Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:15 AM - B&C S895-1 as start button for 20A/14VDC ciruit? (n707sm)
2. 06:04 AM - Re: High density D-sub crimper (N395V)
3. 06:19 AM - Re: High density D-sub crimper (rampil)
4. 06:48 AM - Re: High density D-sub crimper (PJ Seipel)
5. 11:14 AM - Diodes versus switches 101 ? (Bill Schlatterer)
6. 12:45 PM - Re: Diodes versus switches 101 ? (Richard E. Tasker)
7. 01:25 PM - Re: Diodes versus switches 101 ? (Rob Turk)
8. 01:38 PM - ANL/ANN current limiter ()
9. 03:18 PM - switch wiring (Kevin Klinefelter)
10. 04:00 PM - Re: High density D-sub crimper (Ed Holyoke)
11. 06:31 PM - Re: High density D-sub crimper (PJ Seipel)
12. 06:39 PM - Re: Diodes versus switches 101 ? (Richard E. Tasker)
13. 08:03 PM - Diode from the Main Bus to the Endurance Bus (Brian Cross)
14. 08:24 PM - Re: Coax termination (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
15. 08:32 PM - Re: Coax termination, theory, and..do I balun? (Robert L. Nuckolls, III)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | B&C S895-1 as start button for 20A/14VDC ciruit? |
Hi Bob,
Hope all is well with you :)
I have a B&C S895-1 push button originally intended as a start buton; however,
the Eggenfellner recommendation for the starter circuit is for a switch or push
button capable of 20A/14VDC (switch will be connected to the internal contactor
on the Subaru H6 starter solenoid).
I have been reviewing both your Switch_Rating.pdf and the chapter in the Connection,
and I'm coming to the conclusion that this switch is probably too light
for this application. Would it work? Sure. For how long? Who knows... But
what would be the risk that I could fuse this switch closed or just plain heat
it up too much? Also, the connection leads on this switch seem a bit small/light
for 12AWG wire...
Please advise when you have a moment.
Thanks in advance!
Michael O'Brien
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=168543#168543
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: High density D-sub crimper |
My UMA instruments came with the overfold sub D pins. Crimps looked good and they
have worked fine for a long time.
--------
Milt
2003 F1 Rocket
2006 Radial Rocket
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=168553#168553
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: High density D-sub crimper |
If you crimp connectors without the specific dies, you would
be well served by soldering the wire strands to the crimps as
well or the wires might just fall out!
I have an AMP ProCrimp II with all the dies for the CPC
Series I connectors, and they still sometimes fail the tug test when I
don't oversolder them!
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=168557#168557
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: High density D-sub crimper |
If you have the standard density crimper (the red one that puts the 4
little indents into the pin), you can use it on the high density
machined pins if you're careful. What I did was cut a short piece of
wire (like 1/8" or so) and put it into the hole first as a spacer to
position the pin in the right spot. Then you can crimp like normal.
You may have to play around a bit to adjust the length of the spacer to
get the pin in the right spot. If you're only doing a few pins you
shouldn't have any issues. Mine passed a 15lb pull test and that's good
enough for me.
PJ Seipel
RV-10 #40032
Ed Holyoke wrote:
> <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
>
> Howdy,
>
> I've got to crimp about 30 machined high density d-sub pins on an ACU
> install and I don't think my standard density crimper (B&C) is gonna
> work. I'd hate to spend $800 on a Daniels and postitioners for one
> little deed. Any ideas?
>
> I thought about getting a $30 crimper and some of the fold over pins.
> Are those pins as reliable as the machined ones? Will the crimper
> (fold over style, also B&C) do those little pins in one of it's slots?
>
> Pax,
>
> Ed Holyoke
>
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Diodes versus switches 101 ? |
There was some discussion about Z19 using diodes in a critical ECU circuit
and the question arose as to what kind of failure modes apply to diodes and
their reliability as compared to switches. I think the trust of that thread
(sub list) and post below is that diodes might be "automatic" but switches
are safer and less likely to fail? ( I have no opinion but would like to
understand the rationale ) This was posted and I was just wondering what
the thought might be on the AE list since most of Bobs diagrams "suggest" a
diode in the E-Bus circuit as opposed to a switch. That might not be AS
critical as the ECU/EFI circuit on an all electric engine but the same
concerns still apply?
Posted to the Sub list:
"After 30 years in the industrial electrical construction and maintenance
field I can say without equivocation that a robust switch is much less
likely to fail than a robust diode. The science of the switch is much
simpler - use a lot of good conducting material that is not likely to
corrode and support it with stout mechanical parts that hold tightly.
Now, by contrast, the science of the diode starts with getting good silicon
material and contaminating it in just the right proportion with just the
right material at just the right temperature for just the right time. THEN
you can start on building the junctions onto some sort of heat dissipating
holder. I have replaced dozens of solid state devices that failed (always
failed open) and I never found the root cause of failure. I put in an exact
replacement and the circuit worked just fine for years. The trade off you
get for the "automatic" switching of a diode vs. the manual switch is in the
area of RELIABILITY. I'll be using manual switches for all critical loads."
Not wanting to stir anything up, just want to understand the thinking and
factual matter in the post above?
Thanks Bill S
7a Z13/8 Z32(HD E-Bus) Z35(7ah)
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Diodes versus switches 101 ? |
Here is an excerpt of something I posted on the Sub list which relates
to this email:
Regarding the reliability of switches and diodes... According to Mil handbook
217F - the "bible" of reliability prediction - a Schottky power diode (which is
the only type anyone should be using in any power circuit in an airplane) has
a predicted failure rate of 0.0028 failures per million hours. A mil rated
toggle switch has a predicted failure rate of 0.1 failures per million hours.
Now, realistically, this prediction for a switch is partially related to the
toggle mechanics and partially related to the individual contacts. The mil handbook
relates to a single set of contacts while the specified switch has four
sets of contacts so the switch in question is probably less reliable that the
handbook predicts for a simple toggle switch. But even if we ignore that detail,
for what it is worth, a diode of the type that should be used is 35 times
more reliable than the type switch specified. So much for the superiority reliability
of a switch that some have been bandying ab
out...
A properly designed diode circuit provides automatic, uninterrupted power transfer
in the event of the loss of the main supply. A switched circuit requires
the pilot to notice the problem and take some action (toggle the switch to the
other position).
A diode circuit has not been specified (in the Subaru application), so one is on
their own if that were to be the choice of a user. While this is not an insurmountable
problem, the diode circuit is more susceptible to a poor design.
One must choose a diode with sufficient current and voltage ratings for the desired
circuit conditions. Additionally, since there can be considerable heat
generated in a power diode, proper heat sinking must be provided (not particularly
hard to do as long as you know how to calculate what is needed).
So... If you are electrically challenged use the factory recommended circuit design
- good or bad as it may be, it has full factory support.
If you really know what you are doing, a diode circuit has certain advantages.
However, if you choose to depart from the factory design, do not expect any assistance
or support from the factory for your design and if you have a problem
it is your problem.
I have already wired my RV9A (long before this discussion and long before "diode"
became a dirty word) and I am using two very beefy Schottky diodes to connect
both battery buses to the engine bus. If either bus goes down for whatever
reason, the engine keeps on running and an annunciator tells me which bus is
down. Additionally, a voltmeter on each bus keeps me informed of its health continuously.
It should also be noted that in the instance in question that the ECU was provided
power from a, probably, inadequately heat sinked bridge that was, possibly,
underrated for the application.
For what Bob recommends the bridge - the Ebus - it is an excellent solution for
the typical experimental plane builder.
Dick Tasker
Bill Schlatterer wrote:
>
> There was some discussion about Z19 using diodes in a critical ECU
> circuit and the question arose as to what kind of failure modes apply
> to diodes and their reliability as compared to switches. I think the
> trust of that thread (sub list) and post below is that diodes might be
> "automatic" but switches are safer and less likely to fail? ( I have
> no opinion but would like to understand the rationale ) This was
> posted and I was just wondering what the thought might be on the AE
> list since most of Bobs diagrams "suggest" a diode in the E-Bus
> circuit as opposed to a switch. That might not be AS critical as the
> ECU/EFI circuit on an all electric engine but the same concerns still
> apply?
>
> Posted to the Sub list:
>
> "After 30 years in the industrial electrical construction and
> maintenance field I can say without equivocation that a robust switch
> is much less likely to fail than a robust diode. The science of the
> switch is much simpler - use a lot of good conducting material that is
> not likely to corrode and support it with stout mechanical parts that
> hold tightly.
>
> Now, by contrast, the science of the diode starts with getting good
> silicon material and contaminating it in just the right proportion
> with just the right material at just the right temperature for just
> the right time. THEN you can start on building the junctions onto some
> sort of heat dissipating holder. I have replaced dozens of solid state
> devices that failed (always failed open) and I never found the root
> cause of failure. I put in an exact replacement and the circuit worked
> just fine for years. The trade off you get for the "automatic"
> switching of a diode vs. the manual switch is in the area of
> RELIABILITY. I'll be using manual switches for all critical loads."
>
> Not wanting to stir anything up, just want to understand the thinking
> and factual matter in the post above?
> Thanks Bill S
> 7a Z13/8 Z32(HD E-Bus) Z35(7ah)
>
--
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
--
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Diodes versus switches 101 ? |
I think it's important to take into account what the purpose of the switch
and/or diode is, and more important, what the failure modes of the circuits
around it is. A diode may be much more reliable when used within it's
designed specs, but if you overload it, it will fail much quicker than a
switch. Compare a diode and a switch, both rated at 25A. A short-circuit
current of 100A through the diode for a few seconds will make it fail, most
likely open circuit. The same current through a switch may heat it up and
damage the contacts, even cause some sparks, but it may still limp along.
Rob
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker@optonline.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 8:42 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Diodes versus switches 101 ?
> <retasker@optonline.net>
>
> Here is an excerpt of something I posted on the Sub list which relates to
> this email:
>
> Regarding the reliability of switches and diodes... According to Mil
> handbook 217F - the "bible" of reliability prediction - a Schottky power
> diode (which is the only type anyone should be using in any power circuit
> in an airplane) has a predicted failure rate of 0.0028 failures per
> million hours. A mil rated toggle switch has a predicted failure rate of
> 0.1 failures per million hours. Now, realistically, this prediction for a
> switch is partially related to the toggle mechanics and partially related
> to the individual contacts. The mil handbook relates to a single set of
> contacts while the specified switch has four sets of contacts so the
> switch in question is probably less reliable that the handbook predicts
> for a simple toggle switch. But even if we ignore that detail, for what
> it is worth, a diode of the type that should be used is 35 times more
> reliable than the type switch specified. So much for the superiority
> reliability of a switch that some have been bandying ab
> out...
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | ANL/ANN current limiter |
Hello
I have a relatively long run (10+ ft) of 1/0 CCA main battery power wire in
my -8 I am building from the rear baggage all the way to the front firewall. I
would like to install an current limiter on the output of the battery as an added
layer of protection for my long wire run. I know Mr. Nuckolls has not advocated
that on small aircraft, but I want to do it anyway as peace of mind since
the wire passes thru quite few bulkheads and want to have something which will
trip alot faster than I can act. So, which is the better choice, ANN or ANL
and what current rating would be best, I have a 200 hp angle valve to start?
Thank you,
Wade Lively
N100WL, reserved
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Bob and all,
I have a couple questions.
I am wiring a Rotax 914 in my Europa per Z-16(sort of). I want to use a
switch for each "mag" that will be down-off, middle-on, momentary-up of
both to start. Is there a drawing somewhere on the site that shows how
to wire this?
I also want to wire a switch to control two alternators, the rotax built
indynamo and a Denso IR alternator mounted on the vac pad. I would like
to use one switch; down-dynamo middle-off and up-main
alternator(denso).Is there a drawing showing how to wire that?
Thanks, Kevin
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: High density D-sub crimper |
Hmmmm, I was worried about the diameter difference and hadn't addressed
the depth. You're saying that the red handle crimper worked on the
skinny pins. I haven't counted the pins that came with the install kit,
but I'd be surprised if there are extras to burn so I've been a little
leery of trying tests.
Pax,
Ed Holyoke
PJ Seipel wrote:
>
> If you have the standard density crimper (the red one that puts the 4
> little indents into the pin), you can use it on the high density
> machined pins if you're careful. What I did was cut a short piece of
> wire (like 1/8" or so) and put it into the hole first as a spacer to
> position the pin in the right spot. Then you can crimp like normal.
> You may have to play around a bit to adjust the length of the spacer
> to get the pin in the right spot. If you're only doing a few pins you
> shouldn't have any issues. Mine passed a 15lb pull test and that's
> good enough for me.
>
> PJ Seipel
> RV-10 #40032
>
> Ed Holyoke wrote:
>> <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
>>
>> Howdy,
>>
>> I've got to crimp about 30 machined high density d-sub pins on an ACU
>> install and I don't think my standard density crimper (B&C) is gonna
>> work. I'd hate to spend $800 on a Daniels and postitioners for one
>> little deed. Any ideas?
>>
>> I thought about getting a $30 crimper and some of the fold over pins.
>> Are those pins as reliable as the machined ones? Will the crimper
>> (fold over style, also B&C) do those little pins in one of it's slots?
>>
>> Pax,
>>
>> Ed Holyoke
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: High density D-sub crimper |
I bought some from Mouser, so I had some to practice on. If they have
the little hole in them then you could also put some solder in there and
that would probably work as well. If you don't have any extras, I'd be
leery of trying the crimper as well, because it took me a few tries to
find the right depth.
PJ Seipel
RV-10 #40032
Ed Holyoke wrote:
> <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
>
> Hmmmm, I was worried about the diameter difference and hadn't
> addressed the depth. You're saying that the red handle crimper worked
> on the skinny pins. I haven't counted the pins that came with the
> install kit, but I'd be surprised if there are extras to burn so I've
> been a little leery of trying tests.
>
> Pax,
>
> Ed Holyoke
>
> PJ Seipel wrote:
>>
>> If you have the standard density crimper (the red one that puts the 4
>> little indents into the pin), you can use it on the high density
>> machined pins if you're careful. What I did was cut a short piece of
>> wire (like 1/8" or so) and put it into the hole first as a spacer to
>> position the pin in the right spot. Then you can crimp like normal.
>> You may have to play around a bit to adjust the length of the spacer
>> to get the pin in the right spot. If you're only doing a few pins
>> you shouldn't have any issues. Mine passed a 15lb pull test and
>> that's good enough for me.
>>
>> PJ Seipel
>> RV-10 #40032
>>
>> Ed Holyoke wrote:
>>> <bicyclop@pacbell.net>
>>>
>>> Howdy,
>>>
>>> I've got to crimp about 30 machined high density d-sub pins on an
>>> ACU install and I don't think my standard density crimper (B&C) is
>>> gonna work. I'd hate to spend $800 on a Daniels and postitioners for
>>> one little deed. Any ideas?
>>>
>>> I thought about getting a $30 crimper and some of the fold over
>>> pins. Are those pins as reliable as the machined ones? Will the
>>> crimper (fold over style, also B&C) do those little pins in one of
>>> it's slots?
>>>
>>> Pax,
>>>
>>> Ed Holyoke
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Diodes versus switches 101 ? |
True, but it is easy to get a diode that is rated for far over the
normal operating current. In fact, doing so costs very little extra and
has other advantages.
Additionally, while your example as started is true, hopefully no one on
this forum would end up with a design where it is possible to draw 100A
on a 25A circuit without some sort of protective device interrupting the
current before "a few seconds" are up...
Rob Turk wrote:
>
>
> I think it's important to take into account what the purpose of the
> switch and/or diode is, and more important, what the failure modes of
> the circuits around it is. A diode may be much more reliable when used
> within it's designed specs, but if you overload it, it will fail much
> quicker than a switch. Compare a diode and a switch, both rated at
> 25A. A short-circuit current of 100A through the diode for a few
> seconds will make it fail, most likely open circuit. The same current
> through a switch may heat it up and damage the contacts, even cause
> some sparks, but it may still limp along.
>
> Rob
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard E. Tasker"
> <retasker@optonline.net>
> To: <aeroelectric-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 8:42 PM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Diodes versus switches 101 ?
>
>
>> <retasker@optonline.net>
>>
>> Here is an excerpt of something I posted on the Sub list which
>> relates to this email:
>>
>> Regarding the reliability of switches and diodes... According to Mil
>> handbook 217F - the "bible" of reliability prediction - a Schottky
>> power diode (which is the only type anyone should be using in any
>> power circuit in an airplane) has a predicted failure rate of 0.0028
>> failures per million hours. A mil rated toggle switch has a
>> predicted failure rate of 0.1 failures per million hours. Now,
>> realistically, this prediction for a switch is partially related to
>> the toggle mechanics and partially related to the individual
>> contacts. The mil handbook relates to a single set of contacts while
>> the specified switch has four sets of contacts so the switch in
>> question is probably less reliable that the handbook predicts for a
>> simple toggle switch. But even if we ignore that detail, for what it
>> is worth, a diode of the type that should be used is 35 times more
>> reliable than the type switch specified. So much for the superiority
>> reliability of a switch that some have been bandying ab
>> out...
>
>
--
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
--
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Diode from the Main Bus to the Endurance Bus |
Hi Folks
I have already one airplane flying using Bob's Z-11 architecture with
absolutely no issues. It has been great & really appreciated all the
info provided by Bob & the forum.
I do have one question. I am not questioning the wisdom of the
design but merely wondering why a diode is placed between the main
bus & the endurance bus. I realize that it is there to prevent
backfeeding from the E bus to the main bus when the master is turned
off in the case of an alternator failure etc.
However, you can easily install a 2-10 switch that could be used to set to
1/ Both buses off
2/ E bus only on, master off & all other buses turned off
3/ Main bus & E bus on with the E bus being fed through the main bus & master
Is the considered opinion of the group that a diode is more reliable
than a switch & therefore used, or, to simplify the whole design or what?
Just curious as there is a slight power loss across the diode of
course which is the only negative and think of at this point.
Thanks very much
Brian Cross
RV-8 #81844
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Coax termination |
At 04:15 PM 3/7/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Holy cow, I just want to talk on the radio. I've got a plastic airplane so
>I just snip off the ends and throw them away.
"snip of the ends"??? Are you talking about coax connectors?
On your plastic airplane, have you fabricated some form of
ground plane under the antennas?
Bob . . .
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Coax termination, theory, and..do I balun? |
At 04:40 AM 3/8/2008 -0500, you wrote:
>I'm using a King KNS-80 and Narco 12D, and replacing the rg-58 in my spam
>can with rg400 for my vor/glideslope catwhisker antenna,
>
>Should I replicate the 40 year old balun where it mates with antenna? or
>does the termination issue outweigh the benefits of the balun? Thanks Skip
Not easy to measure, and almost impossible to tell a difference
by observation from the pilot's seat. We built thousands
of Cessnas with split conductors of a coax simply
attached to the cat-whiskers. Then somebody got religion
and for a time we built a bunch of baluns. Some time later,
we were having too much trouble with process . . . seems
the PVC and Polyethelyene insulations got somewhat gooey
at solder temperatures and unless the fabricator was
particularly careful, poor craftsmanship caused field
failures later. So we became heathens again and dumped
the balun.
Today, one may return to the old faiths with greater
probability of success . . . seems the insulations
used on RG400/142 withstand soldering temperatures
very handily. So if you feel the urge, you can craft
a balun as shown in:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/BALUN/Balun_Fabrication.html
May your radios navigate on stations nobody else even
hears and may your antenna patterns be exemplary.
Bob . . .
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|