Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Eric Dollard

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by magnetO View Post
    Hi Dave,

    as we do not consequently, correctly express the functions B(H) and B'(H) = (H), we have a little problem at point H = 0. Thats all.

    It is not allowed to divide by Zero! So we must consider the lim-function for (H) at point H = 0. We have: lim +>0 = lim ->0, so the [Gradient of B(H)] = is defined and steady.

    Number is: ... put a ruler at the function B(H) at point H = 0, and measure the steepnes delta B / delta H.


    Best regards
    magnetO

    E.P.D. has never answered to my proposal?
    No, problem! Must I do by myself.
    But if you plot the expression, , using the literal values for B and H in a full hysteresis loop, you get a permeability plot where the permeability gets closer and closer to infinity as H approaches zero. This is not physical reality... madhatter posted a link that correctly describes how to overcome this mathematical misunderstanding.

    I sent Eric the info that you sent to me but he hasn't written anything back. I'll ask him about it again.

    Dave

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Web000x View Post
      But if you plot the expression, , using the literal values for B and H in a full hysteresis loop, you get a permeability plot where the permeability gets closer and closer to infinity as H approaches zero. This is not physical reality... madhatter posted a link that correctly describes how to overcome this mathematical misunderstanding.

      I sent Eric the info that you sent to me but he hasn't written anything back. I'll ask him about it again.

      Dave

      I cannot tell it any better, but
      B as function of H, B(H), HAS a slope.
      as function of H, (H) = B'(H), IS the slope of B(H).

      Slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      And the slope can only be a difference-quotient [delta B / delta H], or the differential-quotient [dB/dH].

      So, to say =B/H is NOT correct.

      But glad, you found a answer

      Comment


      • Originally posted by magnetO View Post
        I cannot tell it any better, but
        B as function of H, B(H), HAS a slope.
        as function of H, (H) = B'(H), IS the slope of B(H).

        Slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        And the slope can only be a difference-quotient [delta B / delta H], or the differential-quotient [dB/dH].

        So, to say =B/H is NOT correct.

        But glad, you found a answer
        I understand now. Thank you all for bearing with me in trying to sort this out in my head.



        Dave

        Comment


        • Originally posted by magnetO View Post
          I cannot tell it any better, but
          B as function of H, B(H), HAS a slope.
          as function of H, (H) = B'(H), IS the slope of B(H).

          Slope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

          And the slope can only be a difference-quotient [delta B / delta H], or the differential-quotient [dB/dH].

          So, to say =B/H is NOT correct.

          But glad, you found a answer
          Correct, which is why I was a bit confused by his confusion. I didn't want to highlight the divide by zero issue as I assumed he may have seen that, but it seems that he was looking at it from a non-delta view.
          however Dave did find his answer and I'll bet that he's also learned a few other things he may not be aware of. No offense in the least Dave,, I have the utmost respect for anyone asking questions and looking for answers, I look back to my late fathers replies to me as a kid, "son, I could tell you the answer, but you'll never learn that way. Instead look it up, try and understand it first, then when you have a question, ask me" I can't tell you how much I hated that early on, later on I got to see the benefit of that approach, now I'm forever trying to understand and learn the why & how.

          Also wanted to add, I'm working on a x-cell sheet right now that will calculate the needed wire and core for transformer builds, a bit more advanced than the normal ratio calcs. It'll take into account the helix and space factor, flux density approximation etc.. may take a few days but I think will be very helpful in those wanting to build their own specific transformers. Keep you all posted on progress.

          Comment


          • Solution?

            Dave (and everyone else),

            Call me your "common swine", as I have no formal training in anything (self-taught), but here's how I go about solving for the problem. (For speed over comfort, start at part 5 and finish off with part 6.)

            --------------------------------------------------------------------------

            A remote analog of this problem, is solving for the conductance of a lambda diode, or any other device with a conductivity that varies per applied E-field intensity. In this connection, lets examine the slope of an I-V plot at certain points to give some general insight:

            [1] Know Your Limits

            First and foremost, lets define our limits.

            0 < Conductance G << ∞

            Practically speaking, it's not possible to have zero conductance nor is it possible to have an infinite amount. Knowing that the value will always be finite and between two certain values, we can eliminate common errors that will crop up in graphing and differential calculus problems. (Neglecting, super conductors and a cold hard vacuum, the above is accurate.)

            [2] Observed Trends on an I-V Plot

            Section of interest: linear region where slope is positive, m = 1
            When the slope of I = 1, linear rise of current per applied voltage, the G-V plot shows conductance is constant per applied voltage.
            *This is the operation of an "air cored" coil, linear rise in B per applied H.*

            Section of interest: non-linear exponential region where slope is positive, m = dI/dV
            When the slope of I rises exponentially, exponential rise of current per applied voltage, the G-V plot shows conductance is rising linearly per applied voltage.
            *This condition is approximately seen in "iron cored" coils, an exponential rise in B due to a linear increase in μ.*

            Section of interest: linear region where slope is negative, m = -1
            When the slope of I = -1, linear fall of current per applied voltage, the G-V plot shows conductance is exponentially falling per applied voltage.
            *This case isn't really encountered with ferromagnetism, B never falls with increasing H, it just tappers off its rate of growth".*

            Section of interest: linear region having zero slope, m = 0
            When the slope of I = 0, constant current per applied voltage, the G-V plot shows conductance is linearly falling per applied voltage.
            *This case can approximately happen in ferromagnetism, as the core starts to saturate, but then B tends towards a slight positive slope soon after.*

            [3] "Pop Quiz"

            Question - What is the conductance G at point (V=0,I=0), for the I-V plot?
            Answer - "Undefined".

            However, that is a useless answer! We know by setting our limits earlier that the value for G is definitely between our two limiting points, and thus CANNOT be zero. The solution is to measure using very small values for I and V and use that as our initial values for G. That is, G will never be below that point on the G-V plot, we will assume that even at (V=0,I=0), of the I-V plot, G>0. We can call this value the initial conductance G_i. Generally the initial conductance is always constant and thus doesn't change materially with applied voltage, however that isn't the case for all conductors. From the general observation that G_i is of a constant value, we usually don't think twice about applying it for calculations using arbitrary values of V. That is, we implicitly assume the G-V plot to have zero slope and G to be some value above 0 at all times.

            [4] More Observations & Limits

            Lets first state some basic observations. The flux density B is the direct result of the applied H-field intensity, due explicitly to the permeability μ of the medium surrounding the H-field. That is, μ directly relates to the ability of a flux to form and also its maximum spatial density. While the H-field is the instigating force for manifesting the flux, each is separate but tightly connected. Since a section of a permeable medium is finite (core of an inductor for example), the maximum spatial conditions for B are also finite, B inside the core has an upper limit. That is, the core can saturate, and "overflow" causing new flux to form outside of the permeable media. The overall relation here, is somewhat similar (neglecting saturation of course) to that between current density J, electrostatic field intensity E and conductivity σ (sigma) or more practically, current, voltage and conductance as discussed earlier. Something to take away from all of this, is that all of these various quantities are connected in an Ohm's law type of way.

            Since the slope of B, in a B-H plot, is similar that that of I in a I-V plot, we can loosely say, that the permeability is closely related to what we have discussed earlier for conductance. That is, permeability will always be a finite value between two limiting conditions. Further, it can also be assumed to have a value above or equal to μ_0 at all times, for the μ-H plot. Finally, the slope of B (for B-H) relates to μ (for μ-H), in much the same way that the slope of I (for I-V) relates to G (for G-V). That is, the slope of one represents a specific trend in the other.

            Defining our limits,

            μ_0 ≤ B/H << ∞

            This relation will help us keep out of trouble later on. Note that zero, in the relation for conductance, has been replaced by μ_0 in our relation for permeability. This is because μ_0 is the lowest permeability under normal conditions, values lower than this will be neglected for obvious reasons.

            [5] Complications

            The most important mathematical complications to consider, when calculating for μ, are "remnance" and "coercivity", symbolized by B_r and H_c respectively. B_r is the "left over" or remaining flux that persists when an H-field has been completely removed and constitutes an "offset" in a specific direction. Conversely, H_c is the "force" required to "reset" this offset back to zero. That is, to return the permeable medium back to an effective state of zero magnetization, B_r = 0.

            As can be seen for the full AC B-H plot, these phenomena cause the B-H plot to be displaced on both sides of the origin. Each vertical half (s-like line) is a 180 rotated image of the other, space apart by 2 * H_c, or simply each one is spaced 1 * H_c from the origin. It is this situation that causes complications when attempting to calculate for μ. That is, values obtained for μ, from the function B/H, at certain points, are outside of our defined physical limits. "Huston, we have a problem".

            [6] Solution

            My solution to this perplexing problem, is to add and subtract H_c to all x-points of coordinate pairs in the top two quadrants (add H_c to the left-most curve and subtract H_c from the right-most curve). Since both upper and lower halves of the plot are symmetrical we need only contemplate the upper half. This "trick" temporarily resets the "displacement" caused by B_r (the curves now start at the x-axis origin), and now allows calculation of the permeability for each of the two curves. These "offset adjusted" calculations now fall within our earlier defined limits! A good sign we're doing something right.

            *After calculating for μ, in the way described, you need to then "map" these new "physical" values from the μ-H plot to the B-H plot in which they were derived. This will then provide the actual value of μ at any point on the B-H plot. This eliminates problems of μ being negative, zero, infinite or other erroneous non-realistic values.

            Concluding, calculation for μ now reduces to adding the last applied H-field (relates to B_remnant) and the current applied H-field (relates to B_effective). This makes more sense when looking at the plots, and I'm too lazy to upload them. Also, I might be slightly off in my descriptions, but the overall method is still a powerful aid in solving the problem and shouldn't be overlooked. You just need to plot the operating loop of the hysteresis cycle that your in and map it to the μ-H plot derived using the H_c offset trick. Depending upon the operating loop, you may only need to apply the H_c offset trick to one side of the curve and not the other, just think it though with a clear head and everything should make sense.

            *If using the slope of B for calculations, know that it is erroneous to directly relate it to the physical value of μ, observed on the μ-H plot. Only for the conditions of a positive linear slope, 0 < arctan(m) < 90, (angle of the slope of B) is the physical value of μ equal to that of the slope of B. So if using differential calculus to get the slope (and thinking its equivalent to μ), know that it isn't all that useful, from my perspective. The slope values are, however, quite useful to relate trends in one quantity with another correlated quantity and also to provide single numeric answers for exponentially increasing or decreasing quantities. For example, an exponentially increasing value of resistance is "equivalent" to a constant value of an imaginary negative resistance (angles of the slope are the same), this can simplify things greatly. Slope becomes even more useful, when placing multiple circuit elements in parallel or series. As the vector sum of the slopes provide a quick solution to an otherwise complex problem regarding currents and voltages with multivalued elements.

            [7] Other Thoughts

            In connection to satureable reactors in general, when using pulsed DC, you may want to implement an H_c "resetting" current though a separate bias winding, depending upon the core material used. This will simplify the math and increase the usable return portion of the input for a reactor. Or alternatively have a 25% +pulse @ H_saturate / 25% -pulse @ H_reset from the control bias winding to assist in minimizing the B_r problem. However, I haven't worked this out fully myself (so don't assume that "fix" will work), but it is an important issue, so as to use the full dynamic flux capacity of the core.

            Regards,
            Garrett M
            Last edited by garrettm4; 12-21-2012, 06:02 PM.

            Comment


            • Garrettm4, very good grasp and write up.
              the big problem with trying to directly calculate the mu of the core is the applied field is also an approximation of the integration of sine curve for the A/C current. the B-H plot for a material is for a single sheet example, laminations and resultant gaps for eddy current gets even more complex. frequency, temperature etc.. then there is negative permeability which in a way brings round to the rotation of the magnetic field and refraction as a function of frequency.

              Comment


              • tesla_ether_2

                Originally posted by Lambda View Post
                Dave, part 2 of the Tesla Ether Tape is in the folder called "Gerry Vassilatos with Laura Lee - Tapes", there are 6 files in there starting with "temp1 2", that is the continuation of that conversation. This is the way I received it, sorry about the confusion, and terribly sorry about the virus, I've never gotten one from that site and that is why I used it, I would never direct someone to a shady site. You'll find that the first file in that folder picks up right where Vassilatos_Tesla_Ether_1 leaves off. I should have combined those files and properly named it first, but at the time I didn't realize that was the continuation of that conversation. Hope it works out for you.

                Mike
                @All Thank you for your replies of help recently. I've ended up ordering myself the filament transformer (secondary - 10v @ 13amp) which is going to cost $33.00 which seemed to me pretty good deal considering the price of commercial transformers these days and will save me time winding my own. The choke is next, but i'll ask a friend first who may have one to sell or give me.

                I've stiched together the vassilatos_tesla_ether_2 mp3, so its one contiuous and seemless recording and have also corrected the recording levels. (I'll share this soon). I think I'll stich the rest of them together also, the cold_war as one file, the tesla_ether as one file and the rest as one. So there will be 4 files in total. I'll then share on media fire or similar when done.. This may take a little while considering the time of year.
                "Doesn't matter how many times you kick the coyote in the head, it's still gonna eat chickens". - EPD

                Comment


                • A warning to all:

                  During a very low power experiment I managed to trip the house mains. After some tweaking to the amplifier, I noticed it was now possible to light LEDs with an AV plug from the ground connection of the coil, also at the radiator where the coil is connected to earth, and also the screws in the light switches and mains sockets etc. Then I noticed the same was also possible with a single LED alone and no diodes, but not at the coil ground or at the radiator. All the light switch screws upstairs worked, so I took it downstairs. It's brighter in some rooms than others, but it doesn't work off the radiators downstairs. I then connected a wire to the radiator pipe leading to the LED, and completed the circuit between the light switch screw. The wire alone basically had the same effect as my body capacitance in terms of allowing the LED to light, except now small sparks were observed when making contact with the screws. Connecting the wire directly from the radiator to the screws, nothing happened, no sparks (the ground plane is in fact connected to both the mains earth and central heating so it should be a short circuit anyway). Intrigued by this and the fact that the LED was brighter in some rooms than others, leaving the wire connected to the radiator I took the LED into the other room and connected it to the light switch screw. BOOM! Big spark this time, and the whole house went dark as the trip went off. This still with less than 400mW to the coil, so beware.
                  Last edited by dR-Green; 12-21-2012, 04:27 AM.
                  http://www.teslascientific.com/

                  "Knowledge is cosmic. It does not evolve or unfold in man. Man unfolds to an awareness of it. He gradually discovers it." - Walter Russell

                  "Once men died for Truth, but now Truth dies at the hands of men." - Manly P. Hall

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by dR-Green View Post
                    A warning to all:

                    During a very low power experiment I managed to trip the house mains. After some tweaking to the amplifier, I noticed it was now possible to light LEDs with an AV plug from the ground connection of the coil, also at the radiator where the coil is connected to earth, and also the screws in the light switches and mains sockets etc. Then I noticed the same was also possible with a single LED alone and no diodes, but not at the coil ground or at the radiator. All the light switch screws upstairs worked, so I took it downstairs. It's brighter in some rooms than others, but it doesn't work off the radiators downstairs. I then connected a wire to the radiator pipe leading to the LED, and completed the circuit between the light switch screw. The wire alone basically had the same effect as my body capacitance in terms of allowing the LED to light, except now small sparks were observed when making contact with the screws. Connecting the wire directly from the radiator to the screws, nothing happened, no sparks (the ground plane is in fact connected to both the mains earth and central heating so it should be a short circuit anyway). Intrigued by this and the fact that the LED was brighter in some rooms than others, leaving the wire connected to the radiator I took the LED into the other room and connected it to the light switch screw. BOOM! Big spark this time, and the whole house went dark as the trip went off. This still with less than 400mW to the coil, so beware.
                    Sounds like one time when I was working with some faulty wiring and the scope ground vs the ground that I was connecting to weren't at the same potential, one ground was tied hot, the other neutral. BOOM!! Are you sure that you ground connection on the plug is connected to the correct bus bar? Sorry, I am just having trouble seeing how your coil caused the boom and breaker trip...

                    But then of course, you are the one doing the experiments and I am being the "armchair theorist"...

                    Dave

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Web000x View Post
                      Are you sure that you ground connection on the plug is connected to the correct bus bar? Sorry, I am just having trouble seeing how your coil caused the boom and breaker trip...
                      What plug do you mean? The only thing I can think of being possible by normal standards is that there's inadequate earthing upstairs and/or in the house mains earth. Assuming it was the light switch screws that were energised seeing as the radiator wouldn't light the LED, apparently connecting both together through the LED supplied a better path to ground. But then all the central heating is connected so I don't see how that's possible. Either way, Farmhand recently posted something on RCD protection recently I think and I've been wondering how that whole thing would work seeing as we intentionally want to transmit the energy through the earth, so the only way I can explain it is that suddenly the energy went to earth easier and it tripped the switch because it thought there was a fault. The screws and radiators don't light LEDs when the coil is turned off that's for sure. But still the coil is adequately earthed to receive a radio signal, so I don't know what's going on. Certainly what's supposed to be earthed is energised to a certain extent, so I think a separate connection dedicated to the coil would be safer.

                      The best working LED is now destroyed as a result of the above mishap, but this is the effect with LEDs that don't work as well

                      Light switch:



                      Radiator:

                      http://www.teslascientific.com/

                      "Knowledge is cosmic. It does not evolve or unfold in man. Man unfolds to an awareness of it. He gradually discovers it." - Walter Russell

                      "Once men died for Truth, but now Truth dies at the hands of men." - Manly P. Hall

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by dR-Green View Post
                        What plug do you mean? The only thing I can think of being possible by normal standards is that there's inadequate earthing upstairs and/or in the house mains earth. Assuming it was the light switch screws that were energised seeing as the radiator wouldn't light the LED, apparently connecting both together through the LED supplied a better path to ground. But then all the central heating is connected so I don't see how that's possible. Either way, Farmhand recently posted something on RCD protection recently I think and I've been wondering how that whole thing would work seeing as we intentionally want to transmit the energy through the earth, so the only way I can explain it is that suddenly the energy went to earth easier and it tripped the switch because it thought there was a fault. The screws and radiators don't light LEDs when the coil is turned off that's for sure. But still the coil is adequately earthed to receive a radio signal, so I don't know what's going on. Certainly what's supposed to be earthed is energised to a certain extent, so I think a separate connection dedicated to the coil would be safer.

                        The best working LED is now destroyed as a result of the above mishap, but this is the effect with LEDs that don't work as well

                        Light switch:



                        Radiator:

                        Before I stick my foot in my mouth, does the connection from the radiator to the screw under question make any sort of electrical activity when trying the same experiment with the Tesla transmitter turned off?

                        Dave

                        Comment


                        • vassilatos_tesla_ether_2

                          [QUOTE=Sputins;219388
                          I've stiched together the vassilatos_tesla_ether_2 mp3, so its one contiuous and seemless recording and have also corrected the recording levels. (I'll share this soon) [/QUOTE]

                          Here I hope the link works. This is vassilatos_tesla_ether_2 mp3 stiched together.

                          http://www.mediafire.com/?24i4ltav2wk49en

                          The rest will follow.

                          Here is vassilatos_tesla_ether complete, stiched together:
                          http://www.mediafire.com/?cocnz5weewlwoxm

                          Let me know if the link works/fails
                          Last edited by Sputins; 12-21-2012, 09:10 AM. Reason: add file link
                          "Doesn't matter how many times you kick the coyote in the head, it's still gonna eat chickens". - EPD

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Web000x View Post
                            Before I stick my foot in my mouth, does the connection from the radiator to the screw under question make any sort of electrical activity when trying the same experiment with the Tesla transmitter turned off?

                            Dave
                            Yes it does! It has nothing to do with the TMT. The LED also lights off the screws with the TMT turned off, but it gets a bit brighter when it's turned on. So that can be disregarded. The radiator and AV plug does depend on the TMT. But both are still connected together through the ground plane so obviously the connections between these components aren't as good as I thought. One problem solved, another discovered.
                            http://www.teslascientific.com/

                            "Knowledge is cosmic. It does not evolve or unfold in man. Man unfolds to an awareness of it. He gradually discovers it." - Walter Russell

                            "Once men died for Truth, but now Truth dies at the hands of men." - Manly P. Hall

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Web000x View Post
                              Before I stick my foot in my mouth, does the connection from the radiator to the screw under question make any sort of electrical activity when trying the same experiment with the Tesla transmitter turned off?

                              Dave
                              Dave, YOU are free space coupled wrt to mains wiring and the central heating.
                              You are contributing to the RF differential being rectified and illuminating the LED.

                              Try again with the Avramenko arrangement on the end of a paper tube on the end of a broom handle.
                              The transduced frequencies will not be so low and thus the LED will be dimmer and brightness likely positionally sensitive.

                              Here in UK the law has been updated. It is illegal to have electrical installations where the mains safety earth is directly connected to the water system. You likely induced an independent spike(s) directly into your mains breaker box with respect to the mains supply sensed input reference.

                              Cheers .......... Graham.
                              Last edited by GSM; 12-21-2012, 08:34 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Wardenclyffe, Denied.

                                1) I recently viewed the "Wardenclyffe, Tesla's True Intent" channel, pure Coyote vomit. It is of the same ilk as the "Science Center", it is a circus. Most distressing in the "Tesla's True Intent" channel is that none of its participants has the slightest clue as to what is involved in the technologies of Nikola Tesla, and in turn, with their psuedo-authority in matters of which they know not, these participants drive off anyone that can speak with some authority in this. It is in a way a bit like an episode of "Catcher in the Rye". Also, to what extent is this deliberate in an attempt to keep Tesla's work occult and remain in the realm of "Tesla Secrets"?

                                2) The primary objective in my writings here is to analyze the Arch-Forms engaged in the efforts to obstruct the engineering of a Telluric Transmission system as conceived by Nikola Tesla. The "Tesla True Intent" channel serves as an element in this obstruction, in that it DEGRADES the name and reputation of Nikola Tesla. Now the name of Tesla is part of the "Art Bell Show" therefore driving off serious support for any constructive effort, I have seen this.

                                In accord with this unfortunate condition I can no longer provide technical information regarding Tesla transformers or transmission systems. This is because of complications regarding interference to other services. This is mandated by my Government Licensing Agreement, and other security issues.

                                The radio spectrum is becoming a plethora of willful and malicious interference, as well as parasitic oscillations from poorly engineered equipment. One of the functions of the Landers Installation was to search for and identify such signals and report them to the proper Federal Agency. There is little action any more unfortunately, and no Landers. Massive Pulsed H.F. transmitters in China are devastating large portions of the H.F. radio spectrum, "China-HAARP", but the Art Bell Show is silent on this matter. I have no desire to inspire, and then aid & abet a technology for the public that results in a massive proliferation of radio interference. So here we can see one way that Tesla Secrets obstruct the development of Tesla Technology.

                                3)Three principle components were given and now a fourth is added;

                                I) Academicians, or Pendants
                                II) Green Peace Syndicate
                                III) Einsteiners
                                IV) Tesla Secrets

                                Tesla Secrets stop the project before it even starts, this thru discrediting the idea to begin with, so no one will support it.

                                It can be noticed in this list of obstructive components no C.I.A., F.B.I., or the like are listed. Surprising is the absence of the "Government Coverup", at least as commonly understood. The Government Coverup idea is in actuality a good breeding grounds for dis-information, such as the Art Bell Show, now the "Coast to Coast" (B.S.) show. The "U.F.O. conspiracy" is representative of such a situation. The Government develops the U.F.O. from German war technology, then the "space people" story is inoculated into the public. The Government then denies the existence of "Space People", but we know the Government lies, so the Spaceman story is true. Hereby now one would believe that the U.F.O. is a Government invention. This is a very effective process. In my opinion the Government has little to do with obstructing the technology of Nikola Tesla, for the most part. If the Government gets involved it is via the instigation of one or more of the four basic forces of my definition. I observed this in the Bolinas Incident, personally.

                                In our analysis of these four obstructive forces the facts will be derived from observed activities of known, identifiable, organizations engaged in their acts of obstruction. There can be no mysterious "They", nor any Occult Theories and Secrets. This will follow,

                                73 DE N6KPH
                                SUPPORT ERIC DOLLARD'S WORK AT EPD LABORATORIES, INC.

                                Purchase Eric Dollard's Books & Videos - 70% of the sale goes to Eric and EPD Laboratories: Eric Dollard Books & Videos
                                Donate by Paypal: Donate to EPD Laboratories

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X