PopularFX
Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2020-05-26, 19:02:33
News: Registration with the OUR forum is now by invitation only.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8
Author Topic: The Patent Of William Barbat  (Read 152524 times)

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3193
tExB=qr
The electron is just along for the ride and that is not assumption.

What if it only took a fraction of the work to move a charge than it takes now?   Wether the charges move faster or easier gives the same result: more for less.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3193
tExB=qr
Grumpy,

I'll make one last post but am done being trolled by that asshole.

Not more or less, science is a very exact thing and stories, effects or because I said so does not get it for me.

The electron is filling in a space created by mass that was converted to energy. You see the movement of the electron as the energy but that is the effect of the voltage which you conveniently skip past.

You don't see the absurdity of a magnet moving at 1 meter per minute creating a voltage that moves at the speed of light???

Why don't you explain what caused that speed amplification from 1 meter per minute to the speed of light? Let's see, something happened at the speed and pressure of the universe. Hum...

Some people believe dumb ass things like "The photon is the force carrier of the electromotive force" which is just a story and a bullshit story at that. My coils don't glow. That is just a story that stupid people believe because they don't possess reason, logic and critical thinking skills. They don't want you to figure out mass to atomic energy conversion and the key to free energy.

Why don't electrons move the same speed at the magnet?

So answer the simple question in bold.

Good luck with that,

C-ya

Ah-ha the wave front is steep (look at the field when it is moving) and that causes it.  O0

Also notice that the potential is not applied at the ends of the circuit - but induced where the magnetic field is.

Also, someone mentioned Coulomb's Law.  This law is for static charges and not moving or changing charges.  There are a few derivation of time-dependent extension around.  I can increase the force between charges by several orders of magnitude with very little work.  Work goes way down but the same current flows just by a different method.   More for less and it really doesn't matter how.

electron drift is just a result not the cause - I think we agree on that

At the end of UEC TPU video some stuff is deleted and then SM says that the TPU use a different means of induction.  I would not be surprised if the word "Electrostatic" was deleted.

Great talking to you , Bro!
   
Group: Guest
I think that I encountered the Free Energy Tasmanian Devil.
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 1769
...
...Why don't you wrap a few hundred turns of #34 around a large choke. Then while you pulse it, short that winding over the top and measure the result. Pulse compression transfers space into less time and that is acceleration. Again, pretty basic stuff. E=MC2 ring a bell?
...

When you say "short that winding" do you mean a very brief "short"
at the time the magnetic field strength has reached its maximum?

In order to observe the "rebound" or "spike" which follows the brief
short?


---------------------------
The animal mind ALWAYS reacts to what it does not understand. This is what sets dogs barking. If you are going to tell the truth, you are going to have to be okay with barking dogs, because they will harry your passage until you pass through town.
Les Visible - 27 February 2020
   
Group: Guest
When you say "short that winding" do you mean a very brief "short"
at the time the magnetic field strength has reached its maximum?

In order to observe the "rebound" or "spike" which follows the brief
short?

Without a clearly posed description, there is almost no point.  He seems to be indicating that he has "run out of town not to return" but hopefully he will be back to clarify it for you.

Sorry Grumpy if I may have ruined your conversation with Quarktoo.

MileHigh
   

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1859
:o I'm dumbfounded WW. That's not how the transformers I use work.

Short the secondary, and depending on the turns ratio, coupling factor, and pri/sec wire size differences, there is a corresponding maximal current flowing in it (the secondary). There is no such thing as a "short", and hence there will also be a corresponding voltage across the secondary.

.99

Most transformers I've blown showed the damage at the secondary. They blew because of an overload, not because of a short circuit. Watts is what burns the windings, not Amps (I know you know this). It is only Ohm's law again. At almost no Volts you need a hell of a lot of Amps to add up to enough heat to burn the secondary.

I say 'almost no Volts' because a sudden and complete near zero Ohm short on the secondary causes the magnetic fields to collapse causing the primary inductive reactance to drop.

I don't know why even the technically inclined don't understand it. Maybe the same reason I didn't believe it when I was the one performing the act for my first time. It was very educational. Maybe I should say 'reverse educational'.

I have the same problem telling folks about buss work repairs I had to make due to the copper pinching the full length of the buss at very short and even intervals during a short circuit on a massive DC system. All I get is 'nope, it doesn't work that way. You were delusional'.
Delusional or not I was paid for two weeks of work in one week for the repairs.

This was early in my career of 'fixing weird problems'.

And of course, not all transformers are designed the same way. Since I posted that I realized the group wasn't talking about close-coupled devices anyway. Yes, loose coupled induction is another game.
« Last Edit: 2010-12-17, 09:51:57 by WaveWatcher »


---------------------------
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Einstein

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg
   

Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 1859
You must be talking about some specific generators as this statement does not apply to all generators, specifically not permanent magnet generators. MH made this same statement some time ago.

Are you talking shunt field wound DC machines or AC induction machines? This cannot occur with a series compound wound machine, where part of the field is derived from the current delivered to the load.

Correct.

Quote
I can see where it might occur with a shunt wound machine as the field voltage is also shorted.

In an AC induction generator, the field must be allowed to build before load is applied or output goes to zero.

Again, correct but I'll add 'and the loading of the prime mover goes to zero on certain machine types when a bolted short circuit is applied to the generator output.' I wasn't going to list the different results for all possible machine combinations.

I imagine you are familiar with the old military specs of MIL STD 705C, relating to generator set testing? I performed these and similar test for the military for almost 20 years. Some gen-sets actually spat the connecting rods out the side.

Quote

I routinely show those interested how a fully loaded (short circuited) PM generator will stall the engine.

The load is totally reflected to the prime mover with these machines.

This works whether the stator winding is fixed and the permanent magnets rotate or vice-versa. Lenz's law does not suddenly give up.

You wouldn't believe how many times I was ordered to perform the same tests machines impervious to this. Once, the request was valid. They wanted to see the engine fall completely on its knees.

Quote
In the case of the other machines, what is giving up is the field excitation, so it is no longer a generator.

Even when the excitation is external? This was a requirement for a few memorable jobs. While the prime mover took a much larger hit (dropped to about 900 RPM vs. 1800 normal) it still recovered to over 1700 RPM (AC induction machine with external Basler regulators being powered from the 'house'. The exciter field effectiveness was only dependent upon RPM and the house power. We had to assume the terminal voltage was zero as the phases were shorted with a motor-operated 4000A molded case circuit breaker. (Remote controlled with a toggle switch while hiding behind another 40 thousand pound gen-set by yours truly  ;D )

As you may already know... engine/turbine/motor driven generators are almost always designed so the prime mover cannot produce enough HP to cause large physical damage to a generator. Almost always. Sometimes this must be proven.

On a few occasions the results led a young engineer to form the opinion that magnetic flux (the media, not the field) was a property of space, not the magnet.

Tests like these do happen but I would never do it unless I had full access to the design specs for the complete system and I agreed we wouldn't twist a crankshaft or rotor.
« Last Edit: 2010-12-17, 10:15:21 by WaveWatcher »


---------------------------
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." - Einstein

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning." - Werner Heisenberg
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3359
Quarktoo
I don't care if you squish me!,When you say things that are this amazing I must say Thank you

Quarktoo
Quote:
You don't see the absurdity of a magnet moving at 1 meter per minute creating a voltage that moves at the speed of light???

Why don't you explain what caused that speed amplification from 1 meter per minute to the speed of light? Let's see, something happened at the speed and pressure of the universe. Hum...

2nd
Quote:

That magnetic "field" is composed of what, magic fairy dust? You can't have action at a distance without a physical connection - more proof of particles smaller than an electron. Does that wave front rise at the speed and tension of the universe? Nope!  [insert buzzer sound here]

Chet


   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2911
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
That magnetic "field" is composed of what, magic fairy dust? You can't have action at a distance without a physical connection - more proof of particles smaller than an electron. Does that wave front rise at the speed and tension of the universe? Nope!  [insert buzzer sound here]

See how you use some funky label like "field" that was programmed into you to explain something? It does not explain anything. Hole flow theory at least came close.

You are programmed to think you are educated, but in reality, just a widget on an assembly line that drops down a rabbit hole at the end. MileHigh is the delux model that came with extended battery life, defective roam feature and a WIFI connection.

... and for that Dumped guy, the extra coil is shorted all the time. There were plenty of cites.

I would hardly call Grumpy a "widget on an assembly line".

You're not happy with this forum? That's fine, but I don't think it's necessary to insult folks here.

Please cool off a bit.

.99
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2911
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
WW,

With all due respect, let's do an experiment and "blow" that transformer up!

Provide the air-core transformer specs for me and I'll model it:

Primary and secondary inductance and DCR, coupling factor, sine frequency and amplitude input.

I can't believe that you say a "shorted" secondary will have zero current, so let's see what the model does.

Sorry if this is appears off-topic, but until we can get past how a transformer behaves in a "shorted" secondary condition, there's no point in examining the Barbat patent any further imho.

.99
   

Group: Administrator
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 2911
It's not as complicated as it may seem...
Quarktoo,

In your last couple of posts, you've put down this forum and you've put down a few members.

I'm not defending Grumpy, I'm making a point that applies to everyone and to this forum. A certain amount of "off-topic" mud slinging is tolerated, but the boundaries are being challenged.

It matters not that you and Grumps are old friends, and certainly most are not aware of this relationship, nor the specifics of what Grumpy does as an occupation.

This isn't overunity.com, and apparently, that has gone over your head.

I think you got the gist of my last message though, and I'm not going to repeat it.

Regards,
.99
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3193
tExB=qr
That magnetic "field" is composed of what, magic fairy dust? You can't have action at a distance without a physical connection - more proof of particles smaller than an electron. Does that wave front rise at the speed and tension of the universe? Nope!  [insert buzzer sound here]

See how you use some funky label like "field" that was programmed into you to explain something? It does not explain anything. Hole flow theory at least came close.

You are programmed to think you are educated, but in reality, just a widget on an assembly line that drops down a rabbit hole at the end. MileHigh is the delux model that came with extended battery life, defective roam feature and a WIFI connection.

... and for that Dumped guy, the extra coil is shorted all the time. There were plenty of cites.

I agree that field is a bad term, but add that "particle" is no better.

I regards to a magnet moving near a wire, look at the magnetic field.  Is it always across the wire at two ends.  

Here is a question for you:  how in the hell are the electrons moving in the wire when the magnet move when it takes a long time for the electric field to soak into the wire?  Is someone going ot dare to say that it is displacement current?  While you are at it, why do the electrons even move in response to the magnet at all?
   
Group: Guest
Quarktoo:

I never "took a swing" at you.  I just wanted to discuss some of the statements that you made.  Challenging some of your ideas is distinctly different from the kinds of comments you have been making about me and others.  The whole point is to try to have a fun debate and not get ugly.  Needless to say, your version of "reality" is much different from mine and that could potentially be an interesting debate on another thread.

Sorry if this is appears off-topic, but until we can get past how a transformer behaves in a "shorted" secondary condition, there's no point in examining the Barbat patent any further imho.

.99

I will comment on this and I think I was incorrect in my previous comments about this issue.  I was focused on the fact that for an open or short-circuited secondary, there is no power transfer per se if you ignore the resistances of the two coils.  That made me think that the "load goes away" when you short the secondary.  I think that was wrong.

Obviously load on the secondary is being reflected back to the primary.  Let's assume the source has an output impedance of 50 ohms and the transformer has a 1:1 ratio.  Let's assume that the source is an ideal AC voltage source in series with a 50-ohm resistor.  We know that beyond a certain excitation voltage you risk saturating the core (let's start off with a conventional power transformer, and let's ignore the losses in the core itself) so let's assume in this case you will not saturate the core.

So if you look at the secondary load starting at an open-circuit and then dropping going all the way to 50 ohms, the transformer should be operating normally, and the primary should see the same load.  As you do this of course the power transfer to the load increases and the power losses due to the resistances in the wires of both the primary and secondary coils increase.  Also, the power dissipation in the 50-ohm source itself increases during this phase also.  The output voltage from the source will have dropped by half as the secondary load trends from open-circuit to 50 ohms.

Then when the secondary load goes from 50 ohms to zero ohms the trend lines change.  The primary still has to see the impedance dropping, so the load on the secondary is still being reflected back to the primary.  We know that less power is being transferred to the real load on the secondary because the impedance is starting to mismatch.  We know that the output voltage from the source will continue to decrease, and end up at near-zero volts.  By the same token the current through both the primary and secondary are increasing during this phase.

So in other words, a pure short on the secondary is seen as a pure short on the primary if we ignore the resistive losses in both coils.

When you finally get to a load of zero ohms on the secondary, the currents circulating in the primary and secondary coils are at a maximum.  There is zero power transfer to the zero ohm load.  At this point you have maximum resistive losses in both coils because the maximum current is flowing through both coils.

Again, since we are assuming that the source impedance is 50 ohms, then we know that the output voltage from the source on the primary coil is almost zero, it is effectively shorted out.

Finally, if your source impedance is very low, like from your AC mains, shorting out the secondary of your transformer will result in very high currents flowing in the primary and the secondary and the transformer will burn up.

For the air core case, everything is very similar with the exception that you can "saturate" that much sooner.  There is a limited capacity for the volume of space between the two two coils to store energy.  So you run into a "wall" if your excitation voltage and load resistance demand an energy transfer per cycle that is beyond the capacity of the air core and inherent resistance in the wires of both cores to sustain.  This will result in the load on the secondary not being reflected back to the primary.  The coupling will be too weak and the load on the primary side will appear to be at a much higher resistance than it really is on the secondary side.  That could be developed further but I am done for now!

Anyway, thoughts and opinions welcome.

MileHigh
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3193
tExB=qr
The electrons do not move "in" the wire, they move on the surface of the wire and that is why loosely bonded oxides make a wire super conduct. The wire looks smooth to the naked eye but down there in electronville, it is like trying to fly a F-35 through the grand canyon at mach 1. Trust me, some mater is going to get splattered and converted into energy. As long as the F-35 is in slow flight configuration (less that 1 meter per minute for the electron) then the pilot can maneuver through the canyons and no mass is converted into energy.

Protons do not flow through a solid but I think I figured out a way to make a tunnel for that to happen. I'll prove it with an experiment I am building. If true, it could open the door for some hot energy transfer methods. Pun intended.

Concerning the A-B Effect, I see Bearden has hitched his wagon to this wagon-train.  I avoid anything Bearden-esque (or overly longwinded - like the posts of a few others in the ether thread) and prefer reality where the A-B Effect doesn't matter and "extra energy" is not required.

I know you are intelligent, no need to prove that.

The electric fields that make the electrons move gradually soak into the wire and more electrons move, unless there is not enough time such as in high frequency or impulse applications.  I have several articles of experiments on this subject.  So, with electrostatic induction there is a bit of a problem, as the charges seem to move faster than electrons move.  Takes you back to what in the hell is a charge?  

Regarding Barbat's device, I think the only reason he gets anything is the coatings and the electrons loosely therein.  I'm saying that this may not be the end of the story if you repeatedly apply the electrostatic influence to build up the current which takes time to do.

Protons?  What about positrons?
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3639
It's turtles all the way down

Sorry if this is appears off-topic, but until we can get past how a transformer behaves in a "shorted" secondary condition, there's no point in examining the Barbat patent any further imho.

.99

I was worried initially that the Barbat patent could not work because all the energy would be soaked up in the shorted coil. As I wrote early on, I modified this thought when I realized the short could not be zero ohms, as a result, there would be excessive heating in the coil and flux leakage.

The currents developed in this coil could never transfer to another coil unless they were oscillating, which is where Barbat places an oscillatory LC circuit into the mix. But again, this may not work without a solid state switch interrupting the current in the magnifying coil.

It further occurred to me that the oscillatory loop is unnecessary, as one could pick off voltage from 2 points of the magnifying coil and it would be a DC voltage.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   

Group: Tinkerer
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3193
tExB=qr
Now for the pitch...ugh!...the infamous dropping curve ball!  Swinging in the breeze, swinging in the breeze...

Kapanadze, and Barbat are distantly related devices from the ES perspective.  Kap appears to work better though.

The Barbat shorted coil converts the current induced by the changing electrostatic field of the first coil into a strong AC current that is coupled to the third output coil.  Like I already pointed out, if you can move those electrons for a microjoule instead of a joule, you score big.



   
Group: Guest
Quote
Here is a question for you:  how in the hell are the electrons moving in the wire when the magnet move when it takes a long time for the electric field to soak into the wire?  Is someone going ot dare to say that it is displacement current?  While you are at it, why do the electrons even move in response to the magnet at all?

The electrons do not move "in" the wire, they move on the surface of the wire and that is why loosely bonded oxides make a wire super conduct. The wire looks smooth to the naked eye but down there in electronville, it is like trying to fly a F-35 through the grand canyon at mach 1. Trust me, some mater is going to get splattered and converted into energy. As long as the F-35 is in slow flight configuration (less that 1 meter per minute for the electron) then the pilot can maneuver through the canyons and no mass is converted into energy.

Grumpy,

Some thoughts for you:

If you have an open-circuit loop of wire in the presence of a changing magnetic field and you connect a voltmeter across the ends of the loop you will be able to measure a varying electromotive force in the wire.  That's because the wire is effectively in a "bath" of changing electric fields that are in the air that are created by the changing magnetic fields.  I don't think "soak into the wire" is an appropriate term like you state above.  Everything is happening at the speed of light.  Nor are the electrons moving in the wire when the loop is an open circuit.

Now, I am assuming that this discussion is about relatively low frequencies with respect to the changing magnetic fields.  Hence there are low frequency changing electric fields being picked up by the wire.  Under those conditions when you connect a load across the two ends of the loop, or if you just short the two ends of the loop, the current will flow though the entire volume of the wire.  It's only when the frequencies become very high does the skin effect come into play.  I can't be sure because it's been so long, but you probably need to be in the frequency range of several hundred megahertz before the skin effect comes into play.  I still don't get what Quarktoo is talking about with the references about "mass being converted into energy."

The skin effect is often misunderstood.  I think just the other day for whatever reason I saw a clip with Norman Wootan where he makes the statement that the setup had a high-voltage output and therefore the current was traveling on the surface of the wires.  The skin effect is only related to frequency.

MileHigh

   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3639
It's turtles all the way down

For the air core case, everything is very similar with the exception that you can "saturate" that much sooner.  There is a limited capacity for the volume of space between the two two coils to store energy.  So you run into a "wall" if your excitation voltage and load resistance demand an energy transfer per cycle that is beyond the capacity of the air core and inherent resistance in the wires of both cores to sustain.  This will result in the load on the secondary not being reflected back to the primary.  The coupling will be too weak and the load on the primary side will appear to be at a much higher resistance than it really is on the secondary side.  That could be developed further but I am done for now!

Anyway, thoughts and opinions welcome.

MileHigh

I was under the impression that an air core inductor or transformer do not "saturate"



---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Guest
I was under the impression that an air core inductor or transformer do not "saturate"

Of course it doesn't, that's why I was using quotations.  The coupling is much weaker and the bottleneck for the energy transfer would be how much current the wires in the primary and secondary could sustain.  It also implies you have to go to much higher voltages to sustain the same amount of energy transfer as compared to an iron core transformer.

MileHigh
   
Group: Elite
Hero Member
******

Posts: 3639
It's turtles all the way down
Of course it doesn't, that's why I was using quotations.  The coupling is much weaker and the bottleneck for the energy transfer would be how much current the wires in the primary and secondary could sustain.  It also implies you have to go to much higher voltages to sustain the same amount of energy transfer as compared to an iron core transformer.

MileHigh

I don't need the EE lesson, but you said "saturate", and put it in quotes. does that mean that you did not imply "saturate" in the normal usage of the term in magnetics by just putting it in quotes?

I also mentioned air core inductor, where coupling is not an issue. I am talking "ideal" not real world.


---------------------------
"Secrecy, secret societies and secret groups have always been repugnant to a free and open society"......John F Kennedy
   
Group: Guest
The beast must be fed...

Really? It is known fact that electrons move down a wire at slightly less than 1 meter per minute and not at the speed of light.

Sing along everybody! One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong.

Really? Why don't you shove that coil into a vacuum chamber, remove that "bath" of "air" and see if that changes anything. Try looking up the term field. Trust me, Grumpy knows that one!  O0

I can see why you don't understand what I write.

Quarktoo:

Quote
The beast must be fed...

You are making a complete ass of yourself.  I think it's time for you to stop.  I have a feeling if you keep on going like this you are going to implode in a few days and disappear.

Quote
Really? It is known fact that electrons move down a wire at slightly less than 1 meter per minute and not at the speed of light.

I am talking about the induction process inducing EMF into the wire and not the electron drift velocity.

Quote
I can see why you don't understand what I write.

You were completely wrong about how current flows in the wire.  It doesn't flow on the skin only.  So it's time to loose the attitude Quarktoo and to try acting like a civil human being.  The fact that I disagree with you, doesn't mean that you have to trash me.  In the "outside world" your statements would result in you being considered a crackpot.  That is the real reality.  I would prefer just to debate the points.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
I don't need the EE lesson, but you said "saturate", and put it in quotes. does that mean that you did not imply "saturate" in the normal usage of the term in magnetics by just putting it in quotes?

I also mentioned air core inductor, where coupling is not an issue. I am talking "ideal" not real world.

It was a poor choice of words.  You know that I know that there is nothing to saturate.  It will be interesting to see if Poynt posts some simulations.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
"outside world"... "Real reality"...

In that "outside world" you live in, free energy devices are impossible in spite of the fact that Barbat had to demonstrate and prove to the patent office that his device works in "real reality".

Yep, it looks just as stupid when I use your terms in my sentences as it does yours.

I don't need your psychological lesson or concern and I am not the one making an ass of myself in "real reality". Save your concern for someone that does not think you are a moron.

Is there a working copy of the Barbat device anywhere today doing useful work?  I have to assume that the answer is no.  If anything there might be a classic story that is shrouded in mystery about it, like there always is for these types of devices.

Every now and then the soul-searching question comes up on the forums about whether or not anybody actually has a true, real free energy device and the answer is always no.  That's the reality.

I don't need your bullshit.  You called me a "moron," which is probably about the tenth time you have used a derogatory term about me.  Keep it up and you will most likely be booted off of this forum.

And all of the other participants on this forum shouldn't just stand for this type of behaviour and avert your eyes.  At some point you should have the guts to speak up and say something about it.

MileHigh
   
Group: Guest
One other thing since you have reading and comprehension issues and I don't want you polluting my posts with your functional illiteracy.

I never stated that "current" flows on the surface of the wire. I stated that electrons flow on the surface of the wire. I have in other posts elsewhere stated that half of the AB wave is below the surface of the wire and used AB effect to explain right thumb rule.

If you are going to quote me, use a quote button since you have literacy and other issues. Mis-quoting someone is considered a smear and quite offensive.

All that is clearly over your head.

You are digging your own grave, keep it up.
   
Group: Ambassador
Hero Member
*****

Posts: 3359
quarktoo
Quote:
One thing that is interesting is Ramset stated he said it was nothing like the hubbard

-------------------------------------
I asked him if there were any isotopes or unusual elements involved!
the answer was no!

As I said he has it working ,but had issues with the VERY thin wire being fragile!

Please Chill fellas!
we should REALLY try to attempt to understand this AB effect,as well as the electrostatic condition [the precurser to a lightning strike].

Chet
   
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8
« previous next »


 

Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2020-05-26, 19:02:33