alternator that
can be turned off by any means other than stopping the engine.
Further, if you have more than one alternator installed would
it not be especially convenient if the pilot can turn each one
on and off at will during pre-flight to check functionality
of the alternators in independent operation and in concert?
Finally, there has been much ballyhoo with respect to the
"built in" protections afforded us by modern IR alternators.
Being right next door to the "Show-Me" state, I'm reluctant to
embrace these claims without benefit of what is commonly called
critical design review. I.e., "tell me how it works."
My most recent detractor cited this device an prima facie
evidence of these features . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Semiconductors/MC33092A.pdf
So far this is the ONLY regulator schematic I've been able
to dissect in detail and I would offer the following points
of inspection for the casual observers:
The last "bang for the buck bullet" on the first page
says:
"Undervoltage, Overvoltage and Phase Fault (Broken Belt) Detection"
May I emphasize the word DETECTION? A study of the
schematic on Page 3 confirms not only that OV detection
shares the same sense pathways and control as the
regulator portion, an OV event only serves to light the
warning light . . . it makes no attempt to shut the
alternator down. Further, if transistor Q2 in the
schematic shorts, there's nothing the regulator could
do about it other than light the light.
My detractors may say, "Well, that's an old chip.
the new ones are better." Nobody would be happier than
I to see the schematic and to know which devices might
be compliant with my design goals. But to date, I've
not seen it.
So what's a mother to do? My design goal includes
being able to walk into any parts store, purchase
any alternator I can make fit the engine and have
it operate per the control features described above
which happen to include separate, stand-alone OV
protection and automatic shut-down of the offending
device.
If I achieve those goals, I can offer the OBAM
builder a means by which any alternator can be tried
with the risks being no worse and hopefully better than
those suffered by our spam-can flying brethren.
I would have hoped those who so stridently support the
IR alternator's future in aviation would have
championed my cause and been pleased that I was
"joining their side". But alas, just as we have
observed in other arenas of the human condition,
detractors of ideas are not really about the ideas,
they're about counting coup. If I submitted totally
to their demands, they'd find some new mission to
launch.
So, while my detractors make much smoke and brush
aside other pilot's experience with smoke, I'm
spending a lot of time and cash to acquire testing
facilities that will allow me to duplicate the
conditions under which my vision of the future
needs to operate. Yes, it's slow. This is my
night-time, fun-job. I still need to pay bills.
But it's moving along much faster than I had
hoped.
My detractors have pounded me soundly about the
head and shoulders when I related first-hand knowledge
and experience about B&C's products yet one of them
now champions products by Plane Power. I knew the
internal workings of B&C's products because I was
involve in their design, fabrication and field
service. Now we might ask from what perspective
does he tout Plane Power? Has he done critical
design review? Has he even seen information about the
product that goes beyond the sales literature?
In fact, one of my detractors made some rather ungentlemanly
remarks about a List member who shared his alternator failure
experience with us. This was noted by the last two individuals
who contacted me directly about their own experiences. Seems
they did not want to risk the same abuse and saw fit to
keep their experiences private.
Know that my goal is for the OBAM airplane builder
to be able to install ANY brand, ANY part number alternator
with ANY pedigree or service record with the confidence
that their choice can result in nothing more serious
than a service event. I.e. FAILURE TOLERANT.
Now, for those of you who are bewildered by the
differences of opinion in what appears to be a
"battle of two learned titans" understand this.
My detractors have yet to come forward with any
simple-ideas that describe either (1) how what
I've described can be improved upon, (2) how
what I've described cannot function to the design
goals or most important (3) why the design goals
as stated are not worthy of the $time$ it takes
to bring them to practical fruition.
If I am successful, my customers will enjoy access
to a product with performance claims supported by
repeatable experiment and a life-time warranty.
Their customers are told to "suck it up Jack . . .
and learn to be quicker on that b-lead breaker".
Therefore I submit to you that one of us "learned
titans" is not only dead wrong but has a mean streak
to exercise when his facade begins to crack. I leave
to you to decide who is teacher and who are no more
than net-hooligans.
Bob . . .
|
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuckollsr(at)cox.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 6:26 am Post subject: The simple ideas . . . |
|
|
At 08:29 AM 1/28/2007 -0500, you wrote:
| Quote: |
Bob: great reply that deserves its own place in the 'Connection
Appendices for future reference by all new purchasers of the book.
|
Thank you sir but as noted here . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/What's_the_AeroElectric-List_About.pdf
. . . if I were to attempt to put everything we know into
"the book" it would be too big and too expensive to attract
any customers. No single feature of the AeroElectric Connection
effort can be all inclusive. Each experience has the potential
for solving an immediate problem . . . or opening doors for
further exploration. The success of the venture has less to do
with how much is written in what place . . . but upon the
amazing random access capabilities of the minds of folks who
enjoy total immersion in such things and are ready to offer
guidance to any who seek it.
I may have recently accepted the duty of maintaining an
atmosphere of friendly cooperation in the development and
sharing of new ideas . . . but I can only be the conductor.
You folks are playing the music.
By the way, here's another piece I wrote on the topic of
alternator failures . . .
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/Alternator_Failures.pdf
| Quote: | You leave me wondering two things pertaining to the system I've
cobbled together and will use until your control unit becomes
available:
1. how quickly will a 17AH Odyssey swell and fail under the full
output of a runaway IR 55 amp machine; am I okay if I can disconnect
within 10 seconds or less? Within 5?
|
Some years ago I did a little work on the bench to
quantify rate of rise across the terminals of a battery
when driven by various constant current sources. This
is what an alternator does when in a runaway condition.
It puts out a relatively constant current with for all
practical purposes, an unlimited voltage potential.
I launched into a task to explore and write about some
issues in electrical system dynamics and I believe I
published some work in progress that included some plots
of rate-of-rise during potentially hazardous OV events.
I can't put my hands on the work right now but I do intend
to expand that work and publish it. Some years ago Paul
M. went off to "do some studies of alternator performance"
on a drive stand. I was elated. "Let's talk man. There's some
things we need to know about how these critters behave under
various conditions." In spite of much claims as to the work
accomplished, no data was forthcoming. That's when I knew that
a drive stand was in my own future.
In a nutshell, an ov condition does not result in lightning
fast voltage excursions. The battery will do its best to
soak up the excess energy and does a really good job of
keeping the bus voltage from launching for the moon. For
example: suppose you had a 60A alternator and was running a
20A system load when the failure occurs. This leaves 40A +
of overcharge capability that the battery will attempt to
soak up. Depending on size of battery and its condition, the
voltage may rise to 16 or so volts over the next second and
then climb relatively slowly from there as it succumbs to the
overcharge. In my earlier post I cited the alternator's ability
to jack up voltage when "unrestrained" . . . a good battery
is your system's most capable restrainer. Another point to
ponder in your planned battery maintenance routine. It's the
guard at the gate that will make everyone else's lives easier
when dealing with the recalcitrant alternator.
This is the phenomenon George was relying on when he suggested
pulling the b-lead breaker after the warning light comes on.
Not a totally unreasonable idea IF . . . (1) the breaker will
do the job consistently and (2) you want to regress to the older
architectures where the b-lead breaker is even on the panel.
There's a third aspect to this modus operandi that goes relatively
un-discussed. Effective isolation of the runaway alternator may
protect the airplane's system but the runaway continues unabated
and invariably destroys the alternator field windings. The propose
alternator controller will not only detect and disconnect, it will
SHUT down the alternator and save it from destroying itself.
The loss of regulation will result in nothing more than a maintenance
event to replace a regulator.
| Quote: | 2. will the venreable battery contactor reliably part its contacts
under those same runaway conditions when its solenoid is de-energized?
(I think it will, but I'm depending on it to do so).
|
ABSOLUTELY. One of the data values I needed from Paul was
the energy signature of an alternator's output under various
normal and abnormal operating conditions. It is my idea and
intent to bring the OV event to a quiet and stress-free stable
condition without concern for damage to other components.
The proposed battery contactor will hardly know that it's
being called upon to stand off an OV event . . . it will be
no more stressful than simply shutting the alternator off
during normal operations.
Bob . . .
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuckollsr(at)cox.net
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 8:04 pm Post subject: The simple ideas . . . |
|
|
At 08:29 AM 1/28/2007 -0500, you wrote:
| Quote: |
Bob: great reply that deserves its own place in the 'Connection
Appendices for future reference by all new purchasers of the book.
You leave me wondering two things pertaining to the system I've
cobbled together and will use until your control unit becomes
available:
1. how quickly will a 17AH Odyssey swell and fail under the full
output of a runaway IR 55 amp machine; am I okay if I can disconnect
within 10 seconds or less? Within 5?
|
I didn't elaborate on this very well in my first response.
The battery that puffed up like a toad took perhaps 15 to 30
minutes to achieve this condition depending on how much current
was driven into it. But your question as to "failure" is a bit
harder. Hit the battery with say 100A for 20 seconds and you
may force its terminal voltage up to 18 volts or more. While
certainly abusive, I don't know that I would class that as
a failure inducing event - i.e. the battery wouldn't loose
much if any of its electrolyte and would probably still crank
the engine and hold a charge afterward even if total service
life were reduced by weeks or months.
I don't have a hard notion for "failure" which is why I think
it's so important to track capacity in a way that assures
endurance bus operations . . . and replacing the battery long
before it "fails" by contemporary standards and won't crank
the engine.
So, it's not the least bit unreasonable to adopt a design
goal and operating philosophy that says: "I'm going to maintain
an 80% plus capacity battery. I'm going to install OV warning.
I'm going to have an orderly means by which I can shut the
the alternator down without risk to other equipment or the
alternator itself." It's reasonable to expect that one can
react to annunciation and effect a shutdown in 3-4 seconds
and that's plenty fast if you have a good battery to do the
buffering.
The only thing I have championed beyond this manually operated
philosophy is to automate the shutdown. As I mentioned earlier,
all the magic for controlling is done in software and once that
goal is achieved, a couple more lines of code provides the
automatic shutdown due to overvoltage. Therefore, I'll not be
offering a manually operated version for sale.
| Quote: | 2. will the venreable battery contactor reliably part its contacts
under those same runaway conditions when its solenoid is de-energized?
(I think it will, but I'm depending on it to do so).
|
If you're talking about Z-24, yes. A real ov event will be
prevented from propagating into the rest of the system. However,
it's not real clear that the contactor will not be damaged enough
to require replacement. But we know that the alternator will
definitely require replacement too because its field winding
will be toast.
Z-24a will overcome all the nasty stresses in both normal
and ov-event shutdown so that the only maintenance item will
be to replace the regulator.
Bob . . .
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
