Automotive Forums .com - the leading automotive community online! Automotive Forums .com - the leading automotive community online!
Automotive Forums .com - the leading automotive community online! 
-
Latest | 0 Rplys
Go Back   Automotive Forums .com Car Chat > Engineering/Technical
Engineering/Technical Ask technical questions about cars. Do you know how a car engine works?
Closed Thread Show Printable Version Show Printable Version | Email this Page Email this Page | Subscription Subscribe to this Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-15-2004, 11:18 AM   #61
Evil Result
AF Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Binghamton, New York
Posts: 164
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via AIM to Evil Result
I don't think Saab wants to get pulled into the craptastic blackhole of retardation that this thread is.

i feel a bit less intellegent because of this...thing.
__________________
I disregard my perceived image in the persuit of knowledge.
Evil Result is offline  
Old 10-15-2004, 11:48 AM   #62
bjdm151
AF Regular
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: lexington, Kentucky
Posts: 141
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Come on guys this was providing good entertainment for everybody in my degree. At lunch we would all get togethor to see were the great and all knowing BUICKMASTERMIND would lead us (astray.) But i guess i'm down with the beer. I'm gonna miss this thread.
__________________
Anybody got ten grand?

BJ
bjdm151 is offline  
Old 10-15-2004, 11:52 AM   #63
CBFryman
Banned
 
CBFryman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Lake City, Florida
Posts: 3,705
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Send a message via AIM to CBFryman Send a message via Yahoo to CBFryman
Re: Gas mileage question.

yes saab is far too intelegent to be pulled into the great klan of Buick. speaking of lunch. i wonder if there is any pizza in the fridge. hmmmm.....
CBFryman is offline  
Old 10-15-2004, 01:25 PM   #64
SaabJohan
AF Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Borlänge
Posts: 1,098
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Well, I haven't had any time to answer, been busy.

buickmastermind, I think you are making it much more difficult than it actually is.

Otto engines (four stroke gasoline engine), diesels, gas turbines are all heat engines, they convert the chemical energy into heat and convert a part of this heat into mechanical work.

This is really quite simple, a fuel is injected, mixed with oxygen, vaporised and ignited. When the fuel "burn" this is just a different way of saying that it's oxidizing rapidly. With gasoline, the hydrocarbons with the oxygen form carbondioxide (from the carbon) and hydrogendioxide (from the hydrogen), hydrogendioxide is of course just another name of water. But when we oxidize the fuel we will also get a lot of heat, about 43 MJ for each kg of fuel we burn.

The otto engines ideal cycle is a constant volume combustion, this means that the volume in the combustion chamber is constant during combustion. In reality the combustion occur during a duration of perhaps 30 to 70 crankshaft degrees. So during combustion we have a gas trapped in the cylinder, and when temperature rises the pressure rises due to PV=nRT. This pressure which peaks at perhaps 100 bar or even higher is pushing the piston down. When the pistons goes down the volume is increaseing and this will cause the temperature and pressure to drop. So this way the working gas have expanded and done its job, since it now got a lower temperature there is less energy in the mass of gas. So if one multiplies the gas (air + fuel) flow though the engine with the temperature difference and the specific heat of the gas we will get how much power, energy per time unit, the engine is extracting from the gas. Then there are other losses, like pumping losses, friction, heat lost to the cylinderwalls and so on that takes some of our power.

If we were to calculate the efficiency of the engine based on the temperature we would perhaps get a figure of 60% or so, while the actual efficiency of a gasoline engine is in the region of 30% at full throttle. At part throttle the engine must work against the vacuum in the inlet manifold and this causes high pumping losses and can cause the engine efficiency to drop from 30% to 15% or even 10%. This is the reason why a big powerful engine is consuming more fuel than a small one, as during normal speeds on the road only around 7 kW of power (for a "normal" car at 70 km/h) is needed to push against wind and rolling resistance. Each efficiency will with a given fuel give a certian value on brake specific fuel consumption, so if for example the car is traveling at constant speed of 70 km/h, the engine is producing 7 kW with a brake specific fuel consumption of 600 gram/kWh the engine will consume 4.2 kg, or 5.7 litres of fuel each hour, this means that the car is consuming 8.1 litres per 100 km (this equals around 28 miles per US gallon I think), and this is a quite typical value for an average car when cruising.

Lead, or tetraethyl lead and tetramethul lead are two organometallics that was earier added to gasoline to increase the octane number (resistance to detonation). These organometallics work by stopping the reactions that leads to detonation. These can't be used alone in the gasoline, one must also add a compound that will make the lead turn into solids during the combustion. If this isn't done it won't take long until there is lead on all the parts in the engine and it won't work anymore. With these other compounds lead was added and also shown to give protection against microwelding the seat and valve which is why soft valve seats wear out. But lead will also damage catalysts and it can also damage lambda sensors so in modern cars it can not be used.
These organometallics are also very poisonous, the exhausts of an engine isn't that poisonous (of course the leadoxides won't be good for you but they won't kill you, at once anyway). In the productionplants that produced the lead when lead was first introduced in the 1920-1930, deaths caused by lead became common. The production plants where also called "the house of the big butterflies" since the lead attacks the nervesystem and can make you see things that really aren't there. Today other means to increase the octane are used, like increasing the aromatic content of the fuel or using addetives like MTBE.

In an engine gasoline is injected with the injector or by using the vacuum with the carb. In any case the gasoline starts to boil at around 25 degC so above this point we should see a larger amount of gasoline vapor. But other compounds in the gasoline have boiling points that are much higher than that, so vaporization mostly occur in the end of the compression phase where the temperature is a few hundred degC due to the compression.

If one injects water into the combustion chamber it will lower the octane requirement. The water will cool the gases during combustion and also slow down combustion. Adding water does actually decrease power and increase HC emissions if it isn't compensated by a higher compression ratio, boost or ignition advance.
If the pressure outside the engine is higher the massflow can increase even if the volumeflow inside the engine stays the same. So with a high pressure, caused by high atmospheric or a supercharger the massflow will increase and so will the engine power.

Perhaps a little offtopic but...
Heat is also used to propel rockets and gasturbines. The rocket is the simplest of them, fuel and oxidizer is injected, vaporised, ignited and burned (liquid fuel rocket). The burn increase the temperature to several thousands degrees celsius. This also means that the pressure will really high inside the combustion chamber inside the rocket. This pushes the gases to and through the nozzle, in the nozzle which first decrease in area the gas velocity will increase but this causes the pressure and therefore temperature to decrease. At the point the gas reach mach 1, the speed of sound the nozzle will increase in area which allows the gases to increase futher. So now we have a mass (fuel + oxidizer) that is travel with a high velocity, the kinetic energy in the high velocity being taken from the heat energy. The mass multiplied with the velocity is causing a force, ans since all forces have a force working in the opposite direction that force will give the thrust that propels the rocket forwards.
SaabJohan is offline  
Old 10-15-2004, 02:37 PM   #65
CBFryman
Banned
 
CBFryman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Lake City, Florida
Posts: 3,705
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Send a message via AIM to CBFryman Send a message via Yahoo to CBFryman
Re: Gas mileage question.

haha, for every action there is an equal and oposite reaction. buick makes stupid comments, we laughed at him just as hard as he continues to try and pull us over to the "dark side." lol, no hard feelings. finally saab explains it in a way that is 100% true but yet yo udont HAVE to have knowledge of chemistry or physics to understand...
CBFryman is offline  
Old 10-15-2004, 04:20 PM   #66
buickmastermind
AF Regular
Thread starter
 
buickmastermind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kalamazoo, Michigan
Posts: 453
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Gas mileage question.

I didn't want the tone to become negative, but when you tell me that something that I have seen, studied, and know works can't be done, I get frustrated.

This is a very simple process that you have trying to disprove using complex models of a totally different system! You are trying to tell me that changing gasoline to methane and methanol isn't possible by telling me how current combustion engines work! What intelligence. I commend you.
What part about the water VAPOR reacting with gas VAPOR don't you understand? It is very, very simple. So simple, in fact, that you simply have to finely mist the fuel and water into the air filter, and only vapors can get past. Just because the the liquid or solid form of something is non-reactant, doesn't mean that the gaseous form isn't! The gaseuos form of an element has way more energy in it b/c it requires energy from somewhere to turn into a gas. It sounds like you seem to think that the amount of energy in a element has nothing to do with its reactivity or solubility! If our resident chemist doesn't agree with this next sentance, then he either never took a chemistry lab, or he really doesn't know much at all about chemistrys practical application to real life and there is a reason he is a mechanic and not a government employed chemist.

"The solubility of a material depends upon temperature."

For example: Ice doesn't react KNO3. But, it can be disolved in liquid water according to it's solubilty. The hotter the water is, the more KNO3 you can dissovle in it. Just because one physical state of an object doesn't react with another object doesn't mean that changing their states can change this. This property holds true for chemically combining water vapors and gasoline vapors. It is a proven scientific fact that this sytem works, and is hounded by people who can make money off the old system. At $2.00 per gallon of gasoline and an average of 25 mpg, that is a shitload of money, especially if you put 70,000 miles per year on your car.

Also, you don't lose energy or power by this change. Why? B/c of the laws of conservation of energy. What goes in, must come out, no matter what the form. Just because liquid water doesn't react, doesn't mean it doesn't have energy. If it had no energy, it would be frozen @ 0 degrees kelvin.

* Just a note here. You contridicted yourself when you said water doesn't burn, and you also said that anything burns if you get it hot enough!
I am not saying that water vapors ignite! I am saying the react with gas vapors!

And, there is a differance between burning/cumbustion and exploding. An explosion is almost instantly completed, an only occurs for a few seconds. Burning is takes longer and is a more drawn out process.

If you can't understand that, then you don't deserve to be allowed to post arguments about it.
__________________
1986 LeSabre Limited L67 sleeper

Fully ported & polished, shift kit, CAI, F41 polyurethane suspension, headers & 3" exhuast,
buickmastermind is offline  
Old 10-15-2004, 06:44 PM   #67
curtis73
Professional Ninja Killer
 
curtis73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Penn Hills, Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,561
Thanks: 0
Thanked 10 Times in 10 Posts
Re: Re: Gas mileage question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by buickmastermind
If our resident chemist doesn't agree with this next sentance, then he either never took a chemistry lab, or he really doesn't know much at all about chemistrys practical application to real life and there is a reason he is a mechanic and not a government employed chemist.

"The solubility of a material depends upon temperature."
Here again, you are talking out your a$$. I don't agree with the statement, because it should read, "The solubility of a material depends on HEAT." You still think that heat and temperature are the same thing. They are not. You can add all the heat you want to a block of ice, but its temperature will not go over 0 degreec C until its water. If you can't grasp this simplest of chemistry fundamentals, then don't play it off like you're a wizard.

But NEVER in this post have we talked about physical changes. You say that it REACTS with water, not is dissolved by it. You aren't even using the right terms... all through your posts you talk about reactivity and water reacts with gasoline. This implies a chemical change. Dissolving (or the solubility you talk about) is a physical change. If you dissolve sugar in water, you just have H2O and C12H22O11. You don't have anything reacting with the water, and the water didn't change it, it just DISSOLVED it.

Damn, boy, how on earth can you continue this. We've told you countless times that water DOES NOT change the gasoline into any other forms of hydrocarbon. You just say, "yes it can and its so simple." If its so simple, ENLIGHTEN US BY POSTING THE CHEMICAL EQUATION!!! I'm sure that the Big 3 would love to have their hands on that so they can start undermining the government conspiracy to keep water out of car engines.

Post your proof or shut up. I'm starting to get embarrassed for you.
__________________
Dragging people kicking and screaming into the enlightenment.
curtis73 is offline  
Old 10-15-2004, 07:42 PM   #68
Evil Result
AF Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Binghamton, New York
Posts: 164
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via AIM to Evil Result
"This is a very simple process that you have trying to disprove using complex models of a totally different system! You are trying to tell me that changing gasoline to methane and methanol isn't possible by telling me how current combustion engines work! What intelligence. I commend you."

Don't be condecending to people just because you're getting frustrated...that will only pull you down to the level that we're at and you don't wanna be a dumb know it all who thinks they're right.
Nobody said the gasoline couldn't be converted into methane/methanol....what was stated was that an Otto engine couldn't convert gasoline into Methan/methanol like to previously stated in your posts...and don't say you didn't or that i'm wrong somehow because you did.
What type of system are you refering to when we talk about Internal combustion engines? Because if you didn't know, this forum is automotive oriented.

"What part about the water VAPOR reacting with gas VAPOR don't you understand? It is very, very simple. So simple, in fact, that you simply have to finely mist the fuel and water into the air filter, and only vapors can get past."

Ok, wether a substance is in a liquid state or a vapor state its molecule form is still the same...therefore this chemical molecule holds the same ammount of chemical energy as the other molecules wether or not it is spaced far apart like vapors/fumes or in a liquid state.

"Just because the the liquid or solid form of something is non-reactant, doesn't mean that the gaseous form isn't!"

Well the gaseous form of gasoline isn't going to react with water vapor because there forms are the same even if they absorbed an equal amount of energy from the air as you had stated in your previuos posts.

"The gaseuos form of an element has way more energy in it b/c it requires energy from somewhere to turn into a gas."

The only difference between the gaseous form of its natural liquid state is effect the heat has at the atomic level which speeds up, which you can't compair to the molecular state.
The energy we are extracting from the gasoline molecule is the heat energy from the breaking of atomic bonds in the gasoline molecule.
As and example....if water was boiled into a vapor its still water because the molecules haven't changed... it takes more energy to break atomic bonds then just changing it from a liquid to a gaseous state.

"It sounds like you seem to think that the amount of energy in a element has nothing to do with its reactivity or solubility!"

It doesn't.....i'll explane, if you took steel and to melted it down to a liquid state through the use of HEAT, even though it now a liquid its still steel but not in a practical state. This is also the same with liquids heats into a vapor form is still the same liquid.

Aug... i can't go on i'm drained... NEXT!
__________________
I disregard my perceived image in the persuit of knowledge.
Evil Result is offline  
Old 10-15-2004, 08:50 PM   #69
buickmastermind
AF Regular
Thread starter
 
buickmastermind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kalamazoo, Michigan
Posts: 453
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Gas mileage question.

The dark side? What? Another something that doesn't exist.

"you are talking out your a$$. "
Fortunatly, no human being can talk out of his or her ass. It is physically impossible. I can't figure out why you would say such a thing, unless you are capable of doing so yourself. In which case...

"I don't agree with the statement, because it should read, "The solubility of a material depends on HEAT"
So, it depends on heat? Really? Or are you just saying that because you really have nothing else to go by? KNO3, not soluable in ice, is soluable in water. In 5ml of water at 10 degrees celcius, .716 grams of KNO3 is dissolvable in the water. However, at about 45 degrees celcius, over 1.5 grams is dissolved. If KNO3 isn't soluable in ice at any level of ice. Therefore, it really doesn't go by the amount of heat in the object, but the temperature. That sentance came straight from a laboratory text book.

Here is my proof, although it is pointless to tell you because you still won't believe me anyhow.

C6H14 + 2(H2O) --> 2(CH3OH) + 2(CH4) + C2H2
C7H16 + 2(H2O) --> 2(CH3OH) + 2(CH4) + C3H4
C8H18 + 2(H2O) --> 2(CH3OH) + 3(CH4) + C3H2
C9H20 + 2(H2O) --> 2(CH3OH) + 3(CH4) + C4H4
C10H22 + 2(H2O) --> 2(CH3OH) + 4(CH4) + C4H2
C11H24 + 2(H2O) --> 2(CH3OH) + 4(CH4) + C5H4
C12H26 + 2(H2O) --> 2(CH3OH) + 5(CH4) + C5H2

It isn't government politics, it is economic polotics. The "Big 3" are the ones stopping it, along with the oil companies. If that gets out, they will be making a fraction of the money that they currently are. Which gives you more money? 22 mpg at $2.00 per gallon, or 200 mpg at the same price? Let us think really, really hard about that one.

Happy now? Why don't you do something useful instead? Stop replying to my "useless" thread, and start your own telling why this system won't work. I assure you it does. I have said counless times, it is water VAPORS that react with gasoline VAPORS. There is a difference. Higher levels of energy cause them to become less stable. Why heat up crude oil if the heat causes it to break down due to instability?
Oh, by the way, gasoline doesn't boil at room temperature. It evaporates faster than water does at room temperature.
__________________
1986 LeSabre Limited L67 sleeper

Fully ported & polished, shift kit, CAI, F41 polyurethane suspension, headers & 3" exhuast,
buickmastermind is offline  
Old 10-15-2004, 09:01 PM   #70
Evil Result
AF Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Binghamton, New York
Posts: 164
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via AIM to Evil Result
Just tell us what causes these Gasoline and Water vapors to react...because as far as i know it, and most every chemist understands it you need heat (from a spark) to cause a chemical reaction....all i seem to be getting from what your saying is these vapors will chemically recombine through basic exposure.

like when i put gas in my car i see gas vapor pouring out of the nozzle but i don't see a chemical reaction when it contacts the humid air outside of the gas tank. why?
__________________
I disregard my perceived image in the persuit of knowledge.
Evil Result is offline  
Old 10-15-2004, 09:12 PM   #71
curtis73
Professional Ninja Killer
 
curtis73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Penn Hills, Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,561
Thanks: 0
Thanked 10 Times in 10 Posts
Re: Gas mileage question.

First of all, those arent equations. Where are your Delta H's? Do you realize how much energy it requires to get those things to happen? Holy shit. We're talking more energy than the engine makes. You can't just introduce two things and expect them to make compounds that you want. Jeez. If that were the case, we wouldn't need compression OR spark plugs. Just mix the gas and air and they'll explode all by themselves. They are balanced, but many of those compounds don't spontanteously exist. If I mix water vapor and gasoline vapor, do you really think they'll just make those compounds randomly without incredible amounts of energy? I mean hundred-fold more than is available in its surroundings.

Wow. Learn more about chemistry. What you did is like posting your ABC's and expecting people to call it a literary work. I asked for proof, not fifth-grade rhetoric. I want to see the breakdowns. How much energy does it take to make those equations happen, and where does that energy come from? Numbers, man.

And you still don't get the heat/temperature thing. If you have a bucket of water at 0 degrees C and a block of ice weighing the same at 0 degrees C, which one has more heat? The water. Its the same temperature, but it has more heat. I can't believe you can't get this yet. If its the last thing I do, I'm going to get you to understand this. Its why 100-degree steam is much more capable of burning you than 100-degree boiling water. It has more heat, not more temperature. You said it yourself, but you still don't get it. You said that the vapors have more energy. Yes! ITS HEAT.
__________________
Dragging people kicking and screaming into the enlightenment.
curtis73 is offline  
Old 10-15-2004, 09:13 PM   #72
curtis73
Professional Ninja Killer
 
curtis73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Penn Hills, Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,561
Thanks: 0
Thanked 10 Times in 10 Posts
Re: Gas mileage question.

Oh, and by the way, I'm voting for Kerry.
__________________
Dragging people kicking and screaming into the enlightenment.
curtis73 is offline  
Old 10-15-2004, 09:23 PM   #73
buickmastermind
AF Regular
Thread starter
 
buickmastermind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kalamazoo, Michigan
Posts: 453
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Gas mileage question.

I can't say that I would know if the human eye could see the reaction of two gasses into another gas if they aren't colored. I figued that the energy from changing the particles was substantial enough to cause the reaction. The one I saw running just injected the gasoline and the water into the air breather before the air filter, and there was no liqiud or traces of liquid in the MAS. And, it ran significantly cooler, around 1/5 of the temperature a motor usually does. It didn't have a radiator, so I assumed it wasn't needed. The factory computer even seemed to tell if it was running rich on this system. When you first started the motor, it didn't put out white exhaust, either. It was clear, and smelled similar to propane. The motor didn't seem to be even slightly defficient of power, either. If it was, it definatly wasn't significant enough to have a noticeable effect. Besides, if it were a choice of losing 10 horsepower or gaining 90 mpg, I would take the 90 mpg, and change the exhaust system to gain back the power.

I am voting Bush b/c kerry supports abotion, and is a coward (as proved by his four-month service in vietnam). If you are going to let the opinion of a person that has literally nothing to do with the election effect something like that, then you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
__________________
1986 LeSabre Limited L67 sleeper

Fully ported & polished, shift kit, CAI, F41 polyurethane suspension, headers & 3" exhuast,
buickmastermind is offline  
Old 10-15-2004, 09:43 PM   #74
Evil Result
AF Enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Binghamton, New York
Posts: 164
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via AIM to Evil Result
Was the engine you saw Supercharged or turbo charged aka Boosted. Usually engine that use water injection are Veryhigh performance for there Displacement and even with anti knocking agent still cause the fuel to auto-ignite before the spark...so they use water injection to reduce the temperature in the combustion chamber to help prevent knock.

There are additive added to the injected water to prevent abnormal corrosion or improve the effects of the water....this could have made the exhaust smell like propane. Like Gresels aka diesel engine running on vegitable oil..the exhaust smells like french fries lots of the time.

anyways not to make things even more political..but i can't help my self :P I'm for Kerry because i'm afraid what else Bush is going to do to harm the peoples morale of their own country. New leadership even if uncertain might be better than what we have, kinda foolish i know but enn. Abortion well...unfortionatly its better to have it avalible than not at all.
__________________
I disregard my perceived image in the persuit of knowledge.
Evil Result is offline  
Old 10-15-2004, 10:34 PM   #75
buickmastermind
AF Regular
Thread starter
 
buickmastermind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kalamazoo, Michigan
Posts: 453
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: Gas mileage question.

The motor was neither. the fuel was simply injected in the air breather, and that was the only one injector (the holes in the manifold were capped off), that were firing about once per 5 seconds. There were no other fuel lines, just a line for the water injector that had a resivoir and a tank in in the trunk. It would fire about once per second. The water was straight tap water. I really doubt that a current racing engine can achieve over 20 mpg, unless it were on this system. But, they use a higher octane rating, so I'm not positive this system will properly work without major adjustments.

Although I'm sure it will work on a turbo or SC system, because they don't use racing fuel, the motor I saw wasn't utilizing that. Why use boosters when you can take a 455 ci motor and get way more power and torque? Unless, of course, you can't fit one in your car. If I had the time and recources, time specifically, I would do it to my car. But...Kettering University has a fast paced 3 month in, 3 month out schedule. I need to have fun in my free time.

This is my take on the political things. I have a brother overseas in Iraq, and the "morale" is low isn't true for the majority of the troops. Just those given few who wanted to be on the news for something. And the economy isn't bad because of Bush. It was souring about a year before Clinton was out of the office. The economy is independant of the president. Usually, wars do bring deficates, but that is a given for any war. The economy will raise to it's original level shortly, though. If you knew what partial birth abortion was, and exactly what it entailed, you would be against all abortion, period.
__________________
1986 LeSabre Limited L67 sleeper

Fully ported & polished, shift kit, CAI, F41 polyurethane suspension, headers & 3" exhuast,
buickmastermind is offline  
 
Closed Thread

POST REPLY TO THIS THREAD

Go Back   Automotive Forums .com Car Chat > Engineering/Technical

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:00 AM.

Community Participation Guidelines | How to use your User Control Panel

Powered by: vBulletin | Copyright Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
 
 
no new posts