|
Antenna Ground
I have a question similar to but different from the one posted a few lines
below. How do you determine the quality of an antenna ground at HF on an absolute basis? Not how well have I maximized what Mother Nature gave me at my QTH by adding radials, but how good is my ground compared to other stations' grounds at other locations? I have read about the advantages of seawater, ground conductivity etc as guidelines, but how is overall ground quality (not just soil resistivity) determined objectively if indeed that is possible at all? George K6GW |
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 03:53:46 GMT, "GW"
wrote: I have a question similar to but different from the one posted a few lines below. How do you determine the quality of an antenna ground at HF on an absolute basis? Not how well have I maximized what Mother Nature gave me at my QTH by adding radials, but how good is my ground compared to other stations' grounds at other locations? I have read about the advantages of seawater, ground conductivity etc as guidelines, but how is overall ground quality (not just soil resistivity) determined objectively if indeed that is possible at all? Hi George, You compare a measured value with the theoretical, the difference is loss. Less loss = better (objective goal expressed subjectively). To state the objective goal objectively, you describe the difference in dB. However, this quickly devolves to a subjective test, because only your contact can appreciate the difference, and too often the difference is less than many other factors of variability (like fading). So, let's put this in objective terms. With a dozen radials down, you could double or quadruple that to achieve 2dB more power out. 2dB on the conventional S-Meter may barely register more than a needle's width change while your signal is otherwise dropping and rising 10dB through a QSO. Go the limit (theoretical of course) of 120 radials and you perhaps achieve 3 to 4 dB or two needle's widths. Another objective test is to measure the resistance and compare it to theoretical. However, take care to observe that theory covers a lot of ground (no pun) principally depending upon the thickness of the radiator. To take a useful and common indicator, that value would be 36 Ohms. If you measured 50 Ohms, the excess 14 Ohms could be thought to be residing in poor connections and the loss of ground. You would then tighten connections and add radials to shield against ground loss. Hence by these actions, resistance would lower, and oddly (that is, in contradiction to misguided expectations) SWR would rise. It is unlikely you will add enough radials to achieve theoretical, but close enough counts in RF, hand grenades, and H-Bombs. It is called the law of diminishing returns (a business concept) where the more you put into the ground is not matched in continued, improved performance. It is the first few that count the most. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
GW asked (clip):
How do you determine the quality of an antenna ground at HF on an absolute basis? Not how well have I maximized what Mother Nature gave me at my QTH by adding radials, but how good is my ground compared to other stations' grounds at other locations? ______________ A low-resistance ground connection for a transmit antenna is important to the received signal level only when the antenna design requires it as a reference for its driven element, such as with the vertical radiators used in MW broadcasting. Most HF/VHF/UHF transmit antennas do not need, or use an earth ground for efficient radiation. As practical proof of this, recall that airborne antennas have no connection at all to earth ground, but still work just fine. And the transmit antennas used in commercial FM & TV broadcast are installed at the top of a tall tower, many wavelengths (and ohms) above earth potential. The tower is grounded for safety reasons, but the radiation patterns and received signal levels from those antennas would be the same even if that tower was not grounded. RF Visit http://rfry.org for FM broadcast RF system papers. |
"GW" wrote I have a question similar to but different from the one posted a few lines below. How do you determine the quality of an antenna ground at HF on an absolute basis? Not how well have I maximized what Mother Nature gave me at my QTH by adding radials, but how good is my ground compared to other stations' grounds at other locations? I have read about the advantages of seawater, ground conductivity etc as guidelines, but how is overall ground quality (not just soil resistivity) determined objectively if indeed that is possible at all? ================================ The performance of a ground electrode system cannot be separated from that of an associated antenna. But at least the antenna can be standardised by assuming it to be a simple vertical of given height. And we won't go far wrong by assuming the antenna efficiency to be 100 percent. Engineering Quality is a numerical measure of how well something serves its intended purpose. Since the purpose of a ground + antenna system is to radiate em waves the only possible numerical measure of Quality is radiating power efficiency measured as a percentage. With beautiful and fortunate simplicity, the radiating efficiency of such a system is given by - Eff = Rrad / ( Rrad + Rloss ) times 100%. where Rrad is the antenna's radiation resistance looking into the base of the antenna, and Rloss is the resistance looking into the focal point of the ground electrode system, immediately under the antenna, such as a set of radial wires. Or it may be a single rod. It is impossible to separately measure Rrad and Rloss. But Rrad can be calculated from the antenna's height and diameter and the two can be measured together. From the combined single measurement the efficiency can easily be calculated. And that's where we part company with simplicity. To calculate your "Quality on an absolute basis" of just the single ground rod involves a list of numerical variables as long as your arm. To calculate Quality of a system of radials imposes an impossible, intractible problem in statistics. To compare one system with another would involve everybody with several lifetimes of fundamental research, measurement and guesswork which would get nobody anywhere. However, because radio is by far the most inexact of all the engineering sciences, it doesn't matter a toss. All measurements are subject to error. In most of which even the standard deviations can only be guessed at. When will the next flare occur on our unstable Sun? Radio engineers are quite accustomed to allowing safety margins of plus or minus 15 or 20 dB along propagation paths. Even then distortion and error rates are quoted. Brute force and ignorance and a lot of luck prevail. So it doesn't matter whether or not Rloss lies between 1 and 10 ohms when used with your top-band inverted-L and you havn't the foggiest idea what the soil resistivity is in YOUR back yard. Incidentally, ground loss is not only smaller in sea water, it is also smaller with soil resistivities of several thousand ohms and greater. There's a maximum somewhere in between. To crudely estimate ground loss, download program RADIALS2 from website below. It's all crammed into only 70 kilo-bytes. Nobody has yet complained it gives the wrong answers. -- .................................................. .......... Regards from Reg, G4FGQ For Free Radio Design Software go to http://www.btinternet.com/~g4fgq.regp .................................................. .......... |
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 14:27:37 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote: Incidentally, ground loss is not only smaller in sea water, it is also smaller with soil resistivities of several thousand ohms and greater. There's a maximum somewhere in between. Hi George, The statement above falls into the category of "Old Wives' Tales." Given the choice for conductors, Sea Water ranks 6 or 7 orders of magnitude in worse conductivity than any metal (or even carbon) you would care to pick. By this logic, you should do everything in your power to operate in an open pit coal mine. ;-) We won't go into the egregious error of soil resistivity for the same reasons of senior matriarchal fabrications. The "legendary" characteristic of Sea Water is found in its far field reflective characteristic which is remarkable, due largely to its huge SWR to fields (the same SWR that would occur with the supposed several thousand ohms of soil). That small boats use a patch on the bottom of the keel to offer a counterpoise to RF simply exhibits how little ground development is necessary when the huge asset of reflectivity dominates this large loss of a poor ground connection (you should also note the ironic application of "ground" in this regard). To crudely estimate ground loss, download program RADIALS2 from website below. It's all crammed into only 70 kilo-bytes. Nobody has yet complained it gives the wrong answers. For that matter, no one has even offered it works! Principally because it places the onus on you proving one of two things: 1. it does work; 2. it does not work. How can you tell? ;-) You would stand a better chance with such forecasts using the old Magic 8-Ball which would at least offer the occasional honest answer like "Can't answer right now, try again." Punchinello, So, old man, tell us when you are going to offer any substantive method that gives numbers to these illusions of ground you offer? The soil of your back garden, much less Britain hardly are representative of a much greater continental expanses beyond that little island you occupy. The examples of your erroneous generalizations against reality would be instructive if you simply expanded (embarrassingly perhaps) on your kitchen calculations of mud calibration. After all, its been simply YEARS since you offered such suggestions to no obvious Kelvinian payoff. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
"Richard Clark" wrote (clip):
The "legendary" characteristic of Sea Water is found in its far field reflective characteristic which is remarkable, due largely to its huge SWR to fields (the same SWR that would occur with the supposed several thousand ohms of soil). ____________ How does the statement above reconcile with the fact that groundwave daytime signal strength is far better over a sea water path than any ground path? There is (essentially) no returning skywave signal to reflect during daylight hours. Observe the daytime field strength contours shown on the link below for WABC radio, for example. http://www.radio-locator.com/cgi-bin...atus=L&hours=D RF |
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 11:46:00 -0500, "Richard Fry"
wrote: "Richard Clark" wrote (clip): The "legendary" characteristic of Sea Water is found in its far field reflective characteristic which is remarkable, due largely to its huge SWR to fields (the same SWR that would occur with the supposed several thousand ohms of soil). ____________ How does the statement above reconcile with the fact that groundwave daytime signal strength is far better over a sea water path than any ground path? Hi OM, Perhaps you should attend the quote above again. For instance, how is it that statements in agreement require "reconciliation?" 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
"Richard Clark" wrote (clip posted by R. Fry):
The "legendary" characteristic of Sea Water is found in its far field reflective characteristic which is remarkable, due largely to its huge SWR to fields (the same SWR that would occur with the supposed several thousand ohms of soil). ____________ How does the statement above reconcile with the fact that groundwave daytime signal strength is far better over a sea water path than any ground path? R. Fry. Hi OM, Perhaps you should attend the quote above again. For instance, how is it that statements in agreement require "reconciliation?" 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC So you are saying that sea water paths provide far better groundwave propagation than overland paths because sea water a such a good reflector? RF |
Richard Clark wrote:
"The legendary characteristic of Sea Water is found in its far field reflective characteristic which is remarkable due largely to its huge SWR to fields---." Yes, a wave striking the sea finds a high reflection coefficient and ground waves do well too. I am looking at a broadcast allocation book prepared by Cleveland Institute of Radio Electronics in 1959. Many changes in stations and coverage since then, but the book contains an estimated ground conductivity map for the U.S.A. which probably has changed very little since then. Coastal Texas is almost as good as it gets when it comes to soil on the map, 30 millimhos per meter. Seawater is not shown on the map but its conductivity is given as 5,000 millimhos per meter or 167 times as good as the best soil. Around New York City, conductivity is shown between 0.5 and 4 millimhos. Surface irregularities caused by structures make additional attenuation. The conductivities shown on the map are probably good averages as the preparers had the propagation data of thousands of broadcast stations which proved their performance to the FCC to work with. Terman has a ground constant table on page 808 of his 1955 of his 1955 edition. Sea water is given a conductivity of 45,000 micromhos per cm, or 45 millimhos per cm. John Cunningham says in "The Complete Broadcast Antenna Handbook: on page 309 that: "The conductivity of the earth ranges from about 2 millimhos per meter for dry sandy locations to as high as 5 mhos/m for sea water." I think the figures given above are in reasonable agreement. I haven`t researched the conductivity of carbon, but it is reasonably high being used for motor brushes, battery electrodes, and vacuum tube plates. Best regards, Richard Harrison, KB5WZI |
"Richard Harrison" wrote (clip):
I am looking at a broadcast allocation book prepared by Cleveland Institute of Radio Electronics in 1959. Many changes in stations and coverage since then, but the book contains an estimated ground conductivity map for the U.S.A. which probably has changed very little since then. ________________ The FCC's version of the US ground conductivity map is available on line at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/m3/ RF |
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 13:36:14 -0500, "Richard Fry"
wrote: So you are saying that sea water paths provide far better groundwave propagation than overland paths because sea water a such a good reflector? RF Hi OM, What is the contention that is your point? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
"Richard Clark" wrote message
... On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 13:36:14 -0500, "Richard Fry" wrote: So you are saying that sea water paths provide far better groundwave propagation than overland paths because sea water a such a good reflector? RF Hi OM, What is the contention that is your point? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QH __________________ That it isn't the reflective nature of sea water that is responsible for its good propagation of groundwave signals. That is due to its conductivity. RF |
|
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 16:07:29 -0500, "Richard Fry"
wrote: That it isn't the reflective nature of sea water that is responsible for its good propagation of groundwave signals. That is due to its conductivity. Hi OM, Then the response is quite simple: you are wrong. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
"Richard Clark" wrote
If all would review the standard FCC groundwave propagation curves, they would notice that they offer low AM Band signal strengths in terms of "conductivity" and that the differences in strength for the 5,000 millimhos per meter and that of 40 millimhos per meter (125 fold difference) DO NOT achieve the same proportional difference in received signal strength. In fact, the difference is so narrow you could shave with a razor as sharp as it. Even at the high end of the band the difference has to be out 700 miles to show the "conductive" ratio. Of course, over that range of transmission ONLY Sea Water would support that forecast as continental soil varies vastly in smaller spans - hence the reputation of the Sea. _______________ For a reality check, here are the approx distances to the 1 mV/m contour for 1kW of radiated power from a 90 degree vertical with a good radial ground system. The values were determined from the FCC's standard curves. Freq Conductivity/Miles 540 kHz 8/66, 40/124, 5,000/140 1,600 kHz 8/22, 40/56, 5,000/126 The average ground conductivity in the U.S. is fairly low, probably somewhere between 8 and 16 mS/m. The difference in ground wave propagation over such paths is dramatically poorer than over sea water. It is also clear from the above values how much better the low freq MW broadcast channels perform. RF |
"Richard Clark" wrote in message
... On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 16:07:29 -0500, "Richard Fry" wrote: That it isn't the reflective nature of sea water that is responsible for its good propagation of groundwave signals. That is due to its conductivity. Hi OM, Then the response is quite simple: you are wrong. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC __________ Believe as you wish, but you won't have much company... |
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 17:17:00 -0500, "Richard Fry"
wrote: It is also clear from the above values how much better the low freq MW broadcast channels perform. Hi OM, You have a remarkable capacity to find controversy where there is none. Again, what is the contention that is your point? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 17:20:32 -0500, "Richard Fry"
wrote: Believe as you wish, but you won't have much company... Hi OM, Your reaction is the shock of a belief being challenged. ;-) As for having company? I am not under the illusion that science is a democracy, much less a madison avenue concept. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Richard Clark wrote:
On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 14:27:37 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards" wrote: Incidentally, ground loss is not only smaller in sea water, it is also smaller with soil resistivities of several thousand ohms and greater. There's a maximum somewhere in between. Hi George, The statement above falls into the category of "Old Wives' Tales." Given the choice for conductors, Sea Water ranks 6 or 7 orders of magnitude in worse conductivity than any metal (or even carbon) you would care to pick. By this logic, you should do everything in your power to operate in an open pit coal mine. ;-) . . . It's not an "old wives' tale" at all. We have to remember that there are two loss mechanisms involved with antennas. One is the resistance encountered by ground current flowing to one of the feedline terminals in a ground-mounted antenna. This can be reduced to an arbitrarily small value by installing radials. The other is loss incurred when the field strikes the ground and reflects. This second loss is generally negligible for horizontally polarized antennas except at high radiation angles, but is very significant for verticals at low angles. This loss occurs mainly beyond the far edge of most radial fields, so there's usually nothing you can do to reduce the reflection loss except to move the antenna. Perfectly conducting ground has no loss, and perfectly insulating ground has no loss. When considering ground system loss (resistance encountered by local ground currents), the loss is maximum somewhere in between. Doing some experimental modeling with EZNEC/4 (NEC-4 based), I've found that the maximum loss for a radial ground system in the HF range unfortunately hits somewhere around average soil conductivity. It's not an abrupt maximum -- the loss varies fairly gently with conductivity. Reflection loss has to be considered a little differently. While the same statement about perfectly conducting and perfectly insulating ground is still true, if you had perfectly insulating ground, radiated power would be lost to useful radiation by penetrating the ground, whether or not it got dissipated as heat. (In reality, it would of course eventually get dissipated, since no ground is perfectly insulating.) Looking just at the amount of radiation that ends up above the horizon, and neglecting conductive ground current loss, the reflection "loss" does indeed seem to increase monotonically as the ground conductivity decreases. The ground reflection loss can easily be evaluated with any version of EZNEC, including the demo. Choose a vertical antenna such as example file Vert1.ez, set the ground type to Real/MININEC, wire loss to zero, and the plot type to 3D. There should be no resistive loads in the model. Then look at the Average Gain shown at the bottom of the main window after doing a plot calculation. The deviation from a value of 1 (0 dB) represents the fraction of the applied power that's lost in the ground reflection. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
"Richard Clark" wrote
"Richard Fry" wrote: It is also clear from the above values how much better the low freq MW broadcast channels perform. Hi OM, You have a remarkable capacity to find controversy where there is none. Again, what is the contention that is your point? 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC _______________ You quote only a part of my post with which you happen to agree, and then say I find controversy when there is none. The point of my last post on this subject, and our real controversy here relates to which characteristic of sea water is responsible for its lower groundwave path loss, as developed in the thread. You wrote that the reason is because sea water is a good reflector. I wrote that it is because of its good conductivity. This difference in our positions should be evident by reading the thread. RF |
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
"Richard Fry" and "Richard Clark" argue about: ...which characteristic of sea water is responsible for its lower groundwave path loss... ...because sea water is a good reflector. ...because of its good conductivity. Is sea water a good reflector because it has good conductivity ? ;-) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= |
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 06:42:45 -0500, "Richard Fry"
wrote: You quote only a part of my post Hi OM, I don't quote the full message because it is already available, and further, it is bad manners to do so unless something new and relevant has been offered. None so appears. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 09:39:56 -0300, "Just a suggestion..."
wrote: Is sea water a good reflector because it has good conductivity ? If you think it has good conductivity, do you wire your house with it? Do you have a radial field using #38 wire in a one meter grid? Both laughable propositions here, but those tears of mirth turn to the dewey eyed mist of religious belief when Salt Water "conductivity" is mentioned. Sand is the least lossy ground beneath your feet, but how well does it contribute to DX? Add some water and the loss skyrockets - and this is called the boon of conductivity! No, it is called the boon of reflectivity. The Z changed and power CANNOT penetrate the interface. If you cannot get power into it, there is nothing to conduct (and it is the molecular polarization and relaxation moment that causes this, not conductivity). The legends of mature spinsters are many with respect to the qualities of ground - they even inspire useless software as crutches. I have seen NO ONE here who can recommend it (much less admit they don't even have a clue on what values would be appropriate for their own locale). Hence most discussion is either faith-driven, speculation, or simple hucksterism. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
"Richard Clark" wrote
Richard Fry wrote: You quote only a part of my post it is bad manners to do so unless something new and relevant has been offered. None so appears. _________ I doubt that the majority of readers will agree with you about the relevancy of my posts on this thread to yours. You have simply chosen not to address them. But in any case...Pax vobiscum. RF |
Sand is the least lossy ground beneath your feet, but how well does it
contribute to DX? Add some water and the loss skyrockets - and this is called the boon of conductivity! No, it is called the boon of reflectivity. The Z changed and power CANNOT penetrate the interface. If you cannot get power into it, there is nothing to conduct (and it is the molecular polarization and relaxation moment that causes this, not conductivity). It's been many years since my EM theory days in school, but I seem to remember being taught that the way surfaces reflect EM waves is by being excited by the impinging wave and then re-radiating due to the current flow caused by the arriving wave. This would require the surface to be a good conductor to be a good reflector. |
"Richard Clark" wrote in message
... On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 06:42:45 -0500, "Richard Fry" wrote: You quote only a part of my post I don't quote the full message because it is already available, and further, it is bad manners to do so unless something new and relevant has been offered. (Three hours later) "Richard Clark" wrote in message ... On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 09:39:56 -0300, "Just a suggestion..." wrote: Is sea water a good reflector because it has good conductivity ? (clippage) The legends of mature spinsters are many with respect to the qualities of ground - they even inspire useless software as crutches. I have seen NO ONE here who can recommend it (much less admit they don't even have a clue on what values would be appropriate for their own locale). Hence most discussion is either faith-driven, speculation, or simple hucksterism. _________________ Good Sir, A bit of a disconnect appears to occur in the above two clips between your stated desire to avoid bad manners, and the consistency with which you do it. Most people are more willing to entertain another's point of view if such is given without hostility and intimidation. With all due respect, RF |
On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 19:55:48 GMT, "GW"
wrote: This would require the surface to be a good conductor to be a good reflector. Hi OM, Replace any low Ohm plane with a hi Ohm plane. No conduction issues (or even vastly worse than salt water) there at all, same reflection - n'est pas? For those who've studied freshman Physics, this is called Snell's Law. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
You all seem to have forgotten the very high permittivity of water. Does
this not affect reflectivity? A question for Cecil? |
On Sat, 04 Sep 2004 17:04:49 GMT, Richard Clark wrote:
(and it is the molecular polarization and relaxation moment that causes this, not conductivity) On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 22:56:12 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards" wrote: You all seem to have forgotten the very high permittivity of water. Does this not affect reflectivity? A question for Cecil? Ah Punchinello! Clowning as ever, I see. A seque from the world's worst conductor to the world's worst dielectric? This is the price of superlatives in place of engineering specifics. Whatsamatta, did you defrock your saint Kelvin? What is the loss tangent of the mud in your garden Reggie? ;-) Well, anticipating your typical loss for a response, and for others, a nice round value of 1 is easily within rough accuracy. Corrections (not speculations) are encouraged. Be specific. 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
Maximum ground loss during wave reflection, between low resistance sea water
and very high soil resistivities, could very well be when soil impedance is of the order of 377 ohms. Or is related to that number. This is because, on the average of incidence angles, soil is more likely to absorb than reflect wave energy received from free-space. There's a better impedance match with free space at 377 ohms. The reflection coefficient is smaller. Soil permittivity and frequency will also have an effect on the ballpark in which maximum absorption and hence maximum transmission loss lies. --- Reg, G4FGQ |
On Sun, 5 Sep 2004 03:04:23 +0000 (UTC), "Reg Edwards"
wrote: when soil impedance is of the order of 377 ohms. Hi Reggie, Is THIS the soil in your garden? Must be miserable for DX! That would be an exceedingly deep pile of very dry sand you are on. Quite remarkable stuff where ever you might find it. Like the green cheese the moon was supposedly made of, you have more lore from the aged domestic goddess file than one could have imagined. What coefficients would that be for your program? What would the conductance be? How many radials would it resolve to? Can you even guess the Q? So many questions and easily suitable for the Magic 8-ball "Try again later." 73's Richard Clark, KB7QHC |
**** Post for FREE via your newsreader at post.usenet.com ****
"Reg Edwards" Maximum ground loss during wave reflection, ... ... could very well be when soil impedance is of the order of 377 ohms. ... ...impedance match with free space at 377 ohms.... He he he. What if your garden is in the 'near field' ? (Obviously no "what if" at all - it almost certainly is.) Then the garden should be some other value, NOT 377 ohms, to match your locally generated EM wave. Also, the ground properties would obviously be NON RECIPROCAL (!!!) since the other guy's signal would presumably be in the far field and would arrive in the V/I ratio of 377 ohms. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= *** Usenet.com - The #1 Usenet Newsgroup Service on The Planet! *** http://www.usenet.com Unlimited Download - 19 Seperate Servers - 90,000 groups - Uncensored -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:10 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com