+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 48

Thread: Lighting the Dump Bucket

  1. #1
    herring_fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Winston-Salem NC, USA
    Posts
    73

    Lighting the Dump Bucket





    I would like to put down some rambling thoughts and hopefully get some good input to help me finalize my ATS design. Please comment on any parts of this thread.

    I feed my 130 gallon tank very heavily for non-photosynthetic corals and other filter feeders. For about 2 years, I have been running only a 55 gallon sump with a deep sand bed and the rest of the volume is filled with an extra porous coral rubble (not lit). The bacteria keeps the nitrates at a reasonable level but phosphates are not good enough. This is becoming more apparent as the volume of feeding increases. Additionally, the sump out competed with the Algal Turf Scrubber (ATS) so it stopped producing algae for export. I think that the lighting was also just a little inadequate.

    I plan on disconnecting the sump and go back to my tried and true dump bucket style Algal Turf Scrubber. A lot of people like other designs for some very good reasons but I like this one for me.

    The dump bucket was a lot harder to design and fabricate but I like the splash that it produces. The turbulence inside the tipping tray prevents algae from matting for a much longer period of time so I don't have to be as fastidious about harvesting. When it is harvest time, the balance point changes and the tray stops tipping, coming to rest in the down position. Testing shows that the constantly changing water surface, causes a flashing effect that concentrates light. That and the turbulence greatly adds to the efficiency of the scrubber even though it is a one sided design. The two designs run neck and neck on efficiency so it just comes down to personal preference as I see it.

    Having made that decision, I am trying to decide on the lighting for my ATS.

    The screen is 42 inches by 6 inches which is 252 square inches. I guess that I need about 250 watts of light. What do you guys and gals think?


    I'm just not ready to go to LEDs yet so I am going to whip something together before I go pro. I need to find out how many lumens I need first and I am a long way from doing the research that I need to do.

    My first ATS back in the yearly 90's used a 300 watt halogen lamp. I lost a gallon of water per day to evaporation in my old 55 gallon tank but the tank temperature actually went down.

    My next tank was a 130. I bought an Icecap ballast that I used to run 4 old styled VHOs. I still have the set up but I don't want to have to buy a set of the bulbs and pay for shipping or buy them at the local store at pull price. This is more important if I am really supposed to change the lights every 3 months. I never did and had great results. I could change to T5's but I would still have the same issues.

    Since I have lots of room to work with, I thought about using 4 55 watt compact florescent bulbs that I could get at Home Depot. They aren't real cheap unless they are on sale and that might not be in the right K range. I could also buy the cheap 23 watt lamps in value packs. Say 12 in an array. That could be more hassle but on the other hand; I could buy a pack and change out a 3rd every month. That way I wouldn't get big fluctuation in light out put. With more lights, I could turn on some fraction at a time to tune or scale the amount of light that I actually need.

    Some people don't like the spiral design, thinking that the light isn't dispersed the very well. Again the up side is that I can get them at a moments notice at a good price. Of course, what ever design I end up with will have outdoor sockets or end caps and a good reflector.

    What are your thoughts on these subjects? Your input would be greatly appreciated.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    289
    With that design(I'm all the bit of a novice). A factory made fixture would work perfectly sitting right on top of it. Just get some plant type bulbs. For evap. issues I would make a simple cover for it.

    Does the whole box tilt or is it stationary and the water runs down it? I saw just last night a hobbyist used a square bucket he fixed a toilet valve on. Pumped water into it as the float rose/raised the water rushed out and the flap dropped to start the process again. Might fix your stop tilting problem. Very simple. I liked it.

    My first scrubber was horizontal. Got good results. Went verticle and seemed to have less growth for some reason. I'm not scientific either. Horizontal seemed to produce tons more copepods too. Debating on new set up which way to go. Horizontal was easier to clean. Didn't have to shut off anything. Just roll up screen and roll back out.

    This idea of changing lights so frequently I don't get. The manufactures state a lifespan. But for some reason nobody trusts them. They give tens of thousands of hours but people want to change them sooner. I wouldn't trust them if they put only hundreds of hours in order to sell more bulbs.

    Those are my thoughts.

  3. #3
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA, USA
    Posts
    9,967
    Firstly, your lighting...

    This is more important if I am really supposed to change the lights every 3 months
    If fluorescent, yet you need to. You could also double the wattage, and cut the hours to 9, which would give you 6 months.

    Some people don't like the spiral design, thinking that the light isn't dispersed the very well
    It is if big reflectors are used. Like the 10 or 12 inch ones. But the real decision on scrubber efficiency is not the bulbs...

    I plan on disconnecting the sump and go back to my tried and true dump bucket style Algal Turf Scrubber. A lot of people like other designs for some very good reasons but I like this one for me.
    And the reason for this is power. Horizontals have everything working against them and nothing working for them when it comes to power (filtering). Starting with being 1-sided, the roots dies twice as fast from lack of light, and let go. This applies especially to GHA which reach out into the flow and gets pulled away first. Next there is the "dry" phase of the bucket, which further works against GHA, and which also only lets water contact the algae for a shorter time cycle. And lastly are the algae islands which attempt to grow up and out of the water; not only do they get thick and stop water and light from penetrating them, they also block flow from getting past them, and from getting to the top of them; this means there is a lot of algae with insufficient flow which dies even quicker.

    The turbulence inside the tipping tray prevents algae from matting for a much longer period of time so I don't have to be as fastidious about harvesting.
    "Matting" actually starts with the first growth; no light is going to get through the dark stuff even if it's just a thin layer. However part of the apparent "reduction of matting" is the top layers of algae are actually being pulled/washed away. They start to grow, but the surges pull them apart. Yes this might appear to have less matting (thickness) on what remains, but the stuff that washed away is killing the filtration of the whole unit.

    Testing shows that the constantly changing water surface, causes a flashing effect that concentrates light.
    But it also means a non-concentrated (weak) light otherwise. Filtering is proportional to light. Bright light favors GHA, which get washed /pulled away anyway by the surge. But weak light favor dark/black growth, which filters very little itself (less chlorophyll), and which kills everything below it. So you don't every want weak light; you want either very strong light, or complete darkness.

    the turbulence greatly adds to the efficiency of the scrubber even though it is a one sided design.
    Yes turbulence help filtering, but only when it is happening. Turbulence can be had in other ways that a bucket, but on a full-time basis.

    Filtering is done by chlorophyll, which is green. It must have light, and the light must be able to penetrate through the algae to reach other algae, otherwise as soon as growth occurs it will kill the growth below it. Green algae is the only algae that allows light to shine through it. This is not important on a reef because you have unlimited area for sideways growth; but our filtering have no place to grow sideways past the filter. And algae must have flow; algae that is thick does not allow flow inside the algae. Hair algae, and confetti, spaghetti, etc, allow this flow. But you won't get much if any green algae on a horizontal dump bucket.

    I think the best of all worlds is the new upflow, which gives turbulence and nutrient delivery 100 percent of the time, as well as dry-air carbon delivery through the bubbles, and thin-wall screen design which allows light to penetrate the most number of days of the growth cycle. The waterfall is next in power, although it does not deliver carbon directly via dry air (there is always a sheet of water covering the algae). Last in filtering power would be a non-dumping horizontal, which at least has nutrient contact all the time. And ironically, the weakest per unit size is a dumping bucket horizontal.

    I would do a surge via some other means, and keep a vertical scrubber that is proven to filtering strongly.

  4. #4
    kerry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,406
    I have done a LOT of testing on the horizontal scrubber. First they are not near as efficient as the dual sided screen (vertical) type. If you are feeding more then 1 cube of food I would recommend the vertical type. I have put so much effort into these because I have three Nano tanks. I will say that the horizontals do much better with part of the screen submerged in the water, about 1/4 to a 1/3. Having part of the screen under the water was a huge benefit but it still fell way short of the vert screen filtering capacity. This discovery was by complete failure of a build that broke and I didnt notice for a week LOL. I would put effort into the vert screen type and just dabble with the horizontal. The horizontal needs to be so over-sized, that makes it not really feasible to build if you are feeding more then 1 cube. I guess if you are in a jam and have no other option you have to. I just wanted to let you know my experience with this type of build. They work but, work poorly so dont be expecting the results you see posted of vert screen scrubbers. I dont want to burst any bubbles or ideas I am just giving my honest opinion and research info to you.
    150G. Reef/Mix
    125G. 3 Regular Oscars/1 Jack Dempsey
    75G. 20+ Africans
    40G. Fish/Reef. Algae Scrubbers on ALL my SW
    10G. SW Fish/Reef.
    10G. SW Hospital/new fish quarantine/pod breeder tank
    6 stage RO/DI system 200 GPD.

  5. #5
    herring_fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Winston-Salem NC, USA
    Posts
    73

    Wow

    This was not intended to be my dump bucket coming out party. I was surprised by the response from SM. It was a little sharp. I didn't want to get into an argument over my design but somehow I knew that I would get a response like this from someone. I didn't think that it would be from him. It is like going to a general reef web site and saying that I use an ATS. I get so much negative feed back that it is not worth the fight.

    Now I come to a site dedicated to scrubbers and I get the same response. I just want to enjoy my design and talk about improving it, not to trash it! Look at the percentage of the response to the actual question about lighting as compared to the percentage relative to the unsolicited response to my bucket design. This is not a static horizontal design and should not be conflated with one.

    We used to say that if you haven't actually used an well designed ATS exclusively, without using a skimmer, how can you insist that your opinions trump what I experience. As I alluded to in the post, I have used this thing since the early 90's and I am happy with it. It works for me. I have had articles publish in TFH and FAMA like some of you have. I am not asserting that it is the best way to do it. I am saying that it is the best for me and I want to move on but I can't, can I ????

    OK I based my bucket on Dr. Adey’s designs (the first patent holder, coiner of the phrase and trademark holder for the ATS™ ). His book Dynamic Aquaria is full of studies on why he settled on dump buckets but he has other designs that he proposes and uses. There are lots of designs that have different benefits and draw backs. I am not going to critique all other designs and certainly not put them down but there are lots of scientific studies that back up this design, just as there are lots of studies that back up other ones as well. Can’t we all just get along?

    I am not going to have a white paper war with anyone but the principles that I understand and use are very well documented in so many studies and furthermore they just make since.

    Over the millennia, many Algal Turf Algae (ATA) [but not all] have evolved to grow best at and near the oceans water line. Fish graze on this algae …at the water line so it became tough. Part of that adaptation of Green Hair Algae(GHA) is high growth rates. Waves crash at the water line so they both adapted. ATA and GHA developed both a structure that stands up to predation and wave crashing. They also take advantage of that zone of high turbulence and high sunlight to out pace predation.



    A dump bucket simply tries to replicate the tidal zone. A dump bucket allows the algae to stand up and flow with the water in the tray, waving back and forth as it does. Non-constant water direction and velocity insures great contact exposure to the individual strands of algae. These facilitate optimal respiration and nutrient uptake. Non-surging laminar flow lays algae strands down like a comb does to your hair.

    Flashing is well studied for both algae growth and separately for coral growth. Alternating light intensity stimulates photosynthesis, respiration and growth in both. It was found that more intense flashes followed by an equal amounts of relatively lower light is more effective than a constant amount of light. This was studied with both waves and with flashing lights. The prismatic spectral shift of waves gives more variety of the light’s K value as well. Being able to eat steak all the time is good but you do need to eat your vegetables as well.

    Algae that can stand up for part of the time, not touching its neighbors just performs better. Much like a kelp forest, water flow is optimized if stocks or strands don’t touch all the time. In a 3 inch deep agitated tray with water surging left and right and side to side, light hits the individual strands on all sides and from different angles, permeating all of the algae, right down to and through the roots. The longer that the strands can stay separate, the longer you can go between harvests if you need to.

    While it may occur in other dump bucket designs, there is no dry phase in mine. At the start of the cycle, water pools at the bottom of the tray (Dark Blue) and fills quickly (Light Blue) until it dumps (Second Graphic). The water forcefully flows through it like a comb but not all of the water leaves the tray before it rights itself. The remaining water slides back down the tray ( Third Graphic) providing a back wash until the wave hits the back of the tray at the right. At that point, mini-waves bounce around providing truly random water motion. The refill phase is only a few seconds and the algae on the inclined part to the bucket has water running back down the slope. As short as the time period is at that point, the algae is no more exposed than in a typical vertical design. Healthy algae is designed not to shear off in high flow so normally more is better. The algae that grows will very quickly self select to adapt to that turbulence. I do not get GHA floating around in my take at all.

    So the choice is very clear. Design or buy what ever makes the most since to you!

    NOW, can anyone help me with deciding what lighting will work best for me as I laid out my situation and preferences? PLEASE
    Last edited by herring_fish; 05-08-2012 at 04:46 PM.

  6. #6
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Santa Monica, CA, USA
    Posts
    9,967
    My lighting comments are the same as above. They should be at least 1 watt per square inch, with big reflectors, and within a few inches of the screen.

    Now consider this as info for other readers who have not tried a dump bucket...

    Now I come to a site dedicated to scrubbers and I get the same response.
    Yes, because you said your phosphate filtering is not strong enough. The above posted reasons are why.

    This is not a static horizontal design and should not be conflated with one.
    It's worse (for filtering), as stated before. Surges are great and fun to watch and have, however, and they can be done by themselves.

    the actual question about lighting
    Well if the question about lighting it to try to make the design filter better so as to fix your phosphate problem, I think I explained it above; the lighting is not the issue.

    many Algal Turf Algae (ATA) [but not all] have evolved to grow best at and near the oceans water line.
    Because, remember, they have evolved in an area with (almost) unlimited surface area. But when you can't grab more surface, the only other way to grow is up.

    the principles that I understand and use are very well documented
    Yes, but you are leaving out the principles of self-shading. If algae grows "up", it shades itself. In algal studies, this is called self-shading, and is the mechanism for algal growth exiting the exponential growth phase that we want to stay in.

    They also takes advantage of that zone of high turbulence and high sunlight to out pace predation.
    The high-sunlight adaptation, which uses darker growth and works very well for this, is the very mechanism which contributes the most to self-shading.

    A dump bucket allows the algae to stand up and flow with the water in the tray, waving back and forth as it does. Non-constant water direction and velocity insures great contact exposure to the individual strands of algae.
    True. At least, when the water is covering the algae. If yours is configured to minimize the dry time, that's good.

    Non-surging laminar flow lays algae strands down like a comb does to your hair.
    Very true, especially with waterfalls. When I clean my waterfalls, whenever there is a growth spot over an inch thick, if I don't clean soon enough, I'll get a light-brown wheat underneath where it died. But from what I've seen so far with upflows, it seems to not matt-down as much since it's floating in water.

    Alternating light intensity stimulates photosynthesis, respiration and growth in both. It was found the more intense flashes followed by and equal amounts of relatively lower light is more effective than a contain amount of light.
    It probably is, for certain mechanism. Periphyton in tree-covered streams, for example, make most of their growth during the milliseconds of flashes that come through the leaves. However, remember how photosynthesis works: One unit of light (say, 1 second) + one unit of nutrients = one unit of growth. If you take that one unit of light (1-second) and break it up into flashes, the integration of those flashes over the 1-second will be less total light than the fully-on 1-second. So if the light source itself remains the same, and only "flashing" is added to modulate it, then the total available filtration will be less because the summation of light is less. Although some bio mechanism may indeed be stimulated by the flashes.

    The prismatic spectral shift of waves gives more variety of the light’s K value as well. Being able to eat steak all the time is good but you do need to eat your vegetables as well.
    This is true. If an algal species is looking for shifting K values, this would supply it. The bubbles in an upflow might too, if the light source were a CFL (and not a 660 led).

    Algae that can stand up for part of the time, not touching its neighbors just performs better. Much like a kelp forest, water flow is optimized if stocks or strands don’t touch all the time. In a 3 inch deep agitated tray with water surging, light reaches and permeates all of the algae, right down to and through the roots.
    I have to differ on this. If dark or black turf is more than 1/4 inch thick, and you can't see the white screen that's under it, I don't think any light is going to be getting through it. Plus, when I clean even 1/8 inch thick dark growth, I find dead areas under it much sooner than under the green areas that are much thicker. Lastly, and probably most important if filtering is the goal, is that I've seen over and over (with my tank and with others) how filtering reaches a maximum when the scrubber is growing thick GHA.

    Of course, you should make what you like to make. The surge is fun to look at, and I'm sure it helps many corals, and tangs sure do love it too. But if the goal is phosphate reduction, I can't recommend combing the surge with the scrubber no matter what lighting is used. Maybe a separate surge and vertical scrubber would really be easier to build overall. It sure would (my opinion) filter much better given the same size, wattage, and cleaning schedule.

  7. #7
    kerry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,406
    LED's work the best!!!! I played lights for a long time with the horizontals and can say without a doubt LED is the best. I have found this for any scrubber I have built actually. From my research its very important to have the algae in the water and free standing with the horizontal scrubber. If its not in the water it dont work very well. I can see where you are going with this, and I hope you bring something to the table that I have not thought of. I dont think SM was trying to be negative he was just stating the facts of his research and experience. He is very direct/sharp, dont take that as negative. I kind of like the direct/sharp thing, it cuts through all the BS talk and gets to the point but then again I like the facts. Anyway LED works the best IMHO, at least 4-7 red to 1 blue. Floyd has a ratio that works the best but I don't remember the exact. All of my builds are small so I cant have any more the 5 LED's so I run 4 to 1 and it works better then all red.
    I have interest in what you are doing but, I have been down this road and I have found improvements but no real answer to the vert scrubber. The horizontal falls sharply short of the ability of the vert screen from my experience.
    (I was writing mine as SM was writing his) SM points out my experiences with the horizontal builds I have done and am running now.
    150G. Reef/Mix
    125G. 3 Regular Oscars/1 Jack Dempsey
    75G. 20+ Africans
    40G. Fish/Reef. Algae Scrubbers on ALL my SW
    10G. SW Fish/Reef.
    10G. SW Hospital/new fish quarantine/pod breeder tank
    6 stage RO/DI system 200 GPD.

  8. #8
    herring_fish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Winston-Salem NC, USA
    Posts
    73
    SM, I brought up phosphates relative to the sump that I was discarding. I only mentioned it as an update to a post that I made last year. It was a post that you read and commented on and I thought you and others might want to know how that experiment turned out and why I am moving back to depending on the ATS alone. Most good ATS designs will do a great job of removing phosphates and nitrates. I would think that the point is, what facts and factors do you personally value most when you make a design for yourself?

    I didn't want to argue about something that has been around for longer than some of the readers here but I guess this can go on for ever. Seeing that there are objections, I also thought that a constructive discussion would explain why some people (particularly me) would like dump buckets. You would think that I said that I used an ATS in a forum that only knows about skimmers.

    Kerry, I suppose that I do get offended by incivility.

    Let me lighten things up for a moment with two silly analogies.
    1. If you are bound and being held one inch below the water line by your feet, you will pray for waves.
    > Quick breaths are better than no breathing at all.
    2. If you have a full head of hair and you suddenly shave it off, you might get a sun burn because light has not been getting to your scalp for a long time.
    > Strands that move around get some light which is better than close to no light at all.
    Changing water motion is a good thing. Flashing was (until the 90's) an unexpected additional benefit.

    You know very well that when you put 1 unit of light on an undulating surface, the single unit is simply redistributed through refraction, not reduced. The
    "summation of light"
    is not less. It still equals to one unit. Of course, light values decrease with depth but in 0 to 3 inches, this is not an issue. Algae that grow in the tidal zone are
    "looking for shifting K values".
    That is the environment they have adapted to. Humans are not adapted to living in total darkness so we need sunlight or vitamin D supplements, right? Algae is the same way. Anyway, going back to the study results and the bottom line, growth is better any way that you look at it.


    As to the self shading: You are dealing with strands of algae and what to do with them when they grow? At first, they grow away from the screen like blades of grass. When they get a certain length they want to bent over or fold. So what do you do? You can lay them down like logs on a truck and you can aim them up, down, sideways or what ever. If they are still touching each other they will die once they get to a certain length. That is why you get yellowing. Keeping them apart so that they can breathe and get sun light is a problem. Your [quote]"up flow"/quote] might help with this problem. I don't know. Keeping the strands in motion is one way to do it that works, not the only way but that is how nature does it. Nature uses 3-D space to disperse the strands.

    Turbulence is very important. It's not the most important thing but it is important. You can do without it if you make up for it by improving or compensating for it, with something else. You know, I have been using this scrubber for many years and I never had
    "dark or black turf"
    so I was a little confused by your comment at first. Then I opened my book looking for it and realized that one of the main reasons for designing in turbulence, is to avoid this issue all together. I guess that I succeeded pretty well.

    Light that is focused may not go from 1 unit to 0 units but rather perhaps from 5 units for a very short time to 1 unit to .1 units to 0 and that has been proven to be beneficial. Shading for very short periods of time for the average strand of a healthy community is detrimental but when strands lay on top of one another, they are shaded for long periods of time and death occurs. Anyone can hold a clump of many algaes to a light and see some of gets through, even if it is matted. So the more important factor is that respiration is impeded. That is why you have to harvest often and make sure that water flow is distributed evenly with some designs. Yes you want to keep the screen in its peak growth phase when possible but sometimes I go out of town and I want 98% of it to be healthy when I get back home.

    Having more overall surface area in a two sided design is a positive trade off. I have not reviewed your product or any of your newer designs. I'm sure that they are great and more power to you. I have not attacked your designs and my design is built from my set of preferences. I am not trying to impose them on anyone else but I do have the right to have them.

    That being said, the facts that I have presented are based on a myriad of scientific studies that are no longer in dispute. I hope that I don't get banned for my beliefs but I will not be dissuaded from the truth. How you weigh those facts against other factors are what makes designing fun. Oh ...did I say that I like the splash?

    What is posted above about my dump bucket design is not critiquing or constructive criticism. It's bashing. Tearing down a design of a fellow ATS user is in my opinion, like trying to saying that I have committed heresy. I don't sell dump buckets and don't want to. I couldn't until the last patent runs out anyway but if a new person reads assertions that are not according to party lines, their knowledge might expand but their heads won't explode. They can make up there own minds. Putting a dump bucket at the bottom of the list is simply not supported by the facts.

    Some of the best spin doctors in politics say that if you say something seven times, it becomes true but you can't earn a real doctorate with spin. Dr. Adey has given his life to marine ecosystem modeling and the dump bucket is what he patented after a life time of study. He is certainly not the be all and end all on the ATS. I can understand that something that is patented will fall under attack. I can see that one has to try to tarnish a gold standard.

    It is old technology but it is tried and true. There is no question about that either. It can't be as bad as you would make it out to be. Adey has a thick text book on the subject, full of studies that are done by him and so many others, going back to the beginning of this field of study.

    Facts are facts, period! I am not saying that those facts are worth more than having two sides. I am not saying that what you may have developed isn't a game changer. Perhaps it is. I don't know. Frankly, I don't care. I like my design for me and that is all that I care about. I am saying how ever that this design is more safe, more productive and more efficient, per inch than some other designs. That is all that I am saying. I wouldn't even be so bold as to say THAT unless I felt that others want to out way facts and experience with untested opinion.
    Last edited by herring_fish; 05-06-2012 at 10:22 PM.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    289
    Lets all agree that ATS's work. Lets all agree they are beneficial for our systems. Lets all agree we have designs we like. Lets all agree that light is needed. Lets all agree that we use different sources of light. Lets all agree to disagree.

    Herring. You came to a site where SM is the answer man. Almost everyone here has followed his lead and has success at doing so. What he has taught us is tried and so far true. Designs have changed again to what seems to be a better set up. Even he, SM has changed from his own design that was a proven worker. So of course he's going to tell you to go with a more efficient design than what you have that doesn't seem to be doing the job. I see it's better but haven't changed yet. I will though after I figure out how I will set mine up. Or not.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Uk! England
    Posts
    1,212
    Dump bucket designs like yours add an extra habitat that can only be good for a system. Ok, probably not as efficient as more recent designs but there are certain advantages, diversity for one.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts