Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
element is always completely submerged. I.E. input flow is adjusted so
that it matches evaporation rate.
First of all, the flow rate is not adjusted in any of the demos after the
experiment is started.
Correct. Only the anomalous heat output is
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
The W of Iwamura also works . . .
You mean Ohmori and Mizuno, glow discharge.
- Jed
Jones Beene wrote:
However, several dozen of the top researchers in the LENR field were a bit
miffed by this change in direction, since they had built careers around
Pd-D; and many of them may have jumped ship.
I do not know any who say they are miffed at this. None of them seem
miffed to me. I
Peter Gluck wrote:
I mean- Piantelli has tested many transition metals in his system and
has found W is also working, he has attributed to it Iwamura. sorry
for that
Well, Iwamura might have tested W, but I don't recall that he did. I
guess Piantelli was confused.
Glow discharge is quite
Here is a long posting by Steve Krivit:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2011/37/Report2-372-EnergyCatalyzerScientificCommunicationAndEthicsIssues.shtml
I would say this is correct. He points out many weaknesses in Rossi's
presentations and data. He exaggerates the problems, but basically it is
The Defkalion forum is frustrating. There is good information in there but
it is lost in the noise. Terry Blanton showed me how to dig out much of the
good stuff, by searching for responses from the company to the public. Start
in the Search area:
http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/search.php
Here is some of the information from the forum gathered into a single
document:
http://ecatreport.com/hyperion/defkalions-hyperion-unit-equipped-with-gsm
It says, for example:
*Question*: What is the maximum temperature of steam that can be produced
using Hyperion?
*Answer: In a
Other important stuff in that document follows. The reactor holds far more
than 6 months of fuel, as I thought. The 6-month limit is to inspect the
equipment. That is, to make sure it is still in good working condition,
without contamination, leaks or what-have-you. In my book, I predicted this
is
Wow! That's a hard-hitting report by the famous Jake Adelstein, author of
Tokyo Vice.
- Jed
Another interesting comment from the forum:
Safety test in progress by the Greek Authorities include procedures and
scenarios (for all ranges of products) on:
-Stress tests
-Operational and safety test in not normal conditions (fire, earthquake
etc). Please note that Greece is a country with
Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net wrote:
With those unscientific predictions placed out in the public domain I have
not lost sight of the fact that Defkalion seems to be calling their own
shots. Defkalion seems to be moving ahead regardless of what Rossi might
personally prefer
Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote:
It's over dude. My condolences. I, myself, have been feasting on crow
for days.
Rossi is a Fraud or Delusional. See Steven's Video of his trip to Italy.
The pathetic steam output volume is the give-away.
You're joking. This is ridiculous. There would be
Here is an analysis of Rossi's e-Cat steam test from Ed Storms. Actually,
this is a combination of two messages he sent me, with a clarification
inserted into item 2.
- Jed
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A variety of ways the Rossi claims might be wrong have been suggested. Let's
examine
Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote:
Rossi has not done a definitive test. I don't trust him on his input
mass flow rate (2 grams per second) . . .
You don't trust that he can read a digital weight scale? Do you trust that
Krivit can? If he had any presence of mind I suppose he checked,
Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote:
Calculating the output velocity is a good sanity check. Could you see what
you get?
No, it isn't a good sanity check at the end of a 3 m hose. It would be good
with a short hose.
- Jed
Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote:
2. Rossi's assertions of that steam quality can be measured with a
Relative Humidity meter (it can't).
Yes, it can.
No it can't, I wrote a detailed email on Vortex as to why it can't,
maybe I should repost it.
Experts in those meters such as
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Galantini has never said that steam quality can be measured with a
relative humidity meter. Not that I've seen.
Of course he did! He gave the model number and the type of probe, and he
said that he used it to determine that the steam is dry.
Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com wrote:
It said the equipment measures enthalpy. You can't do that unless you
know
the quality of the steam. It also said that the instrument measures by
mass,
not volume.
- Jed
It calculates the enthalpy of humid air based on the temperature and
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Where is Galantini quoted? Look at what he gave to Krivit:
http://blog.newenergytimes.**com/2011/06/20/galantini-**
Cannot connect to Vortex.
- Transcript of session follows -
flist: Couldn't chdir to /userspace/smartlist
550 5.3.0 |flist vortex-l... Cannot open input
I am having trouble getting messages through. Here is one converted to
plaintext.
Here is an interesting comment from the forum. I think the direct link is:
http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3t=148p=2609#p2609
I am going to go through all of the moderator's comments and
See:
http://www.defkalion-energy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3t=205p=2762
Here is a message I posted which I believe clarifies the description.
The gist of this is --
Defkalion will build large reactors made up of smaller ones ganged together,
but the output from the smaller reactors will be
Let me summarize some things here regarding electric power generation with
the Defkalion reactors. This information is scattered around. Some is from
my memory.
Defkalion has made a number of comments in the White Paper and on their
forum regarding the prospects for electric power generation.
I wrote:
It takes about 4 minutes for the reactors to go to maximum power.
I meant from stand-by mode. I don't know how long it takes from being fully
off.
A cold fusion power reactor would be left in stand-by mode I think. There is
no need to turn it all the way off to save fuel, obviously.
Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote:
They have tested other liquids for higher temperature applications. I
don't know what these other liquids are, but one of them reaches 414°C.
Who says that it has to be a pressure of 1 bar?
For example at 35 bar the boiling point of ethylene
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Jed claims that there has been extensive testing, but we don't have
confirmation on that, AFAIK, from the actual testing agencies. And what,
exactly, was tested is not clear.
I did not claim that. Defkalion did, during their press conference.
I wrote:
Memo from the Director of Safety Testing: Did you measure the generated
heat?
Response from testing technician: No, of course not, that wasn't in the
test specification. We did not see any explosions. . . .
Let me point out another thing about this un-funny joke, and the many
Rock_nj rockn...@gmail.com wrote:
Exactly the way free energy inventor (scammer) Dennis Lee raised money, by
selling dealerships. Why would Defkalion need to sell dealerships to raise
money if they have such a blockbuster energy product? This thing is really
starting to smell bad.
This is
Abd's response strikes me as a lot of verbiage the obscures the point
about these tests. I do not think there is any chance the Minister will
allow people to blatantly lie about what his Ministry is doing. More to
the point --
Defkalion says the government will issue reports and a license to
Good grief!
Terry Blanton reports that this discussion group is being hosted on an
ISP afflicted with the problems of a country-western hard-luck ballad;
i.e., the dog died, Robert is in prison, and the singer's best friend
left with the truck and the wife:
That would be Carl. He's
Alan J Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
At 12:54 PM 7/7/2011, Mark Iverson wrote:
Nikola Tesla...
Ahhh .
It can't be him. He's dead.
- Jed
It is hard to tell, but that does look similar to NyTeknik's video.
- Jed
This sounds like the heater is used only to bring the cell up to the
operating temperature to trigger the reaction. I think they said the method
of regulating the reaction is to vary gas pressure, rather than Rossi's
method of changing the auxiliary electric heater power.
There appear to be
Here a notice at the Defkalion forum:
Due to an overload in traffic and a bottleneck in moderating
discussions, Defkalion Green Technologies has decided to temporarily
freeze this Forum’s operation until further notice. All comments have
been welcomed. We thank you all for your participation.
Here is a technological hoax that bamboozled $150 million from high
officials in oil companies and governments. I did not realize such large,
high-level hoaxes existed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oil_Sniffer_Hoax
A skeptic suggested to me that Defkalion might be something like this. I
Terry Blanton wrote:
but, note, that the article says that Case had his own special mixture
of activated carbon. Now, as I recall, he actually made his from
coconut shells.
I do not know if he made them. I doubt it. Many of the commercial
catalysts are deposited on carbonized coconut shells
This document, “the E-Cat does not produce excess Energy” has some some
strange assertions.
http://www.fysik.org/WebSite/fragelada/resurser/cold_fusion_krivit.pdf
Where does the power go? Out of the E-Cat or the tube? Not very likely
since the
losses are small, 5 kW is a lot of power and it
Jones Beene wrote:
Claytor tried to go public with early convincing work nearly twenty years
ago, but because of the National Security Implications he was effectively
silenced; and dropped out of view for many years.
That's not true. He published several papers. Several are uploaded at
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 11-07-12 05:36 PM, noone noone wrote:
I find nothing strange about this report.
So what if he sold the building. He kept the reactor, and has
produced hundreds more since then. Defkalion has proceeded to build
hundreds more. Defkalion has actually built their
Alan J Fletcher wrote:
[KRIVIT] Professors Sven Kullander, retired from Uppsala University,
and Hanno Essén, with the Royal Institute of Technology, endorsed
Rossi’s claimed technology in a news story on Feb. 23, 2011, before
they had seen or inspected the device. Essén is the chairman of
Damon Craig wrote:
The plot thickens. It may very well be that the device doesn't have to
deliver more energy than put into it.
What the heck are you talking about?!? Of course it delivers more than
you put into it. This is a peculiar thing to say.
It may have a market even if it fails
A couple of messages did not go through.
We should give serious consideration to moving this discussion group to a
new ISP.
- Jed
People wonder why Levi has not given out more information about the 18-hour
flowing water test. I wish he would publish a detailed report listing the
type of flowmeter and so on. It is annoying to me that he has not.
I expect Levi and the others consider that test irrefutable. So do I. If I
had
I expect this report is exaggerated or confused. NASA is not charged with
authority to devise a program to make cold fusion the main energy source
for the world. That is far beyond their mandate. Heck, they don't even have
rockets anymore.
I wonder if it was Rossi who claimed that NASA is doing
Damon Craig wrote:
Check out their report. They report the power input as 500 Watts in
their energy calculations. Why?
That is incorrect. The report says:
The electric heater was switched on at 10:25, and the meter reading was
1.5
amperes corresponding to 330 watts for the heating including
Terry Blanton wrote:
Trust but verify.
I don't get that. If you have verified, you don't need to trust. It
makes more sense to say:
Don't trust; verify.
OR
Why bother trusting if you can verify?
This was with regard to weapons reductions in the Reagan era. By that
time, both sides had
Daniel Rocha wrote:
So,
why not making an LENR experiment close to a big neutrino detector,
like the kamiokande?
This was done at Kamiokande. Unfortunately the experiment was amateur
and there is no chance it produced a cold fusion effect. It would be a
good idea to try again with a
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
And this has been said to you many times, Jed, and you keep repeating
that this is nonsense.
It is all nonsense and bullshit. The 18-hour tests with flowing water
proved that the large cell is producing ~17 kW. The Lewan video proved
that the smaller cells are
Damon Craig wrote:
1) How often the ammeter was observed is unreported.
People have done any number of cold fusion experiments, including Ni-H
ones, in which input power was recorded on computer. If you don't wish
to believe this particular experiment then I suggest you look at some of
Harry Veeder wrote:
Since only Rossi and Levi were present at the 18 hr test, it is
possible that Rossi fooled Levi by tampering with the instruments
prior to the tests.
This is not possible. It is very easy to confirm that the instruments
were more-or-less correct with visual and tactile
Obviously I meant to write:
. . . you can feel the OUTLET is substantially warmer than the INLET. . . .
I meant in the 18-hour test with flowing liquid water. As described here:
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3108242.ece
. . . the inlet was tap-water temperature,
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
There is no other way to be sure you have a cold fusion effect in the first
place. There is no point to testing a cell that is not producing heat.
That's not *entirely true*, but it is a huge caveat. In the early days,
lots of experiments
Peter Gluck wrote:
In this case there is only one problem/question. 1L per second i.e.
15.65 gpm is an incredibly high flow for a tap
and for the water feeding tubes. Perhaps a garden hose could do it.
In a commercial building it should not be a problem.
It seems it was a surprise- the
Harry Veeder wrote:
To be fair, in this report
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf
Rossi and Focardi describe some other water flow tests on page 3.
This link does not work. Want to try again?
- Jed
Harry Veeder wrote:
Hmm I guess only direct downloading is allowed,
so go here:
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/
and look for Rossi-Focardi paper listed under resources on the left side of the
page.
You mean the RIGHT side. Right bottom, where it says Rossi-Focardi paper.
I am
Harry Veeder wrote:
To be fair, in this report
http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Rossi-Focardi_paper.pdf
Rossi and Focardi describe some other water flow tests on page 3.
The text is confusing. The liquid flowing water tests are listed in
Table 1, p. 4. Flowing water is method
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Pure steam, hotter than 100C, is a stable effluent: If the power
output varies a little bit, you'll still be making pure steam at some
temperature above 100C.
Pure steam, at 100C, is *not* stable: If the output power varies just
a little, you'll either be making
Jouni Valkonen wrote:
These are just demonstrations, not scientific validations. And the
purpose of them was that Rossi let some people to observe, while he
was doing his own tests for the E-Cat units. Only January
demonstration was actual demonstration.
Exactly right. Rossi said this, very
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
I know quite what Rossi would have said: Too dangerous. I emptied it just
now, so it's safe to hold this up, but water condenses inside the hose,
because the steam cools, and eventually enough will build up that boiling
hot water will spurt out
Joshua apparently wrote:
Well, that's the difference then. But I think you're mistaken.
Rossi uses a pump designed to maintain a constant flow, and all
his calculations (including Krivit's video of him calculating
the power) assume constant flow rate. And if the flow is constant
at 5
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Cude may be making an obvious error, assuming power figures from one test
apply to another.
He is. Partly my fault, since I quoted 17 kW without specifying which test I
meant. People should look here for the numbers:
P.J van Noorden wrote:
It is very important to notice that water boils at 100.5 C when the
outside air pressure is 1030 mBar, which can be the case when a high
pressure system is covering Italy . . .
In the April 28 tests, Lewan reported: we calibrated the probe by
immersing it in a pot
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Jed, this is dead wrong. This is obvious. Suppose you have *almost*
full vaporization, not all the water is boiling, so water level in the
E-Cat will rise.
Almost full vaporization is a degree or two below boiling. That's my point.
Eventually, some will spill out.
P.J van Noorden wrote:
the airpressure on April 28th 2011 was 1011 mbar, so the boilingpoint
must have been 99.9 degC. The difference in boilingtemperature can be
explained by the accuracy of the thermometer (+/- 0.4 degrC).
At these temperatures with boiling water I doubt the water
Rossi wrote:
I received him to get those suggestions, curious to know about what
he had to suggest. I was working in my Bologna lab when I received
him and he saw one E-Cat under test for no more that 30 seconds,
after which I invited him to exit. He made no tests, he saw nothing,
he just
I posted a message titled Calibrating a pair of K-type thermocouples with
an itty-bitty 17 kilobyte photo attached.
Did the message come through? Did the picture come through? If you cannot
see the picture and you really want to see it, contact me directly and I
will send it. It is no big deal. I
I forgot to mention there were ~2 L of water in the pot.
I wrote:
3 Omega GT-736590 thermometers, red liquid, total immersion, -10 to 100°C,
marked in 1°C increments
Correction: -10 to 110°C
Regarding the heat-after-death event that Brown observed, I am assuming --
or pretending, really --
Peter Gluck wrote:
It is perfectly visible.
But let's measure the enthalpy of the steam
not any other characteristic
I am calibrating thermocouples. Is that not allowed? More calibrations
and more specific information about temperatures, duration, the mass of
metal and the mass of cooling
Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote:
How do you take a 30 minute glance?
Well, Brown said in his report that Rossi showed him heat after death for
about 2 minutes. (He also told me this.) That's more than 30 seconds.
Perhaps Rossi just means for a short while. I do not think he means 30
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
So, can you confirm that Julian Brown from the European Patent Office
is the same as the one of this paper:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.1878 ?
Who else would he be? I wasn't aware there was a controversy.
This reminds me of the joke about a person
ecat builder ecatbuil...@gmail.com wrote:
I have been trying to replicate the E-Cat transmutations in an open-source
kind of way and I'm ready to start asking the community for suggestions on
how to proceed.
It took Rossi 15 years and hundreds of tests to figure out how to make this
work.
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
They were not regulating flow in the 18 hour test. It was a direct feed
from the tap (or spigot), and the utility water-meter served as their
impromptu flow meter.
I don't think it was impromptu. It was installed in the line to the machine,
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Who else would he be? I wasn't aware there was a controversy.
Jed, haven't you read Rossi's comment? He's claiming that Brown is an
imposter.
I missed that.
As far as I know he is the fellow who has been involved in cold fusion for a
long
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Mmmm... this gets pretty complicated. Water at the inlet would obviously be
cooler, much cooler. So there would be a temperature gradient in the E-Cat,
with cooler water near the inlet and hotter water near the outlet.
Only water rising to the
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
Jed, you are forgetting something. The 120 kW figure was for a very short
time.
About 20 minutes, I think. Long enough to be certain it is real, with this
equipment, at this flow rate.
Water meters don't show flow rate, they show total water
Robert Leguillon wrote:
I made the comment about someone flushing the toilet to demonstrate that some
of the momentary power spikes could be caused by correlating drops in water pressure.
I do not see how this could cause a 20-minute event.
There was no continuous monitoring of flow
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
In my opinion, Kullander made some mistakes, and he should simply
acknowledge them and move on.
Where, in his report, are these mistakes? Someone here claimed that he
did not measure input power, when the report clearly states he did.
Simple, clean and clear.
See new article. There are some statements in this article I have not heard,
and some stuff I doubt is true:
http://pesn.com/2011/07/21/9501874_Rossis_Self_Sustaining_One_Megawatt_Reactor/
I think it is more likely that it will require minimal input energy. The
input to output ratio will be
Steven V Johnson wrote:
Nah! All'ya need is a Ford Model T crank.
We're in luck, then. We have plenty of cranks in this field.
- Jed
Akira Shirakawa wrote:
Hello group,
Here is my translation of several tidbits in a thread in the Italian
web forum energeticambiente.it where Roy Virgilio (nicknamed here
eroyka. He attended Saturday's LENR talk in Viareggio) will report as
time passes news about Piantelli's work.
Thanks
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
Actually Piantelli has at least 15 publications in which he is the main
leading/author the others being Focardi and analyticians.
And his two patents WO 1995/20816 and WO 2010/058288
are very professionally written. (two new patents coming soon)
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
With the electrochemical cells, all else being equal, output is somewhat
proportional to input because high input boosts high loading which in turn
boosts the heat. But I would not call that amplification.
This is classic amplification. A
See:
http://coldfusionnow.wordpress.com/2011/07/23/viareggio-cold-fusion-conference-science-politics-and-an-italian-competitor/
QUOTE:
19.10 – Among the public Milly Moratti takes the word and states that there
are clearly now experimental evidences of Cold Fusion.
Now, for the one who do not
Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote:
All true. Consider that Milli is somehow considered alternative,
not always representative of the family.
But yes when you talk about oil business in Italy their name is the
first on the list.
Well, I hope they take an active interest in
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:
One interesting new electric E-Cat replication. This really puts final mark
for steam depate, altough I still wait for modification where cooling water
is continuously pumped. And steam temperature measured. Also it is good to
see how much higher
Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote:
I understand you passed along some information from an insider at Levi's
second experiment and sent it to along to be included in an article here:
http://www.lenr-canr.org/News.htm
Some folks saying you skewed the data. I'm not saying you did. And I'm
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:
We, from the list, are well aware that Jed Rothwell has some inside
information about the validity of the e-cat.
Despite that, I haven't seen him clearly manifest about the feeble steam
output of the hose in the e-cat video.
It does not look
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
This is a qualitative test, actually cannot be used for an analysis or
judgment.
The enthalpy of the steam has to be measured continuously
mixing the steam with a known flow of cold water and measuring the
temperature of the mixture. Simple like
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:
producing low pressure steam is not the point, but to produce high pressure
steam when E-Cats are scaled up and connected in serial and paraller for 1MW
plant.
I am pretty sure Rossi said the 1 MW reactor is for hot water. I have no
idea what they
Peter Gluck peter.gl...@gmail.com wrote:
Low pressure steam is not good for its main potential use- to generate
electricity.
As I said, low temperature process steam is very useful for many
applications. But I think the point that Rossi is trying make is this:
'Here is steam at 100°C. If I
Damon Craig wrote:
I saw the numbers at lenr-canr.
How did you get them. Was it on a scrap of paper?
By e-mail. Also, looking through my e-mail I see that I sent them off to
Rossi and others, and they confirmed them. Plus you can compare them to
the Nyteknik articles, as I said. The people
Peter Gluck wrote:
The issue is why Rossi prefers steam, when for demonstrating the
potential of the E-cat- simply heating water is straigtforward.
As I said, my feeling is that he prefers steam because it proves the
thing works at high temperature. Also, it is a little more convenient to
Damon Craig wrote:
Can you post it here, verbatum? Not the entire email, if you like,
just the data.
Nope. Even if I did, it would prove nothing, since anyone can write a
few lines of ascii text and claim they came from an e-mail.
You need to stop harping on this. Take it or leave it. The
Michele Comitini wrote:
As I have said here, flow meters tend to be a pain in the butt.
A water tank where to put outgoing water and get volume by measuring
height. I don't think he would have
many more problems with mass/volume water in liquid phase than he has
with steam...
At high power
Michele Comitini wrote:
You need a flow meter to do this right. In the 18-hour test they reportedly
did use a flow meter. I asked them what make and model. They never responded
so I did not include this detail in my description.
Flow meters have to be reliable: don't we all trust the gas pump?
See:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/8140
This is a respectable, widely read website. This report is completely
wrong, but it is easy to see how the author made these mistakes. Either
Defkalion or Rossi could publish correct, complete, authoritative
information to squelch this kind of thing.
Michele Comitini wrote:
As we here see how trivial it is to setup absolutely convincing
demonstration, then we have only one option left that Rossi does not want to
do such thing! At least not before October.
The question here is *WHY* he would not want to make such experiment?
Rossi has
Damon Craig decra...@gmail.com wrote:
Lewan still believes this stuff, hu?
You may be certain that if he or I knew of any reason to doubt these claims,
we would publish these reasons. I have done this already, here:
Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote:
Nope. Even if I did, it would prove nothing, since anyone can write a few
lines of ascii text and claim they came from an e-mail.
That is arguable at least if you use PGP or OpenPGP to sign your
bytes. I think anyone that sends data on the
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Not a one of these monstrosities has produced as much excess power as
Rossi,
even if his steam is dripping wet.
Not true. All plasma fusion devices produce excess power. The PPPL produced
about 10 MW for about 0.6 s (~6 MJ).
As far as I know, none has
1 - 100 of 13548 matches
Mail list logo
