A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » Astro Pictures
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

ASTRO: Question on STL filter wheel



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 1st 06, 06:17 PM posted to alt.binaries.pictures.astro
Rick Johnson[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,085
Default ASTRO: Question on STL filter wheel

The filter wheel in my STL camera has suddenly decided to position the
lum filter at random. Never exactly the same spot but never too far
off. Result is a flat fielded image that makes the donuts look 3D in
the final picture. Each time I go back to the lum filter it is
positioned just slightly differently. Though a couple times it was more
than 2 degrees off. The other filter positions line up fine, just the
lum filter that is screwy. Since I'm using a SCT I suppose I could take
it out without much if any harm but I'd like to get this stabilized.

Any ideas?

Rick

--
Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct.
Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh".

  #2  
Old December 2nd 06, 02:43 AM posted to alt.binaries.pictures.astro
Richard Crisp[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 985
Default ASTRO: Question on STL filter wheel

that seems odd Rick

the old CFW7/a had a friction drive wherein a rubber ring surrounded the
outside of the carousel to make a compliant and high friction drive point
which was pressed against a shaft of a motor as I recall

I've not been inside an STL except once and can't remember if they did it
the same way or not. Can you confirm the drive mechanism?

If it is that way then possibly the friction isn't what it once was when the
weather is truly cold or perhaps the friction on the bearings increases in
the cold.

It seems odd though that it only happens with the lum filter other than
usually lum shows up these defects better than the other filters, are you
sure that it isn't happening on the other filters too but they are just a
bit too dense optically to show up as well on the image?

if it truly is confined to the Lum filter then I would suspect it is moving
inside the pocket of the filter wheel. I once had mine rattling around and
experienced the same issue you described but it affected all of the filters
free to rattle around. So I shimmed them by using a twist tie cut short and
inserted as a bushing between the outside edge of the filter and the filter
pocket in the carousel. that's how i keep mine from moving around


"Rick Johnson" wrote in message
...
The filter wheel in my STL camera has suddenly decided to position the lum
filter at random. Never exactly the same spot but never too far off.
Result is a flat fielded image that makes the donuts look 3D in the final
picture. Each time I go back to the lum filter it is positioned just
slightly differently. Though a couple times it was more than 2 degrees
off. The other filter positions line up fine, just the lum filter that is
screwy. Since I'm using a SCT I suppose I could take it out without much
if any harm but I'd like to get this stabilized.

Any ideas?

Rick

--
Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct.
Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh".



  #3  
Old December 2nd 06, 04:27 AM posted to alt.binaries.pictures.astro
Rick Johnson[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,085
Default ASTRO: Question on STL filter wheel

Yes it uses the same mechanism. I overlaid individual flat frames each
taken after rotating to other filters then back to lum and I'd have to
rotate one by up to 2 degrees to get them to line up but the center of
rotation had to be where the center of the wheel would be, well "above"
the flat. Did the same with the other filter positions but they all
line up fine. A couple times the lum frame stopped half way between
filters so I had half lum and half something else. Can't recall which
color is next to it other than my Halpha and it wasn't that one as at
that exposure time it would have been nearly black. Next time it would
be about but not exactly in position.

I suspect cold is the problem. It was near zero (-17.5C per the
uncooled camera) when the problem first showed. Today at 10F it was
doing the same however but only about 1 degree off max. I suspect that
rubber ring is slippery right at some point at this temp. I'll take it
apart and see what I find. I could just remove it I suppose as I doubt
the corrector in the scope would defocus IR to any significant extent.
Monday I'll call SBIG and see what they have to say.

I don't know how it senses where it is at but it gets the others right
no matter which direction I rotate it.

Last night I only got a couple quick test frames before the power went
out. Some major sub station let go in the cold blacking out many square
miles and two small towns. It came back on after many hours allowing me
to lower the scope without having to disengage the worms but it went out
again so I had to release the roof motor and close it by hand. Rolls
very easily but a bit messy taking the chain off, not to mention cold.
By morning it was snowing.

First good seeing in months. I obviously angered some weather god. A
day after a deep front goes through often leads to very steady seeing up
here.

Rick


Richard Crisp wrote:
that seems odd Rick

the old CFW7/a had a friction drive wherein a rubber ring surrounded the
outside of the carousel to make a compliant and high friction drive point
which was pressed against a shaft of a motor as I recall

I've not been inside an STL except once and can't remember if they did it
the same way or not. Can you confirm the drive mechanism?

If it is that way then possibly the friction isn't what it once was when the
weather is truly cold or perhaps the friction on the bearings increases in
the cold.

It seems odd though that it only happens with the lum filter other than
usually lum shows up these defects better than the other filters, are you
sure that it isn't happening on the other filters too but they are just a
bit too dense optically to show up as well on the image?

if it truly is confined to the Lum filter then I would suspect it is moving
inside the pocket of the filter wheel. I once had mine rattling around and
experienced the same issue you described but it affected all of the filters
free to rattle around. So I shimmed them by using a twist tie cut short and
inserted as a bushing between the outside edge of the filter and the filter
pocket in the carousel. that's how i keep mine from moving around


"Rick Johnson" wrote in message
...

The filter wheel in my STL camera has suddenly decided to position the lum
filter at random. Never exactly the same spot but never too far off.
Result is a flat fielded image that makes the donuts look 3D in the final
picture. Each time I go back to the lum filter it is positioned just
slightly differently. Though a couple times it was more than 2 degrees
off. The other filter positions line up fine, just the lum filter that is
screwy. Since I'm using a SCT I suppose I could take it out without much
if any harm but I'd like to get this stabilized.

Any ideas?

Rick

--
Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct.
Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh".





--
Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct.
Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh".

  #4  
Old December 2nd 06, 04:38 AM posted to alt.binaries.pictures.astro
Richard Crisp[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 985
Default ASTRO: Question on STL filter wheel


"Rick Johnson" wrote in message
...
Yes it uses the same mechanism. I overlaid individual flat frames each
taken after rotating to other filters then back to lum and I'd have to
rotate one by up to 2 degrees to get them to line up but the center of
rotation had to be where the center of the wheel would be, well "above"
the flat. Did the same with the other filter positions but they all line
up fine. A couple times the lum frame stopped half way between filters so
I had half lum and half something else. Can't recall which color is next
to it other than my Halpha and it wasn't that one as at that exposure time
it would have been nearly black. Next time it would be about but not
exactly in position.

I suspect cold is the problem. It was near zero (-17.5C per the uncooled
camera) when the problem first showed. Today at 10F it was doing the same
however but only about 1 degree off max. I suspect that rubber ring is
slippery right at some point at this temp. I'll take it apart and see
what I find. I could just remove it I suppose as I doubt the corrector in
the scope would defocus IR to any significant extent. Monday I'll call
SBIG and see what they have to say.



Now you are starting to see some of the reasons why I just patently reject
anything that SBIG mades after about 2003 or so.

There's no excuse for putting light sources in filter wheels which they did
with the CFW7/a and using those goofy friction drives is just being cheap
when you can use a toothed drive that never slips in my opinion as a long
time design engineer.

There's no end to the things I can point out that I think are just bad
design decisions in that STL you have but I will hold back for another day.

It still amazes me that they have the following they do. The only rational
explanation that I can see is that most people just buy what they see others
doing.

I've seen the same thing out deep sea fishing: one boat stops, then another
comes in close thinking they are catching fish. Then that attracts a third
and a fourth and a fifth and next thing you have 20 boats in the same spot
and no one is necessarily catching fish, but it is easier to stop where you
see the boats than it is to think for yourself.

Be honest Rick, why did you pick the STL versus all the other choices? Was
it because you see a lot of them in use or was it based on careful analysis
of all the relevant parameters that are important for your imaging
interests?



  #5  
Old December 2nd 06, 07:19 AM posted to alt.binaries.pictures.astro
Rick Johnson[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,085
Default ASTRO: Question on STL filter wheel

It was the only used camera covering the FOV of the scope that was at a
price I could afford. Bought it from a guy local for about half cost
with the filters thrown in. The FLI 6303 with filters would have cost
twice and had less field. It was my first choice but never saw a used
one I could afford. I can get a friction band that will hold up in cold
so shouldn't be hard to fix. I know several engineers in the aero-space
industry. It's amazing what they can scrounge up. I sort of like such
challenges. Compared to what it took to get a fraction of the results
I'm getting now when I started in the late 50's with astro photography
this is really simple stuff if you ignore image processing. The jury
rigged stuff we used back then would blow your mind. No such thing as
off axis guiders. You built nearly everything from what you could find
in military surplus shops. Optics too often came from there. And if
you adjust for inflation the cost of what you did put together was much
much higher for a fraction the result. I'd get bored if it were too
easy. My main challenge now is learning all the various ins and outs of
processing the data. Mechanics of telescopes are easy for me but
software -- that's very foreign to me.

Rick


Richard Crisp wrote:
"Rick Johnson" wrote in message
...

Yes it uses the same mechanism. I overlaid individual flat frames each
taken after rotating to other filters then back to lum and I'd have to
rotate one by up to 2 degrees to get them to line up but the center of
rotation had to be where the center of the wheel would be, well "above"
the flat. Did the same with the other filter positions but they all line
up fine. A couple times the lum frame stopped half way between filters so
I had half lum and half something else. Can't recall which color is next
to it other than my Halpha and it wasn't that one as at that exposure time
it would have been nearly black. Next time it would be about but not
exactly in position.

I suspect cold is the problem. It was near zero (-17.5C per the uncooled
camera) when the problem first showed. Today at 10F it was doing the same
however but only about 1 degree off max. I suspect that rubber ring is
slippery right at some point at this temp. I'll take it apart and see
what I find. I could just remove it I suppose as I doubt the corrector in
the scope would defocus IR to any significant extent. Monday I'll call
SBIG and see what they have to say.




Now you are starting to see some of the reasons why I just patently reject
anything that SBIG mades after about 2003 or so.

There's no excuse for putting light sources in filter wheels which they did
with the CFW7/a and using those goofy friction drives is just being cheap
when you can use a toothed drive that never slips in my opinion as a long
time design engineer.

There's no end to the things I can point out that I think are just bad
design decisions in that STL you have but I will hold back for another day.

It still amazes me that they have the following they do. The only rational
explanation that I can see is that most people just buy what they see others
doing.

I've seen the same thing out deep sea fishing: one boat stops, then another
comes in close thinking they are catching fish. Then that attracts a third
and a fourth and a fifth and next thing you have 20 boats in the same spot
and no one is necessarily catching fish, but it is easier to stop where you
see the boats than it is to think for yourself.

Be honest Rick, why did you pick the STL versus all the other choices? Was
it because you see a lot of them in use or was it based on careful analysis
of all the relevant parameters that are important for your imaging
interests?




--
Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct.
Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh".

  #6  
Old December 2nd 06, 07:31 AM posted to alt.binaries.pictures.astro
Richard Crisp[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 985
Default ASTRO: Question on STL filter wheel

i bet the lum filter is what is used the most and so you have a 'dent' in
the band...


"Rick Johnson" wrote in message
...
It was the only used camera covering the FOV of the scope that was at a
price I could afford. Bought it from a guy local for about half cost with
the filters thrown in. The FLI 6303 with filters would have cost twice
and had less field. It was my first choice but never saw a used one I
could afford. I can get a friction band that will hold up in cold so
shouldn't be hard to fix. I know several engineers in the aero-space
industry. It's amazing what they can scrounge up. I sort of like such
challenges. Compared to what it took to get a fraction of the results I'm
getting now when I started in the late 50's with astro photography this is
really simple stuff if you ignore image processing. The jury rigged stuff
we used back then would blow your mind. No such thing as off axis
guiders. You built nearly everything from what you could find in military
surplus shops. Optics too often came from there. And if you adjust for
inflation the cost of what you did put together was much much higher for a
fraction the result. I'd get bored if it were too easy. My main
challenge now is learning all the various ins and outs of processing the
data. Mechanics of telescopes are easy for me but software -- that's very
foreign to me.

Rick


Richard Crisp wrote:
"Rick Johnson" wrote in message
...

Yes it uses the same mechanism. I overlaid individual flat frames each
taken after rotating to other filters then back to lum and I'd have to
rotate one by up to 2 degrees to get them to line up but the center of
rotation had to be where the center of the wheel would be, well "above"
the flat. Did the same with the other filter positions but they all line
up fine. A couple times the lum frame stopped half way between filters
so I had half lum and half something else. Can't recall which color is
next to it other than my Halpha and it wasn't that one as at that
exposure time it would have been nearly black. Next time it would be
about but not exactly in position.

I suspect cold is the problem. It was near zero (-17.5C per the uncooled
camera) when the problem first showed. Today at 10F it was doing the
same however but only about 1 degree off max. I suspect that rubber ring
is slippery right at some point at this temp. I'll take it apart and see
what I find. I could just remove it I suppose as I doubt the corrector
in the scope would defocus IR to any significant extent. Monday I'll call
SBIG and see what they have to say.




Now you are starting to see some of the reasons why I just patently
reject anything that SBIG mades after about 2003 or so.

There's no excuse for putting light sources in filter wheels which they
did with the CFW7/a and using those goofy friction drives is just being
cheap when you can use a toothed drive that never slips in my opinion as
a long time design engineer.

There's no end to the things I can point out that I think are just bad
design decisions in that STL you have but I will hold back for another
day.

It still amazes me that they have the following they do. The only
rational explanation that I can see is that most people just buy what
they see others doing.

I've seen the same thing out deep sea fishing: one boat stops, then
another comes in close thinking they are catching fish. Then that
attracts a third and a fourth and a fifth and next thing you have 20
boats in the same spot and no one is necessarily catching fish, but it is
easier to stop where you see the boats than it is to think for yourself.

Be honest Rick, why did you pick the STL versus all the other choices?
Was it because you see a lot of them in use or was it based on careful
analysis of all the relevant parameters that are important for your
imaging interests?




--
Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct.
Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh".



  #7  
Old December 2nd 06, 08:08 AM posted to alt.binaries.pictures.astro
Rick Johnson[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,085
Default ASTRO: Question on STL filter wheel

If it stops snowing I'll go out and see. I suspect I'll find something
about that band is the problem. I want to see it in the cold rather
than bring it in the house. Warm it may behave very differently.

Rick


Richard Crisp wrote:

i bet the lum filter is what is used the most and so you have a 'dent' in
the band...


"Rick Johnson" wrote in message
...

It was the only used camera covering the FOV of the scope that was at a
price I could afford. Bought it from a guy local for about half cost with
the filters thrown in. The FLI 6303 with filters would have cost twice
and had less field. It was my first choice but never saw a used one I
could afford. I can get a friction band that will hold up in cold so
shouldn't be hard to fix. I know several engineers in the aero-space
industry. It's amazing what they can scrounge up. I sort of like such
challenges. Compared to what it took to get a fraction of the results I'm
getting now when I started in the late 50's with astro photography this is
really simple stuff if you ignore image processing. The jury rigged stuff
we used back then would blow your mind. No such thing as off axis
guiders. You built nearly everything from what you could find in military
surplus shops. Optics too often came from there. And if you adjust for
inflation the cost of what you did put together was much much higher for a
fraction the result. I'd get bored if it were too easy. My main
challenge now is learning all the various ins and outs of processing the
data. Mechanics of telescopes are easy for me but software -- that's very
foreign to me.

Rick


Richard Crisp wrote:

"Rick Johnson" wrote in message
...


Yes it uses the same mechanism. I overlaid individual flat frames each
taken after rotating to other filters then back to lum and I'd have to
rotate one by up to 2 degrees to get them to line up but the center of
rotation had to be where the center of the wheel would be, well "above"
the flat. Did the same with the other filter positions but they all line
up fine. A couple times the lum frame stopped half way between filters
so I had half lum and half something else. Can't recall which color is
next to it other than my Halpha and it wasn't that one as at that
exposure time it would have been nearly black. Next time it would be
about but not exactly in position.

I suspect cold is the problem. It was near zero (-17.5C per the uncooled
camera) when the problem first showed. Today at 10F it was doing the
same however but only about 1 degree off max. I suspect that rubber ring
is slippery right at some point at this temp. I'll take it apart and see
what I find. I could just remove it I suppose as I doubt the corrector
in the scope would defocus IR to any significant extent. Monday I'll call
SBIG and see what they have to say.



Now you are starting to see some of the reasons why I just patently
reject anything that SBIG mades after about 2003 or so.

There's no excuse for putting light sources in filter wheels which they
did with the CFW7/a and using those goofy friction drives is just being
cheap when you can use a toothed drive that never slips in my opinion as
a long time design engineer.

There's no end to the things I can point out that I think are just bad
design decisions in that STL you have but I will hold back for another
day.

It still amazes me that they have the following they do. The only
rational explanation that I can see is that most people just buy what
they see others doing.

I've seen the same thing out deep sea fishing: one boat stops, then
another comes in close thinking they are catching fish. Then that
attracts a third and a fourth and a fifth and next thing you have 20
boats in the same spot and no one is necessarily catching fish, but it is
easier to stop where you see the boats than it is to think for yourself.

Be honest Rick, why did you pick the STL versus all the other choices?
Was it because you see a lot of them in use or was it based on careful
analysis of all the relevant parameters that are important for your
imaging interests?




--
Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct.
Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh".





--
Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct.
Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh".

  #8  
Old December 2nd 06, 08:28 AM posted to alt.binaries.pictures.astro
Richard Crisp[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 985
Default ASTRO: Question on STL filter wheel


"Rick Johnson" wrote in message
...
If it stops snowing I'll go out and see. I suspect I'll find something
about that band is the problem. I want to see it in the cold rather than
bring it in the house. Warm it may behave very differently.


I agree. Most likely you have what we call a "materials problem" in that the
materials chosen for the job don't work over the full range of environments
that it will be used.



Rick


Richard Crisp wrote:

i bet the lum filter is what is used the most and so you have a 'dent' in
the band...


"Rick Johnson" wrote in message
...

It was the only used camera covering the FOV of the scope that was at a
price I could afford. Bought it from a guy local for about half cost
with the filters thrown in. The FLI 6303 with filters would have cost
twice and had less field. It was my first choice but never saw a used
one I could afford. I can get a friction band that will hold up in cold
so shouldn't be hard to fix. I know several engineers in the aero-space
industry. It's amazing what they can scrounge up. I sort of like such
challenges. Compared to what it took to get a fraction of the results
I'm getting now when I started in the late 50's with astro photography
this is really simple stuff if you ignore image processing. The jury
rigged stuff we used back then would blow your mind. No such thing as
off axis guiders. You built nearly everything from what you could find
in military surplus shops. Optics too often came from there. And if you
adjust for inflation the cost of what you did put together was much much
higher for a fraction the result. I'd get bored if it were too easy. My
main challenge now is learning all the various ins and outs of processing
the data. Mechanics of telescopes are easy for me but software -- that's
very foreign to me.

Rick


Richard Crisp wrote:

"Rick Johnson" wrote in message
...


Yes it uses the same mechanism. I overlaid individual flat frames each
taken after rotating to other filters then back to lum and I'd have to
rotate one by up to 2 degrees to get them to line up but the center of
rotation had to be where the center of the wheel would be, well "above"
the flat. Did the same with the other filter positions but they all
line up fine. A couple times the lum frame stopped half way between
filters so I had half lum and half something else. Can't recall which
color is next to it other than my Halpha and it wasn't that one as at
that exposure time it would have been nearly black. Next time it would
be about but not exactly in position.

I suspect cold is the problem. It was near zero (-17.5C per the
uncooled camera) when the problem first showed. Today at 10F it was
doing the same however but only about 1 degree off max. I suspect that
rubber ring is slippery right at some point at this temp. I'll take it
apart and see what I find. I could just remove it I suppose as I doubt
the corrector in the scope would defocus IR to any significant extent.
Monday I'll call SBIG and see what they have to say.



Now you are starting to see some of the reasons why I just patently
reject anything that SBIG mades after about 2003 or so.

There's no excuse for putting light sources in filter wheels which they
did with the CFW7/a and using those goofy friction drives is just being
cheap when you can use a toothed drive that never slips in my opinion as
a long time design engineer.

There's no end to the things I can point out that I think are just bad
design decisions in that STL you have but I will hold back for another
day.

It still amazes me that they have the following they do. The only
rational explanation that I can see is that most people just buy what
they see others doing.

I've seen the same thing out deep sea fishing: one boat stops, then
another comes in close thinking they are catching fish. Then that
attracts a third and a fourth and a fifth and next thing you have 20
boats in the same spot and no one is necessarily catching fish, but it
is easier to stop where you see the boats than it is to think for
yourself.

Be honest Rick, why did you pick the STL versus all the other choices?
Was it because you see a lot of them in use or was it based on careful
analysis of all the relevant parameters that are important for your
imaging interests?




--
Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct.
Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh".





--
Correct domain name is arvig and it is net not com. Prefix is correct.
Third character is a zero rather than a capital "Oh".



  #9  
Old December 2nd 06, 08:21 PM posted to alt.binaries.pictures.astro
Jonathan Silverlight[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 298
Default ASTRO: Question on STL filter wheel

In message , Richard Crisp
writes

using those goofy friction drives is just being cheap
when you can use a toothed drive that never slips in my opinion as a long
time design engineer.


Weird coincidence department - I'm having exactly the same problem in my
day job with a microplate reader (used in medical research).
They allegedly went from a gear system to friction drive because
customers complained about the noise, but why they didn't use a stepper
motor or an encoder to make sure the wheel is in the right place escapes
me.
  #10  
Old December 2nd 06, 08:59 PM posted to alt.binaries.pictures.astro
Richard Crisp[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 985
Default ASTRO: Question on STL filter wheel


"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote
in message ...
In message , Richard Crisp
writes

using those goofy friction drives is just being cheap
when you can use a toothed drive that never slips in my opinion as a long
time design engineer.


Weird coincidence department - I'm having exactly the same problem in my
day job with a microplate reader (used in medical research).
They allegedly went from a gear system to friction drive because customers
complained about the noise, but why they didn't use a stepper motor or an
encoder to make sure the wheel is in the right place escapes me.



no doubt the friction drive was cheaper to make

these days it seems that it is only about delivering to the spec at the
absolute minimum cost, unfortunately

so you get substandard capacitors being substituted by unscrupulous fixed
price contract assemblers to boost their operating margin, you see designers
cutting corners to save a nickel here and there. It is really pretty
distressing to pay nearly $10,000 for a piece of limited production camera
gear and then find that it has problems with the filter wheel, doesn't cool
worth a damn on a hot night, has higher read noise than similar products
using the same sensor made by competitors, has to shim a nosepiece to get
the sensor orthogonal to the optical axis and the list goes on and on and
on.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Apogee Inc. 4-Position Filter Wheel -- filters [email protected] Amateur Astronomy 0 March 30th 06 03:11 AM
decently priced motorized filter wheel? Alf Watson Amateur Astronomy 0 February 16th 06 11:42 AM
Astro Imager's filter wheel question Jon Hightower Amateur Astronomy 1 July 30th 05 01:00 AM
SAC color filter wheel questions Uncle Bill CCD Imaging 3 May 13th 05 07:19 PM
SAC color filter wheel questions Uncle Bill Amateur Astronomy 0 May 11th 05 03:10 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.