|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
 Posted - 02/20/2006 : 09:16:12 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Birkeland had the coronal loops figured out 100 years ago. The black and white image is an image that Birkeland produced in his lab, and the flow of these coronal loops is arched in exactly the same manner as coronal loops as we see in the Yohkoh side of this image. There is no mystery about the nature of these coronal loops, nor is their any doubt that they provide the heat for the corona, not the other way around. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/20/2006 09:19:23 |
 |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/20/2006 : 14:56:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Utter and complete nonsense. I have presented you with the definition of a black body, and I presented evidence that million-Kelvin iron plasmas around the Sun fail to meet that definition in more than one way.
There's simply no point in doing a point by point reply to this post. We're hung up on two issues.
1) The *whole* sun certainly does act as a "black body". It radiates energy as a black body of about 5800K, with a radius of 1.00R. The plasma in the coronal loops is the hot, million degree exception, in an otherwise "cool", thousand degree rule. If Lockheed understood black body principles, it would have realized their obvious mistake rather quickly just by looking at the Yohkoh image at the top of this page. The "black body" solar surface is thousand degree plasma and therefore dark in this image. The coronal loops are the hot exception in an otherwise cool black body spectrum. You keep obscuring this issue in archane aspects of plasma physics and IMO you keep overlooking the obvious. That Yohkoh image shows a very dark "black body" in the thousands of degree range with hot plasma arcs coming out of that relatively cool and black body (at this specific wavelength). It's really that simple, but you keep trying to make it complicated IMO. It's not complicated at all.
2) You're overly concerned about light propogation through thin plasma IMO. Arcs from arc welders are particularly bright. We should not look at them with our naked eyes up close or we could burn our retinas. On the sun we see arcs that span for thousands of kilometers. Sometimes these massive arcs rise right through the photosophere. Only some light from these large arcs needs to excape the photosphere, even if most of that light is absorbed. The x-rays are, by and large, absorbed/blocked, but even these wavelengths can be seen through the photosphere if the surface event is bright enough as with the Bastille Day Flare. You've never demonstrated that this massive amount of light *cannot* penentrate a plasma you've yet to even identify. You also claim that plasma is 15 times less dense than aerogel.
Your arguement about making me prove we can see the light through the photosophere is a bit analogous to both of us seeing lightning from a distance. You refuse to believe it's lightning until I can demonstrate personally and mathematically demonstrate that visible light will propagate the air molecules from that distance. I'm afraid I simply "see" what I "see", including this image I showed you earlier that compares the views of the relative filters. This image shows the "fuzziness" and/or opacity of the plasma and how that wavelength of light is recieved by each filter. The 1600A filter is very hazy and we don't really see very much surface detail at that wavelength. The 171A image however does show a great deal more detail, as do the other iron ion filters.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodarchive11.html
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/images/Seaton_T010828_00UT_multi.gif |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/20/2006 14:59:09 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 11:08:48 [Permalink]
|
www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/2006_02/" target="_blank">http://lasco-www.nrl.navy.mil/daily_mpg/2006_02/
The raw data feed (dit) from the 20th is somewhat interesting in the sense that the surface strutures can be seen pretty clearly in the raw feed, and the "flash" (whatever process caused it) that takes place at the end of the video gives us a clear outline of the solar "atmosphere" around the surface disk. The surface itself is the part where we see all the surface 'structures' in the 195A wavelengths, whereas the atmosphere is the part around that disk that lights up during the flash. By watching this video in repeat mode, you can get a general sense of the total depth of the solar atmosphere (including the chromosphere and the lower corona) in relationship to the radius of the surface itself. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/21/2006 11:18:40 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 11:56:01 [Permalink]
|
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060220_stardust_update.html
quote:
The early results reveal that the 4.5 billion-year-old comet contains iron, sulfides, glassy materials, olivine, and what the scientists termed potentially interesting isotopic traces. They believe that these materials were also available during the formation of other objects in our solar system.
Ya, they were available to the sun as well. :) |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/21/2006 11:56:59 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 13:29:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
1) The *whole* sun certainly does act as a "black body". It radiates energy as a black body of about 5800K, with a radius of 1.00R. The plasma in the coronal loops is the hot, million degree exception, in an otherwise "cool", thousand degree rule.
So what? The temperature of the whole corona is much higher than the photosphere. That in it self does not prove anything. (Other than that the temperature of the corona is high)
quote:
If Lockheed understood black body principles, it would have realized their obvious mistake rather quickly just by looking at the Yohkoh image at the top of this page.
What mistake? Please re-iterate...
quote:
The "black body" solar surface is thousand degree plasma and therefore dark in this image.
Do you understand why it is dark in this image? It's not because it's painted black as in "black body"...
quote:
The coronal loops are the hot exception in an otherwise cool black body spectrum. You keep obscuring this issue in archane aspects of plasma physics and IMO you keep overlooking the obvious.
To me it looks like you are overlooking the obvious. Dave have hinted at it several times, but you seem to dense (hint, hint) to get it.
What is the absolute luminosity of the coronal loops in comparison with the photosphere? The photons from the loops are drenched in photons from the 6000K photosphere. We know that matter (like gas) absorbs UV-range photons to various degrees. We see it on earth where only 100km of atmosphere absorb all 171Å UV.
According to your model (correct me if I'm wrong here) the density of the plasma in the photosphere i higher than the standard gas model.
Plasma does also absorb photons. More so in the UV-range than visible light.
quote:
That Yohkoh image shows a very dark "black body" in the thousands of degree range with hot plasma arcs coming out of that relatively cool and black body (at this specific wavelength). It's really that simple, but you keep trying to make it complicated IMO. It's not complicated at all.
No shit Sherlock, the photosphere in the Yohkoh image is very dark. It should be, since the soft-Xray filter is designed to filter out the light from the photosphere.
You really need to work on your communication skills, because I don't get what point you are trying make.
The photosphere is radiating close to the ideal "Black Body" formula, which means that it is a continuous spectrum with a somewhat bell-shaped intensity-curve. This meas that the bulk of the energy emitted by the sun as a hole is located in the visible spectrum, centring on yellow. The light from the coronal loops gives off a spectrum that is consistent with plasma in the million degree range, that I agree with. However the intensity is low. That's one of the reasons for using band-pass filters: masking off photons that are undesirable (read photons originating in the photosphere).
quote:
2) You're overly concerned about light propogation through thin plasma IMO.
In my opinion, we are not. In fact it's more important than you realise. Matter absorb photons, though in various amounts. Charcoal absorb almost 100% of the light that hits it. Clear water absorbs little light. Gasses usually absorbs even less. Plasma has free electrons, and free electrons are know to absorb photons.
quote:
Arcs from arc welders are particularly bright. We should not look at them with our naked eyes up close or we could burn our retinas.
Yes, and...? The intensity of the light from the arc is too high for the eye, it wasn't designed to process that intensity. What are you trying to infer? That because the arc from the welder hurt your eyes, and the sun hurts your eyes, the sun must have arcs like arc-welders?
If you're standing 5 meters from the arc-welder, there is only 5 meters of atmosphere between you that can block UV-light from the arc. Standing 50 meters also reduce the angle of the arc, so less of the arc's energy is directed at your eye.
quote:
Only some light from these large arcs needs to excape the photosphere, even if most of that light is absorbed. The x-rays are, by and large, absorbed/blocked...
It's like watching an infant learn to walk. Here we see some promising steps... quote:
...but even these wavelengths can be seen through the photosphere if the surface event is bright enough as with the Bastille Day Flare. You've never demonstrated that this massive amount of light *cannot* penentrate a plasma you've yet to even identify.
...then falls flat on his face.
Michael, gasses and plasmas are know to absorb light. The shorter wave-lengths the higher absorption rate. Higher density also means higher absorption. Your model assumes a higher density of the plasma in and below the photosphere, which speaks against your model.
Michael you haven't demonstrated that the moor *is not* made of cheese, therefore it is probably made of cheese. Do you see the parallel? You can't simply turn the burden of proof over to us on an assumption that is yours. "You've never demonstrated that this massive amount of light *cannot* penetrate a plasma you've yet to even identify." this is a negative statement, and as such cannot be proven. You are stating that this picture is showing 171Å UV (or soft X-ray, whatever your fancy) from under the photosphere. We know that the corona is made of plasma, and we know that sufficient amount of plasma is opaque to 171Å UV. That is why we are asking you to demonstrate that you are right.
Positive assumption: The photospheric and coronal plasmas are transparent to 171Å photons.
Task: Provide evidence of above assumption.
If the evidence holds to scrutiny, then we might accept that the image shows light from below the photosphere.
quote:
You also claim that plasma is 15 times less dense than aerogel.
Earth atmosphere is also less dense that aerogel (do you even know wha |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 13:40:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/The_Building_Blocks_Of_Earth_Are_Iron.html
The building blocks of the sun are also iron meteorites.
Says you. But you provide no compelling argument. And the article certainly does not.
But I've already posted links for you that show the forces "other than gravity" are involved in star formation, suggesting that Birkeland currents and z-pinch like phenomenon are likely involved. That suggest an evirnonment that favors the collection of iron to a centralized region of space. If the inner planets are all relatively abundant in heavy metals, it stands to reason that so is the sun. You're the one doing the special pleading here without explaining what other forces might be responsible for star formation if not gravity and not Birkeland currents. You're the one suggesting the sun is radically different in composition than all it's closest neighbors. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 14:20:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
1) The *whole* sun certainly does act as a "black body". It radiates energy as a black body of about 5800K, with a radius of 1.00R. The plasma in the coronal loops is the hot, million degree exception, in an otherwise "cool", thousand degree rule.
So what? The temperature of the whole corona is much higher than the photosphere. That in it self does not prove anything. (Other than that the temperature of the corona is high)
No, it's not the "whole corona" that is hot, it's the areas that are directly ajacent to the heat sources (the coronal loops) that are hot. The only plasma that is heated to millions of degrees is the plasma in the arcs/loops and the plasma that is in the direct visinity of these arcs/loops. The fact the chromosophre and corona are thin, means the outer layers may be hotter then inner layers, but the coronal loops are the heat source of *all* the layers, including the corona.
quote:
What mistake? Please re-iterate...
They claimed that the dark areas of the 171A image are hotter than the brightest footprints of the 171A image. That is false.
http://trace.lmsal.com/POD/TRACEpodarchive.html
quote:
That images shows the temperature of the emitting gas; the coolest material is shown in red, warmer in green, and the hottest in blue.
Only in the world of make-believe, do the most intensely brightest areas of a filter that spands 160K up to 20 million degrees Kelvin, end up being cooler than darkest areas of such an image. According to the principles of black body radiation, that simply isn't possible in this scenario.
The only plasma that is certain to be in the millions of degrees Kelvin range are the areas that are the most brightly lit in the original images. The dark areas of the original image simply cannot be "hotter" than the brightest ones.
quote:
Do you understand why it is dark in this image? It's not because it's painted black as in "black body"...
It is dark because the plasma in these areas is measured in the thousands of degrees and therefore it supposedly peaks in the visual spectrum, not the 171A spectrum. You can't have it both ways here.
quote:
To me it looks like you are overlooking the obvious. Dave have hinted at it several times, but you seem to dense (hint, hint) to get it.
But it's never been an issue about density, or anthing remotely like density. It's all about temperature and specifically plasma (of any density) that is hot enough to emit light consistent with million degree temperatures.
quote:
What is the absolute luminosity of the coronal loops in comparison with the photosphere?
It doesn't matter. The luminosity of the photosphere is all based on the assumption it's 6000K. That is entirely consistent with what we observe in Yohkoh images of the surface of the photosphere. It's mostly dark because it's much cooler than the coronal loops. The loops are the hottest things in Yohkoh images, particularly the base of the arcs where Yohkoh has observed hard x-rays, and Rhessi has observed anihilation wavelengths. The hottest areas, (the bright areas of teh original image and the red areas of the processed image) are therefore much "hotter" than the dark areas of the original image.
quote:
The photons from the loops are drenched in photons from the 6000K photosphere. We know that matter (like gas) absorbs UV-range photons to various degrees. We see it on earth where only 100km of atmosphere absorb all 171Å UV.
No doubt that happens on the sun as well, but we're also talking about million mile long arcs that put out a tremendous amount of light at a variety of different wavelengths.
quote:
According to your model (correct me if I'm wrong here) the density of the plasma in the photosphere i higher than the standard gas model.
Plasma does also absorb photons. More so in the UV-range than visible light.
That would be likely. In my model, you most likely have a great deal of absorbtion happening, but then we have huge arcs as well. If you look at Birkelands original images, the arcs are *very* visible, and even a doubling or tripling of the density isn't going to have much impact. The amount of current flowing on the sun is nearly unfathomable. I'm sure such arc would "shine" through very dense plasma, particularly certain wavelenghts.
In the 4 wavelength image I posted earlier, you can see that the 1600A images are much more intered with than the 171,195 and 284A images. While we see the mountain in the iron wavelengths, we see all sorts of interference in the 1600A wavelengths. Some light is going to be more absorbed than other light, and the materials involved will affect the wavelength absorbtion as well.
quote:
No shit Sherlock, the photosphere in the Yohkoh image is very dark. It should be, since the soft-Xray filter is designed to filter out the light from the photosphere.
You really need to work on your communication skills, because I don't get what point you are trying make.
The point I am trying to make is that the coronal loops are the very *hot* exception against an otherwise very cool (relatively speaking) surface of the photosphere. It is therefore impossible for the lit areas (namely the coronal loops) to actually be cooler than the dark areas of the original image. Look at it again now Dr. Mabuse, and notice the dark area between the top arc. Its marked blue in the processed image and labeled as "hotter" than the very brightest areas of the original image. That statement stands logic, and the principles of black body radiation on it's head.
I'm going to stop here to make sure we're on the same page now and skip the redundant and unnecessary part of this discussion.
quote |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/21/2006 14:22:08 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 16:01:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
That suggest an evirnonment that favors the collection of iron to a centralized region of space. If the inner planets are all relatively abundant in heavy metals, it stands to reason that so is the sun.
You are wrong.
The outer planets have more iron in them than the inner planets, in absolute terms. And that is what is important.
The outer planets are called gas planets and gas giants because they also accumulated a lot of light elements during formation. All of the outer planets (not counting Pluto since it is arguable whether it's a planet or not) have rocky cores much much bigger than earth.
quote:
You're the one doing the special pleading here without explaining what other forces might be responsible for star formation if not gravity and not Birkeland currents.
You're the only one who's suggesting that "other forces" (without naming anyone except Birkelan currents which you refuse to quantify) are resposible for star formation besides gravity. I'm not the one doing any special pleading.
quote:
You're the one suggesting the sun is radically different in composition than all it's closest neighbors.
That is because I realise how the size and mass of the body affects the accumulation of matter. The higher mass the body has, the larger amount of light elements will be accumulated. From Mercury with practically no mass and no atmosphere, Mars with barely detectable atmosphere, Earth with about 100km, Venus has similar, Neptune and Uranus much thicker atmosphere, Saturn a huge atmosphere, and Jupiter the greatest accumulated mass in its atmosphere of the planets. Do you recognise a pattern here? The larger body, the greater fraction of the planet's mass is light elements. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 17:35:41 [Permalink]
|
I'm busy at work, so this will be brief:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Mozina
quote:
To me it looks like you are overlooking the obvious. Dave have hinted at it several times, but you seem to dense (hint, hint) to get it.
But it's never been an issue about density, or anthing remotely like density. It's all about temperature and specifically plasma (of any density) that is hot enough to emit light consistent with million degree temperatures.
You still don't get it. There's a difference between temperature and heat.
Burning charcoal is hot, but people can still walk on it. If you understand the principle about that, then you'll partly understand what I'm getting at.
Let me give you another example:
Imagine you're having a sauna. The sauna is 100°C hot. It's damn hot, but it's managable if you've got Finnish genes... 
You can feel it's hot because the temparature of the air is 100%. But the moment you touch the tin bucket that has been standing in the sauna for a few hours, you're going to get burned! You're also going to get burned if you dip your hand into the 95°C water that is in the bucket. The bucket and the water is cooler, and have lower temperature than the air, but all the same you're getting burns from the bucket and the water but not the air. The difference is in the density of the matter you're in contact with: higher density, more atoms that transfer heat. The same thing applies with imaging: higher density means more photons, but with no connection to spectral distribution that indicates temperature.
Of course the photosphere looks black against the coronal loops in that picture, because the imaging device is overwhelmed by the radiation from the loops themselves. It's because they are so much more dense than the corona itself. But look imediately left and right of the "surface" of the sun: you'll see that the corona radiates too, but only when we are viewing along the horizon of the sun will we view enough of the matter that the corona is made of, to see that it actually radiates. Back to the sauna analogy: the atmosphere of the corona also have a high temperature, but since the density is so much lower, it will radiate with less intensity. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 21:00:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
The difference is in the density of the matter you're in contact with: higher density, more atoms that transfer heat. The same thing applies with imaging: higher density means more photons, but with no connection to spectral distribution that indicates temperature.
I agree with your statement about density equating to the the heat transfer rate, but in this case there is no evidence it applies in this scenario, though perhaps the loops are *more* dense as well as being at a higher temperature. In relative terms however, the loops are hotter and brighter than the corona. The areas around the coronal loops will also "pick up" heat from the coronal loops, however it's quite clear in all the higher energy satellite images that the loops themselves are the brightest and the hottest regions of the sun.
quote:
Of course the photosphere looks black against the coronal loops in that picture, because the imaging device is overwhelmed by the radiation from the loops themselves. It's because they are so much more dense than the corona itself.
Whether it's more dense or less dense is really immaterial. The material inside the loops is being heated by the flow of electricity, whereas the plasma outside of the loops are not. The loops themselves are therefore much hotter, and much more "energetic" in terms of heat and light production than the thin plasma of the corona. The loops are putting heat into the corona, the corona does not put heat into the loops. The loops are not dark, the loops are "energized".
quote:
But look imediately left and right of the "surface" of the sun: you'll see that the corona radiates too, but only when we are viewing along the horizon of the sun will we view enough of the matter that the corona is made of, to see that it actually radiates.
But that doesn't suggest it's anywhere near as hot as the plasma that's being heated by the flow of electrical current. Again, I find I agree with you basic comments about density and heat, but that doesn't excuse nor explain Lockheed's explanation. It doesn't change the fact that the coronal loops are the heat source for the corona.
|
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/21/2006 21:16:32 |
|
|
|
Michael Mozina
SFN Regular
1647 Posts |
Posted - 02/21/2006 : 21:13:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
The outer planets have more iron in them than the inner planets, in absolute terms. And that is what is important.
The outer planets are called gas planets and gas giants because they also accumulated a lot of light elements during formation. All of the outer planets (not counting Pluto since it is arguable whether it's a planet or not) have rocky cores much much bigger than earth.
Actually it is "alledged" that the gas giants have also accumulated a lot of light elements based on that same heliocentric/"gravitation only" model of the solar system.
quote:
You're the only one who's suggesting that "other forces"
Woah, not me, that was NASA's doing:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/xmm_magnetic_starbirth.html
quote:
The observation marks the first clear detection of X-rays from a nascent yet frigid precursor to a star, called a Class 0 protostar, far earlier in a star's evolution than most experts in this field thought possible. X-rays are produced in space by processes that release a lot of energy and heat. The surprise detection of X-rays from such a cold object reveals that matter is falling toward the protostar core 10 times faster than expected from gravity alone.
"We are seeing star formation at its embryonic stage," said Dr. Kenji Hamaguchi, a NASA-funded researcher at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., lead author on a report in The Astrophysical Journal. "Previous observations have captured the shape of such gas clouds but have never been able to peer inside. The detection of X-rays this early indicates that gravity alone is not the only force shaping young stars."
quote:
(without naming anyone except Birkelan currents
But Birkeland currents are already known to exist both inside and outside of our solar system! What other "ad hoc" explanation would you accept if not the obvious one?
quote:
which you refuse to quantify)
NASA quantified it in this case. They said it's traveling ten times faster than can be explained by gravity alone.
quote:
are resposible for star formation besides gravity. I'm not the one doing any special pleading.
How *do* you intend to explain this phenomenon?
quote:
That is because I realise how the size and mass of the body affects the accumulation of matter. The higher mass the body has, the larger amount of light elements will be accumulated. From Mercury with practically no mass and no atmosphere, Mars with barely detectable atmosphere, Earth with about 100km, Venus has similar,
So even bodies the size of Earth and Venus has almost no atmosphere, at least in terms of overall mass.
quote:
Neptune and Uranus much thicker atmosphere, Saturn a huge atmosphere, and Jupiter the greatest accumulated mass in its atmosphere of the planets. Do you recognise a pattern here? The larger body, the greater fraction of the planet's mass is light elements.
The 'pattern' I recognize is that according to a heliocentric/gravity only based sense of reality, bigger bodies *seem* to be less dense. You are essentially "guessing" at the actual composition of these bodies based on this faith in a heliocentric/gravity only sense of reality. It turns out however that when we dropped a probe into the Jupiter atmosphere, it was both hotter *and* more dense than predicted.
http://astro.sci.muni.cz/pub/galileo/first_science_summary.html
quote:
Initial results include the detection of [/b]upper atmospheric densities and temperatures that are significantly higher than expected.[/b] An additional source of heating beyond sunlight appears necessary to account for this result.
So far all I see is a lot of faith in a heliocentric/gravity only model of reality that doesn't seem to jive with other observations at NASA. It doesn't jive well in terms of what forces draw stars together, nor does it jive with the atmospheric predictions vs. actual observations of Jupiter. That's the only pattern I see. |
| Edited by - Michael Mozina on 02/21/2006 21:31:48 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
