|
VLF from the amp
Hey all,
I read about people using their sound card to catch transmissions from dedicated senders such as SAQ by just hooking a roll of wire to the mic-in and apparently finding some success in this. This got my wondering, what aside from laws and fines is stopping me from hooking my 80W stereo amp up to some sort of antenna for global transmission fun? Somebody must have thought of this before... -- Nos |
VLF from the amp
Ceriel Nosforit wrote:
I read about people using their sound card to catch transmissions from dedicated senders such as SAQ by just hooking a roll of wire to the mic-in and apparently finding some success in this. This got my wondering, what aside from laws and fines is stopping me from hooking my 80W stereo amp up to some sort of antenna for global transmission fun? Somebody must have thought of this before... It's cheaper to use your car alternator as an LO. Upconvert by using the transmission as a mixer and the gear shift knob as a band selector. FM by riding up or down steep hills in a 2-cylinder Citroen. |
VLF from the amp
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:38:17 +0000, Max Headroom wrote:
Ceriel Nosforit wrote: snip It's cheaper to use your car alternator as an LO. Upconvert by using the transmission as a mixer and the gear shift knob as a band selector. FM by riding up or down steep hills in a 2-cylinder Citroen. Now that would be something. DX licence or driver's licence? Hehe. Too bad I don't have a car. ;) -- Nos |
VLF from the amp
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:05:21 +0300, Ceriel Nosforit wrote: what aside from laws and fines is stopping me from hooking my 80W stereo amp up to some sort of antenna for global transmission fun? ------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------ What is stopping you? Well, the laws of physics for one, but you're welcome to give it a try. You'll find enforcement of those laws is pretty strict. :-) Bill, W6WRT |
VLF from the amp
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 08:36:12 -0700, Bill Turner wrote:
ORIGINAL MESSAGE: On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:05:21 +0300, Ceriel Nosforit wrote: what aside from laws and fines is stopping me from hooking my 80W stereo amp up to some sort of antenna for global transmission fun? ------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------ What is stopping you? Well, the laws of physics for one, but you're welcome to give it a try. You'll find enforcement of those laws is pretty strict. :-) Bill, W6WRT Hehe. Well yeah, I figured as much, but why doesn't it work? Too high impendance? Why is that something the amp can't handle, if I maybe resist the urge to crank it up to eleven? I'm approaching the issue from the engineering perspective, but I don't have much knowledge in this particular field. If you can enlighten me I'd be much obliged. ;) -- Nos |
VLF from the amp
Ceriel Nosforit wrote:
Hehe. Well yeah, I figured as much, but why doesn't it work? Too high impendance? Why is that something the amp can't handle, if I maybe resist the urge to crank it up to eleven? I'm approaching the issue from the engineering perspective, but I don't have much knowledge in this particular field. If you can enlighten me I'd be much obliged. ;) Engineering is the application of physics. An "engineering perspective" is one that starts from knowledge of the basic physical principles involved, and uses mathematics along with that knowledge to produce a design or solve a problem. I've seen no evidence of either in your approach. Whatever you're doing, it's certainly not engineering. The main problem with what you propose is that the electromagnetic field you create with the amplifier will be small to begin with, and it will be attenuated rapidly with distance for a number of physical reasons. But don't take my word for it. Crank that dude up, and don't stop at 11. Broadcast your telephone number and wait for the phone to ring. Roy Lewallen, P.E., W7EL |
VLF from the amp
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 14:40:26 -0700, Roy Lewallen wrote:
Ceriel Nosforit wrote: Hehe. Well yeah, I figured as much, but why doesn't it work? Too high impendance? Why is that something the amp can't handle, if I maybe resist the urge to crank it up to eleven? I'm approaching the issue from the engineering perspective, but I don't have much knowledge in this particular field. If you can enlighten me I'd be much obliged. ;) Engineering is the application of physics. An "engineering perspective" is one that starts from knowledge of the basic physical principles involved, and uses mathematics along with that knowledge to produce a design or solve a problem. I've seen no evidence of either in your approach. Whatever you're doing, it's certainly not engineering. The main problem with what you propose is that the electromagnetic field you create with the amplifier will be small to begin with, and it will be attenuated rapidly with distance for a number of physical reasons. But don't take my word for it. Crank that dude up, and don't stop at 11. Broadcast your telephone number and wait for the phone to ring. Roy Lewallen, P.E., W7EL Hm. I was a student of IT on a polytechnic... The basic state of mind one needed there was that we don't need to know all the facts by heart, but we must know where to find them. In this case through a few degrees of separation I had specs which say that it doesn't need to be efficient; it only needs to work. Then when I have it working I can begin identifying bottlenecks and come up with ways to widen them. Good info on magnetic field strength there, thank you. It gives me a good idea of where to start looking and comparing. I'm not going to experiment just yet since I'm not a radio amateur, though I'm vying for a licence. The radio-regulatory authorities here in Finland don't have much to do, so I'm not going to give them a reason to hunt me down. :o) -- Nos |
VLF from the amp
"Ceriel Nosforit" wrote in message
... Hehe. Well yeah, I figured as much, but why doesn't it work? Too high impendance? Why is that something the amp can't handle, if I maybe resist the urge to crank it up to eleven? No. The problem is that wavelength of a, say, 10kHz signal is 3km in free space. You need to have an antenna that's a decent fraction of that length for the antenna to look "distributed" enough (that is, the phase of your 10kHz signal at the far end of the wire is significantly different than that at the near end) in your to start getting any radiation. You can go through the math for all this -- look up the input impedance of a short dipole on Google -- and you'll find that the radiation resistance of a reasonable length speaker wire is probably going to be in the milliohms, yet the finite (real) resistance of the wire is going to be 10-1000 times as much, and the reactance will be as well. Hence, all three parameters are against you: The high reactance will keep the amps from being able to put much power into the cable in the first place, and of what does get there, the vast majority will be eaten up as heat rather than radiating. To make matching tenable (so that you can actually get power into the cable), you need a *very* long wire. To make things efficient, you need low loss conductors -- nice, thick metal rods. Hence, doing a good job becomes rather spendy, and thus you don't see that many people outside of the military building VLF systems. I think I'd almost suggest trying something like a 1.3GHz moonbounce system prior to building your own VLF transmitter... |
VLF from the amp
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:05:21 +0300, Ceriel Nosforit
wrote: Hey all, I read about people using their sound card to catch transmissions from dedicated senders such as SAQ by just hooking a roll of wire to the mic-in and apparently finding some success in this. This got my wondering, what aside from laws and fines is stopping me from hooking my 80W stereo amp up to some sort of antenna for global transmission fun? Somebody must have thought of this before... At least previously, the frequency tables started at 9 kHz, so anything below that would not cause any interference to any other service. However, the problem with VLF is that any practical antenna is going to be very short compared to wavelength and since the radiation resistance is proportional to the square of frequency for antennas well below 1/4 wavelength, most of the power injected into an antenna is going to be dissipated in resistive losses. At the LF aeronautical beacon band with 90 m antennas, the antenna efficiency based on measurements flown around these beacons seems to be about 1 %. In Europe, the maximum _radiated_ power limit on the 135 kHz amateur radio band is 1 W, but generating that kind of radiated power with reasonable sized antennas (30 m) would require at least 1 kW of transmitter power, indicating that the practical antenna efficiency is about 0.1 %. At 13 kHz, the efficiency would be about 0.001 %. The near field distance for a simple antenna extends to about 1/6 wavelength, so at VLF, the practical communication range for amateur communication systems would be well within the near field. Since you are apparently from Finland and since the Finnish telecommunication law only grants the jurisdiction to the telecommunication authorities for "freely propagating" electromagnetic radiation, my interpretation of the law is that it does not cover any near field i.e. magnetic or electrostatic communication systems, in which the near field communication systems work. Of course, if you are able to generate huge magnetic or electric fields that cause interference to other systems, this may cause problems to you. But otherwise, go ahead with your experiments, but unfortunately the laws of physics will hit you sooner or later :-). Paul OH3LWR |
VLF from the amp
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 17:13:28 -0700, "Joel Kolstad"
wrote: No. The problem is that wavelength of a, say, 10kHz signal is 3km in free space. This must be a typo, since the free space wavelength at 10 kHz is 30 km. Paul OH3LWR |
VLF from the amp
Hi Paul,
"Paul Keinanen" wrote in message ... On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 17:13:28 -0700, "Joel Kolstad" wrote: No. The problem is that wavelength of a, say, 10kHz signal is 3km in free space. This must be a typo, since the free space wavelength at 10 kHz is 30 km. Oops, sorry... yeah, you're correct -- my mistake. |
VLF from the amp
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 09:56:11 +0300, Paul Keinanen wrote:
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:05:21 +0300, Ceriel Nosforit wrote: Hey all, I read about people using their sound card to catch transmissions from dedicated senders such as SAQ by just hooking a roll of wire to the mic-in and apparently finding some success in this. This got my wondering, what aside from laws and fines is stopping me from hooking my 80W stereo amp up to some sort of antenna for global transmission fun? Somebody must have thought of this before... At least previously, the frequency tables started at 9 kHz, so anything below that would not cause any interference to any other service. However, the problem with VLF is that any practical antenna is going to be very short compared to wavelength and since the radiation resistance is proportional to the square of frequency for antennas well below 1/4 wavelength, most of the power injected into an antenna is going to be dissipated in resistive losses. At the LF aeronautical beacon band with 90 m antennas, the antenna efficiency based on measurements flown around these beacons seems to be about 1 %. In Europe, the maximum _radiated_ power limit on the 135 kHz amateur radio band is 1 W, but generating that kind of radiated power with reasonable sized antennas (30 m) would require at least 1 kW of transmitter power, indicating that the practical antenna efficiency is about 0.1 %. At 13 kHz, the efficiency would be about 0.001 %. The near field distance for a simple antenna extends to about 1/6 wavelength, so at VLF, the practical communication range for amateur communication systems would be well within the near field. Since you are apparently from Finland and since the Finnish telecommunication law only grants the jurisdiction to the telecommunication authorities for "freely propagating" electromagnetic radiation, my interpretation of the law is that it does not cover any near field i.e. magnetic or electrostatic communication systems, in which the near field communication systems work. Of course, if you are able to generate huge magnetic or electric fields that cause interference to other systems, this may cause problems to you. But otherwise, go ahead with your experiments, but unfortunately the laws of physics will hit you sooner or later :-). Paul OH3LWR Woha. A lot of info to assimilate. Thank you. A few quick questions; the efficiency at higher frequencies does only increse logarithmically, correct? Around where is the 'knee' where increment of frequency no longer provideas a significant increase in efficiency? - Ballpark numbers and guesstimates are perfectly OK for me, since I'm only curious of the general idea. Finally, what exactly do you mean by 'near field'? Is it an arbitrary line in the sand that separates near fields from normal fields, or a completely different physical phenomena? -- Nos |
VLF from the amp
"Ceriel Nosforit" wrote in message
... A few quick questions; the efficiency at higher frequencies does only increse logarithmically, correct? Sort of, but not really. It's linear for electrically short antennas, but it's actually oscillatory in nature (albeit this occurs after you've hit a half wavelength -- not something you're likely to do at VLF). Finally, what exactly do you mean by 'near field'? Is it an arbitrary line in the sand that separates near fields from normal fields, or a completely different physical phenomena? Any element that you're pumping energy into creates an electric and magnetic field. In a non-radiating component, that energy just "flows" around the element, e.g., the magnetic field diagrams you're probably familiar with for something like a solenoidal inductor. "Near" and "far" field aren't necessarily precisely defined terms, but the idea is that that energy that's just flowing around the element is in the "near field" whereas the energy that's actually radiating out towards Alpha Centauri is in the "far field." As a ballbark estimate, the near field of an element is within about a wavelength away (in distance) from it... hence the mention that, at 10kHz with a 30km wavelength, anywhere in your home is within the near field. Mathematically, if you look at the equations for a dipole, the electric and magnetic field look something like E(r) or H(r) = foo/r+bar/r^2+bar/r^3+... (where r is the radial distance from the dipole), and hence the power in the field (the Poynting vector) is something like P(r) = baz/r^2+quux/r^3+... From this equation, you can see that over large distance the only term that matters is bar/r^2 -- this is the far field radiation. (Another way to define near field vs. far field, in fact, is to solve P(r) for r when the baz/r^2 terms equals quux/r^3+... -- reasonable enough, as at that point, the far field energy flux is equal to the near field energy flux.) The above is a fair amount of hand-waving and probably some of it is just plain wrong :-) -- you really should pick up a book on the topic or start Googling. Krauss' books are excellent, by the way, in that the exercises are often "real world"-based, meant to demonstrate either how something really does work or, if it isn't practical, why not. The Germans call near-field and far-field the Fresnel-region and the Fraunhofer-region, which is really a lot more colorful IMHO. ---Joel |
VLF from the amp
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 01:23:51 +0300, Ceriel Nosforit
wrote: A few quick questions; the efficiency at higher frequencies does only increse logarithmically, correct? Around where is the 'knee' where increment of frequency no longer provideas a significant increase in efficiency? - You can model the antenna system as a series connection of a loss resistance and the radiation resistance. The loss resistance will convert the RF power created with your expensive gear into heat :-), while the power "dissipated" by the radiation resistance will actually disappear as EM fields. For full sized antennas, the loss resistance is small compared to the radiation resistance and most of the RF power generated will actually radiate. However, even with 1/4 wave vertical antennas, the ground losses can be significant, if not ground planes are used, but the antenna is grounded with grounding electrodes. When the antenna size is below perhaps 1/10 wavelength, the radiation resistance drops by the square of frequency, so the radiation resistance can quite easily be well below 1 ohm at LF and below. The loss resistance (include grounding and loading coil losses) can be several ohms, thus the majority of the generator power is dissipated in the losses and only a very small part is actually radiated by the very small radiation resistance. While the metallic conductor skin effect losses are proportional to the square_root_ of frequency, the ground losses are harder to predict, so the total efficiency at VLF frequencies is almost proportional to the square of frequency (not logarithmic). The 'knee' would be at 1/4 wavelength for a vertical antenna. At even higher frequencies, the radiation resistance would vary cyclically. Paul OH3LWR |
VLF from the amp
ORIGINAL MESSAGE:
On Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:12:10 +0300, Ceriel Nosforit wrote: Hehe. Well yeah, I figured as much, but why doesn't it work? Too high impendance? Why is that something the amp can't handle, if I maybe resist the urge to crank it up to eleven? I'm approaching the issue from the engineering perspective, but I don't have much knowledge in this particular field. If you can enlighten me I'd be much obliged. ;) ------------ REPLY FOLLOWS ------------ Here's what is working against you: 1. Frequency is too low for the power level you are using. At higher frequencies in the shortwave region, 80 watts is plenty to talk around the world, but not down in the audio range. 2. If you did have lots of power, you would still need an efficient antenna. Unless you own an entire county, you won't have enough room to put one up. The US military does use very low frequencies in the audio range to communicate with submarines world wide, but they have a pretty good budget for it. :-) It can be done, but not by you or me. Bill, W6WRT |
VLF from the amp
Paul Keinanen wrote:
. . . When the antenna size is below perhaps 1/10 wavelength, the radiation resistance drops by the square of frequency, so the radiation resistance can quite easily be well below 1 ohm at LF and below. The loss resistance (include grounding and loading coil losses) can be several ohms, thus the majority of the generator power is dissipated in the losses and only a very small part is actually radiated by the very small radiation resistance. . . . Neglecting ground effects, the radiation resistance of a four-sided loop 100 meters on a side at 100 kHz is 45 milliohms. The radiation resistance of a four-sided loop 10 meters on a side at 10 kHz is about 400 picoohms (4 X 10^-10 ohms). If you used 2 mm diameter wire to construct the loops, the first would have an efficiency of 0.7%, and the second of 0.00000016 percent. These are very optimistic, since they don't account for the considerable loss you'd incur by induction into the ground and objects for quite some distance around. They also don't account for losses in the required impedance matching network. And a receiving antenna would have the same efficiency. You can easily get these numbers with the free EZNEC demo program from http://eznec.com. Or use a calculator and the simple equations you'll find in any antenna text. The OP wondered if anybody had ever thought of this before. The answer is yes, the first time probably well over a hundred years ago. Anyone doing the simple calculations sees immediately why it's not a great idea. Roy Lewallen, W7EL |
VLF from the amp
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 13:12:54 -0700, Roy Lewallen wrote:
Paul Keinanen wrote: snip The OP wondered if anybody had ever thought of this before. The answer is yes, the first time probably well over a hundred years ago. Anyone doing the simple calculations sees immediately why it's not a great idea. Yes, I'm beginnig to see that now. :D However, I am learning a great deal in the process, and the equations I have found to explain the issue in detail don't seem simple at all. But if it was simple it wouldn't be interesting, now would it? ;) Right now I'm looking at; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-field http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pattern http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_zone Lucky for me I'm trying to build up an interest in math. Cos here's plenty of it... Again, thank you all for your replies. It'll be a while until I really have an intuitive understanding of the subject like you all do, but I am patient. :) -- Nos |
VLF from the amp
To get the numbers I came up with, all you need is the equation for the
radiation resistance of a small loop and the resistance of copper wire. It shouldn't be hard to find the equation for the small loop, and it's very simple. At those frequencies, the resistance of the wire should be nearly the same as the DC resistance, so all you need is a copper wire table(*). Both should be readily available on the web. Of course, if you want to know about other kinds of antennas and more detailed effects like the field intensity in the presence of ground, the equations can get difficult indeed, and some are too difficult to solve directly. That's what the modeling programs are for. (*) At higher frequencies or with much larger diameter wires, you'll need to account for skin effect. This requires calculation of a square root and can be done on a pocket calculator as can the others. Roy Lewallen, W7EL Ceriel Nosforit wrote: On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 13:12:54 -0700, Roy Lewallen wrote: Paul Keinanen wrote: snip The OP wondered if anybody had ever thought of this before. The answer is yes, the first time probably well over a hundred years ago. Anyone doing the simple calculations sees immediately why it's not a great idea. Yes, I'm beginnig to see that now. :D However, I am learning a great deal in the process, and the equations I have found to explain the issue in detail don't seem simple at all. But if it was simple it wouldn't be interesting, now would it? ;) Right now I'm looking at; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-field http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pattern http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_zone Lucky for me I'm trying to build up an interest in math. Cos here's plenty of it... Again, thank you all for your replies. It'll be a while until I really have an intuitive understanding of the subject like you all do, but I am patient. :) |
VLF from the amp
On Sun, 01 Oct 2006 20:36:23 -0700, Roy Lewallen
wrote: To get the numbers I came up with, all you need is the equation for the radiation resistance of a small loop and the resistance of copper wire. It shouldn't be hard to find the equation for the small loop, and it's very simple. At those frequencies, the resistance of the wire should be nearly the same as the DC resistance, so all you need is a copper wire table(*). Both should be readily available on the web. Small magnetic loops with gains in -30 ..-60 dB range can be usable for receiving due to the extreme noise levels on LF and VLF, but for transmitting, they are far to lossy. To get any significant communication distance, you would need a vertical polarised signal. The popular antenna among 135 kHz experimenters as well as in LF aeronautical beacons is a vertical tower with as much top capacitance as you can put up. Look at the antenna systems of old ships using the LF band, these have multiple parallel wires erected between the masts in the bow and stern. These wires form the top capacitance and a vertical wire going directly from it isolator on the radio room to the top wires, which is the actual vertical radiator. The top loading will increase the current in the vertical conductor and hence vertical radiation. Paul |
VLF from the amp
You can use ferrit antenna rods. That works for receivers very fine in VLF
band and for transmitters too - as long as the ferrit won't go into saturation. That is a magnetic antenna and it is much shorter than the equivalent mentioned. - Henry "Paul Keinanen" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 17:13:28 -0700, "Joel Kolstad" wrote: No. The problem is that wavelength of a, say, 10kHz signal is 3km in free space. This must be a typo, since the free space wavelength at 10 kHz is 30 km. Paul OH3LWR |
VLF from the amp
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:24:40 +0200, "Henry Kiefer"
wrote: You can use ferrit antenna rods. That works for receivers very fine in VLF band and for transmitters too - as long as the ferrit won't go into saturation. That is a magnetic antenna and it is much shorter than the equivalent mentioned. Ferrite rod antennas with perhaps -50 to -60 dB gain are useful since the extremely high band noise at VLF. It does not matter very much if both the wanted signal and the band noise is attenuated by 60 dB, as long as the wanted signal at the antenna terminals is stronger than the preamplifier thermal noise. For transmitting, such antenna would be ridiculous. In order to get 1 W EiRP as allowed on the 135 kHz amateur band in many countries, you would have to feed 1 MW into an antenna with -60 dB gain. The ferrite rod would saturate at much lower power levels such as 1 W or a few mW. Most likely you might get a few nW radiated power without saturating the rod. Paul OH3LWR |
VLF from the amp
Sure Paul. It is as a transmitting antenna for short-range only. Do you know
about: http://www.ancom.no/ products? They claim their ferrite rod styled antenna works as good transmitter. See their patent application. regards - Henry "Paul Keinanen" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ... On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 17:24:40 +0200, "Henry Kiefer" wrote: You can use ferrit antenna rods. That works for receivers very fine in VLF band and for transmitters too - as long as the ferrit won't go into saturation. That is a magnetic antenna and it is much shorter than the equivalent mentioned. Ferrite rod antennas with perhaps -50 to -60 dB gain are useful since the extremely high band noise at VLF. It does not matter very much if both the wanted signal and the band noise is attenuated by 60 dB, as long as the wanted signal at the antenna terminals is stronger than the preamplifier thermal noise. For transmitting, such antenna would be ridiculous. In order to get 1 W EiRP as allowed on the 135 kHz amateur band in many countries, you would have to feed 1 MW into an antenna with -60 dB gain. The ferrite rod would saturate at much lower power levels such as 1 W or a few mW. Most likely you might get a few nW radiated power without saturating the rod. Paul OH3LWR |
VLF from the amp
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 22:27:47 +0200, "Henry Kiefer"
wrote: Sure Paul. It is as a transmitting antenna for short-range only. So we are talking about a near field system. In the far field the ratio between the electric (E) and magnetic (H) field is constant and is 120 pi or 377 ohms. This field is inversely proportional to the square of distance since both the electric and magnetic field is inversely proportional to the distance. However, very close to the transmitting antenna (near field) the E/H ratio is no longer 377 ohms. The magnetic field is inversely proportional to the square of distance and the electric field inversely proportional to the cube of distance. There is much debate were the near field ends and were the far field begins. For simple antennas, the distance is less than one wavelength, the value lambda / (2*pi) often appears in literature. For large parabolic reflectors or lasers, the far field begins at hundreds or thousands of wavelengths. Near field communication systems have been used for decades e.g. in induction loop systems for the hearing impaired, in which a magnetic loop is surrounding the room and audio frequencies are fed into the loop. The headset will pick up the field, amplify the signal and feed it to the ear of the person with reduced hearing. Of course, such systems are now more or less useless due to the stray magnetic fields caused by various inverters. Do you know about: http://www.ancom.no/ products? They claim their ferrite rod styled antenna works as good transmitter. See their patent application. These seem to be near field devices even at MF, where they seem to operate. Paul OH3LWR |
VLF from the amp
Thanks Paul for the long explanation!
I don't found a good source how ferrite rods works for transmitters. All say it cannot work because of big power eating in the ferrite. How much power is possible? I think 1 watt should be possible. I google on... http://www.ancom.no/ products? They claim their ferrite rod styled antenna works as good transmitter. See their patent application. These seem to be near field devices even at MF, where they seem to operate. No! They are far-field devices. I even saw a explosion picture of a mobile phone antenna 900MHz helix construction as composite in a (ferrite?) filled outline. Does an antenna exists, which receives BOTH field-vectors? If the antenna covers only one /E or M), half of the transmitting power is lost - correct? - Henry |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:37 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com