Jump to content
Curious Cosmos
Sign in to follow this  
ruthless

a thought

Recommended Posts

if the world spun faster, would there be less gravity? also, i was wondering, can you spin something at lightspeed? does mass work the same when something is spinning? just some thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ruthless

 

if the world spun faster, would there be less gravity?

 

 

It is believed to be so. At the equator the increased spin of the earth would produce a larger amount of centripetal acceleration. This would tend to negate a small portion of gravity.

 

also, i was wondering, can you spin something at lightspeed?

 

 

Probably only a black hole. Everything else would fly apart from the very high centripetal acceleration.

 

does mass work the same when something is spinning?

 

 

Orthogonal rotational inertia is highly increased. It's almost as if there was more mass there. But only when the mass is spinning. I think the mass is reacting with spacetime. It's just my own personal theory though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But only when the mass is spinning. I think the mass is reacting with spacetime. It's just my own personal theory though.

 

 

That is exactly what is going on. Well said, Einstein. I fully agree. A spinning mass is the definition of an inertial reference (i.e. the gyro effect).

RMT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RMT

 

Just stay tuned to these thoughts on inertial reference frames. There is a lot of physics behind a spinning mass when an orthogonal torque is applied. There is the applied orthogonal torque. There is a reactional torque present which resists the applied torque. And then there is a third unbalanced torque present which is orthogonal to both the applied torque and and the plane of rotation for the spinning mass. That third unbalanced torque is what is called precession. What has my attention is that there are three torques present. The mysterious threes again.

 

Currently I'm revisiting an old experiment that I performed just about 27 years ago. I built a gyro drive back then. It had some very odd characteristics. One of them was that it scooted across the garage floor just like a little rocketship. It was using the garage floor to resist torque in that direction. So it wasn't actually a space drive. But I suspected that I could substitute gyro stabilizers for the garage floor if it showed any promise of success as a space drive.

 

As it scooted across the garage floor, it actually seemed like it was trying to move in a spiral direction. It corkscrewed across the garage floor. I attempted to stabilize the corkscrewing effect. That proved to be unsuccessful. What did happen was even stranger than even I suspected. When I balanced out the gyros, the drive spun up without resistance and without any propulsive force at all. And that's where I left off and on to something else.

 

Well, it's 27 years later. My recent experiments with gravity waves, electric waves, and magnetic waves has given me some new insight as to why the gyro drive failed to work as anticipated. I suspect the gyro drive was obeying the rules that govern wave mechanics. I had assembled it in a way in which the gyro torques were cancelling out. If I view the gyro torques as waves, then it starts to become clear what went wrong. There is a way to assemble the gyro drive so that the gyro torques from opposing gyros add together. This will be an interesting experiment to post when I get it completed. So right now at this point in time I don't know if it will be a success or failure. It could even provide me with something new and unexpected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Einstein,

 

Just stay tuned to these thoughts on inertial reference frames. There is a lot of physics behind a spinning mass when an orthogonal torque is applied.

 

 

Oh yes, I know them well. In fact, they are a staple of my business in aerospace vehicle stabilization. ;)

 

There is a way to assemble the gyro drive so that the gyro torques from opposing gyros add together. This will be an interesting experiment to post when I get it completed. So right now at this point in time I don't know if it will be a success or failure. It could even provide me with something new and unexpected.

 

 

What you are describing is the fundamental basis of something called a Control Moment Gyroscope. They are used to either control (hold) or modify the attitude of a satellite with respect to some specific inertial reference (typically a sun-centered attitude to expose solar panels to maximum sunlight, but also could be LVLH - Local Vertical/Local Horizontal to hold a stable attitude with respect to the local tangent plane of the earth's surface). The CMGs are also the primary stabilizing torque-producers on the ISS:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_Moment_Gyroscope#International_Space_Station

 

RMT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ruthless,

 

if the world spun faster, would there be less gravity?

 

 

Perhaps it is time to start acting as an engineer would... we learn how to answer questions ourselves! :) Often this can manifest as a journey to knowledge that can be kicked off by a mentor sending you in a direction...and seeing where you go with it. Go to the following page on centripetal acceleration:

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/HBASE/cf.html

 

See if this helps you answer your question...but more importantly see if it helps you move on to other questions that will help you satisfy your curiosity! One hint here is that we must remember that accelerations are vectors, and we must treat vectors accordingly (i.e. we must sum vectors by breaking them into orthogonal components and adding the components). A centripetal acceleration would act in addition to the acceleration due to gravity "g".

 

Talk to me about what you learn from the above page...and where your brain "naturally" wishes to take you on your follow-on journey. The things you value the most in life are the things you expend your efforts to achieve!

 

RMT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ruthless,

 

if the world spun faster, would there be less gravity?

 

 

The answer really depends on how you are using the term "less gravity".

 

The field strength at some given radial distance from the center of mass isn't going to change but the surface gravity will change of you alter the angular velocity of the planet or star. The surface gravity will change because the surface will be either closer to or farther from the center of mass.

 

For example, the oblateness of the Earth around the equator (the equatorial bulge) results in an equatorial surface gravity of ~.997g. The surface gravity at the rotational poles is ~1.003g. It the Earth stopped spinning the surface gravity on both the equator and at the poles would be very close to 1g (it wouldn't be exactly 1g because the mater that makes up the earth isn't uniformly distributed).

 

The strength of the gravitational field didn't change. What changed was the radial distance from the surface to the center of mass.

 

If we take the extreme situation and compress the Earth to a diameter of 20 mm, just short of being a black hole, while conserving the angular momentum, the surface angular velocity of the Earth would be very great - but less than the speed of light. If you were on the moon and measured the earth's gravitational field there it would be almost the same as it was before it shrunk. It's "almost the same" because before it shrunk the earth wasn't a point particle. The details are part of celestial mechanics that I won't go into.

 

If you make an inelastic, prefectly rigid earth that can't expand, spin it up to a much higher surface velocity then you'll notice that the surface gravity appears to be less than it was. That's an example of the Principle of Equivalence - acceleration (think of Ray's vectors) is equivalent to gravitation in Special Relativity. You have one vector "g" with an arrowhead pointing toward the center of mass. You have another vector "a' (acceleration) with an arrowhead pointing generally in the other direction (it will have some angle less than 180 degrees with respect to "g" than depends on the angular velocity. Add the two vectors the simple way - graph it. Plot your vectors, graph in your parallelogram, strike a hypotenuse and viola! The hypoyrnuse across the parallelogram is a new vector - the sum of the two original vectors. You've not only "decreased" the surface gravity, you've changed the angle of the gravitational force. Gravity no longer appears to be pulling you straight down.

 

What's really going on? You're being subjected to two accelerating forces in two different directions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW Einstein,

 

I suspect the gyro drive was obeying the rules that govern wave mechanics. I had assembled it in a way in which the gyro torques were cancelling out. If I view the gyro torques as waves, then it starts to become clear what went wrong.

 

 

This is one of the things that gives me a chuckle about your approach to things. You always seem to be looking for the exotic from the get-go. :) This is precisely why I always implore you to model things with current knowledge/math. It helps avoid you dreaming up an "exotic" solution to something that it already well-known.

 

The example here is gyroscopic dynamics & precession. It is nothing more than the good ole law of Conservation of Angular Momentum that is going on. Here is a good link to explain:

 

http://mb-soft.com/public/precess.html

 

RMT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi RMT

 

This is one of the things that gives me a chuckle about your approach to things. You always seem to be looking for the exotic from the get-go.

 

 

Yes, I'm chuckling now too. You're standing on mathematical fiction.

 

You always seem to be looking for the exotic from the get-go.

 

 

I don't believe in backholes or wormholes. Mathematical constructs. Fiction. Or should I say science fiction.

 

This is precisely why I always implore you to model things with current knowledge/math. It helps avoid you dreaming up an "exotic" solution to something that it already well-known.

 

 

 

This experiment was done 27 years ago by me. At a time when I believed much more strongly in math than I do now. At the time I did come up with a mathematical model that beats the hell out of anything in existence today.

 

The example here is gyroscopic dynamics & precession. It is nothing more than the good ole law of Conservation of Angular Momentum that is going on. Here is a good link to explain:

 

 

A spinning mass under the effects of an applied torque does not conserve angular momentum. That's an observable fact. So your statement is completely in conflict with mine. But I'll forgive you if you can cite the individual or individuals responcible for originating the current mathematical fiction behind the gyroscope. I've always been curious as to who is behind this coverup. By the way, I haven't seen Ciggy around lately. You don't have anything to do with that do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Einstein,

 

A spinning mass under the effects of an applied torque does not conserve angular momentum. That's an observable fact. So your statement is completely in conflict with mine.

 

 

A spinning mass most certainly maintains its inertial orientation due to conservation of angular momentum. As for an applied torque & precession, you are correct, but the change in angular momentum is proportional to the applied torque. "Moment = Moment of Inertia * Angular Acceleration", a vector (technically tensor) equation. See the link I provided.

 

But I'll forgive you if you can cite the individual or individuals responcible for originating the current mathematical fiction behind the gyroscope.

 

 

Ummmmmm....Leonhard Euler? And it is hardly fiction, Einstein.

 

RMT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi RMT

 

Ummmmmm....Leonhard Euler? And it is hardly fiction, Einstein.

 

 

 

I just asked the question about who was the original author of the equations for the gyroscope, because I spent a considerable amount of time looking for that answer. I never did find out. But the equations don't describe or tell why the gyroscope precesses. One link you provided mentioned something like the right hand rule. Or was it left hand rule? But that doesn't matter because even that rule is invalid as well. A gyroscope will reverse it's precessional direction during spindown. I think that is a significant observation. Even the math that I developed doesn't cover that little observation.

 

There is one thing that I happened to notice about the gyroscope. The observed behavior exactly parallels the behavior of an electron under the application of voltage. The orthogonal torque exhibited by the gyroscope when under the application of a torque, is analogous to the magnetic field produced by an electron in motion when under the application of a voltage. These rules of operation may be characteristics of fields in motion that are universal.

 

As for the math behind a gyroscope being fact? I don't think so. Not yet. The best I can give it is just the current accepted theory. And currently the available math for describing this phenomena is severely lacking. It's so lacking, it doesn't even have an author. That is what I find kind of odd. It's almost as if all the text books were rewritten to promulgate this severely lacking mathematical description.

 

But you don't have to take my word for any of this. You can sit down and start taking a look at the force vectors acting on a spinning mass under the application of an orthogonal torque. Please be advised that you will be using three inertial reference frames. I would describe it as a curve on a curve on a curve. And don't be too upset if you can't do it. A proper visualization of what is going on really needs to be formulated first before you can proceed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Einstein,

 

I just asked the question about who was the original author of the equations for the gyroscope, because I spent a considerable amount of time looking for that answer. I never did find out.

 

 

I was being truthful when I gave you Leonhard Euler's name. The reason you may not have found what you were looking for is because the equations that describe how a gyro operates are nothing special. They are the same equations that apply to ALL rotational vectors, and how two or more moments (torques) combine. The action gyroscopic precession under an applied torque is a direct result of the vector cross product, and the rotational form of Newton's Second Law (the formulation of which is credited to Euler). The most accurate form of Newton's Second Law (for rectilinear forces) is:

 

Force = Time Rate Of Change of Momentum = d(m*V)/dt (where the bold V represents a vector)

 

Euler simply recognized that the same principle applies to angular momentum and its resulting torque:

 

Torque = Time Rate of Change of Angular Momentum = d(I*Omega)/dt

 

So the "I*Omega" term is the vector quantity called angular momentum, just like the "m*V" term is the linear momentum vector. The direction of this vector is along the spin axis of the gyro. So when you apply an external torque (also a vector), the two torques combine and you must use vector mathematics (the cross product). And, of course, it is well known that when you apply the cross product to two vectors, you will get the resultant vector which is orthogonal to the initial two vectors.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscope#Properties

 

But the equations don't describe or tell why the gyroscope precesses.

 

 

Yes they do. And I hope you are not trying to say that vector mathematics is baloney, Einstein.

 

One link you provided mentioned something like the right hand rule. Or was it left hand rule? But that doesn't matter because even that rule is invalid as well.

 

 

I'd sure like to see you prove that. You are incorrect. And the right hand rule is simply a convention for determining the direction of the vector that results from a cross product. Left hand rule would work just as well. It is nothing more than defining which direction you call "+" and which you call "-". It is arbitrary, as long as you remain consistent all the math works out and predicts reality quite well.

 

A gyroscope will reverse it's precessional direction during spindown. I think that is a significant observation. Even the math that I developed doesn't cover that little observation.

 

 

It has to do with torque balance (gravitational vs. the friction torque that is slowing the gyro). The link I provided explains it.

 

As for the math behind a gyroscope being fact? I don't think so. Not yet. The best I can give it is just the current accepted theory.

 

 

That is even true of E = mc^2! However, the Euler equations are highly accurate since we cannot build a gyro that will reach relativistic velocity. Yet I will agree with you that improvements could and should be made. For example, I have always claimed that mass is a vector quantity which we simply want to treat as a scalar. Look at the two equations above for momentum. Why is it that these two equations are vector equations, yet we know (and treat) the Moment of Inertia (I) as a tensor (3x3 matrix) quantity, and yet we insist that mass is a scalar? My position has always been that if we know "I" is a tensor quantity (and we do know it is, and is dependent upon mass distribution in a body), then "m" must be treated the same way. So on the issue of advancing our current equations, yes I do believe they can be improved.

 

And currently the available math for describing this phenomena is severely lacking. It's so lacking, it doesn't even have an author. That is what I find kind of odd. It's almost as if all the text books were rewritten to promulgate this severely lacking mathematical description.

 

 

 

Now you are being silly, Einstein. The gyro operation doesn't need an author because it is simply a physical instantiation of the well-known Euler laws, which were derived from Newton's laws! It is Conservation of Angular Momentum and the angular form of Newton's Second Law working together. No mystery.

 

But you don't have to take my word for any of this. You can sit down and start taking a look at the force vectors acting on a spinning mass under the application of an orthogonal torque. Please be advised that you will be using three inertial reference frames. I would describe it as a curve on a curve on a curve. And don't be too upset if you can't do it. A proper visualization of what is going on really needs to be formulated first before you can proceed.

 

 

Now you are just being cocky. Show me your math, sir. And properly define the 3 intertial reference frames you are talking about. Show me....don't give me "word salad".

 

RMT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this may be a silly question, but ive just gotta ask. is a gyroscope a ball with water in it? if not, is it something similar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RMT

 

I just spent an hour and a half replying to your post. I was almost done. With explanations about the way I solved the real math behind the gyro. My browser mysteriously closed on me. The whole reply was gone. I don't have another hour and a half to redo the reply today. Darn! It will have to wait till either tomorrow or the weekend. It's like I'm allowed to know the secrets behind a unified field theory, but I'm not going to be permitted to tell anybody. I will be back....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if the world spun faster, would there be less gravity? also, i was wondering, can you spin something at lightspeed? does mass work the same when something is spinning? just some thoughts.

 

 

Ruthless I was not going to try to answer your question I just wanted to know how you came across this question? It is a very interesting question is why I asked. Thanks, Reactor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i thought it. i try to think of different ways to do something. i also thought it would be a good conversation topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just spent an hour and a half replying to your post. I was almost done. With explanations about the way I solved the real math behind the gyro. My browser mysteriously closed on me. The whole reply was gone. I don't have another hour and a half to redo the reply today. Darn! It will have to wait till either tomorrow or the weekend. It's like I'm allowed to know the secrets behind a unified field theory, but I'm not going to be permitted to tell anybody. I will be back....

 

 

OK. I understand. No big rush or anything.

 

But maybe in the interim you could answer a simple question for me? Would you agree that the mathematics of the vector cross product "works" to describe the reality of this physical situation?

 

Thanks,

RMT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RMT

 

But maybe in the interim you could answer a simple question for me? Would you agree that the mathematics of the vector cross product "works" to describe the reality of this physical situation?

 

 

 

I need to see the original visualization in order to make any sense out of it. Since I found another path altogether, I might be biased in favor of my solution. But you know math by itself isn't science. I really do need to understand what went on in the mind of the author of the equations to make that kind of evaluation. I'll get some time in the morning to present my case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi RMT

 

I was just lightly reading over that link you provided on the gyroscope. Since I have never been introduced to the cross product that you are talking about. So that caught my eye. I lightly looked through what a cross product is. It does seem like a rather complex way to describe an orthogonal torque. But it describes it without comprehension of just how or where that orthogonal torque came from.

 

So, I could address all of your points individually. But, let's cut to the chase. I'm sure you must be very curious by now.

 

Now you are just being cocky. Show me your math, sir. And properly define the 3 intertial reference frames you are talking about. Show me....don't give me "word salad".

 

 

 

Word Salad = Visualization. I have to give you the visualization first. It's just the way I comprehend how the physics behind a gyroscope works. I built this gyrodrive that I previously talked about 27 years ago. Actually there were three devices I built that showed promise of being developed into something that could get off the ground. I was out of work at the time for about six months. So I built lots and lots of mechanical devices to explore firsthand some of the ideas that were floating around at the time. Towards the end of those six months I started to explore the gyroscope. It must have been a dozen different configurations that I investigated.

 

It was seven years later that an idea came to mind about the gyro drive that was very intriguing to me. I wondered if mother nature had found a way to rectify centripetal acceleration in the gyroscope? Now this was strictly an armchair physics investigation. So I started my inquisition all on paper. The formula I used was Mass times Velocity squared divided by the Radius. I was interested to see if somehow the centripetal acceleration on one side of the spinning mass was being cancelled out.

 

So let's define the three inertial reference frames that I used to address the problem. I used the term "Radius of Curvature" to identify the individual inertial reference frames. I'm mainly interested in the inertial reference frames that would pertain to the spinning mass. The first inertial reference frame I chose was the base frame that the earth rotates in. It seems to be euclidian locally. But the radius of curvature to the spinning mass is around 8000 miles. The next inertial reference frame I chose was that of the spinning mass. The actual radius of the gyro would probably be around an inch. So the inertial reference frame for the spinning mass has a radius of curvature of one inch. And the third inertial reference frame would be the radius of the applied torque to the spinning mass. Let's pick a radius of three feet as the radius of curvature for the third inertial reference frame.

 

The way I approached the problem was to look at the velocity of the rotating mass relative to the first inertial reference frame. When the torque from the third inertial reference frame is applied to the spinning mass, there appears to be a velocity differential between one side of the spinning mass as opposed to the other side of the spinning mass relative to the first inertial frame. It actually looked like I was adding force vectors on one side and subtracting force vectors on the other side of the spinning mass. Can you legally do that? I don't know. But since it was an armchair physics venture, let's just see where it goes.

 

It went well. By combining torque vectors this way it appeared that I had mathematically modelled something that actually exists in the real world. So what I am saying is that there appears to be a centripetal force differential that appears orthogonally across the spinning mass when an outside torque is applied to the spinning mass as a whole. Ok, but that unbalanced centripetal acceleration acts like a torque too. So when it pushes the spinning mass, an additional orthogonal unbalanced centripetal force develops across the spinning mass in the direction that opposes the initially applied torque. That must be why the spinning mass seems to have more inertia. It's like a closed loop force. The initial input torque feeds back to cancel itself. Thus creating the effect of more mass or inertia.

 

M(V+v)^2/R - M(V-v)^2/R = X

 

M is calculated mass for each side of the spinning mass

V is the velocity of the applied torque

v is the rotational velocity of the spinning mass

R is the radius of the spinning mass

X is the resultant orthogonal torque

 

I wanted to post a drawing. But I can't access the site I use to store images. So I'll describe it. It's a drawing of the cross section of a current carrying wire. There is a circular magnetic field around the wire. This circular magnetic field is pictured within a much larger more uniform magnetic field where the lines of force all move in the same direction. This wire will move orthogonally across the larger uniform magnetic field because it is taught that the lines of force on one side of the wire will cancel out with the lines of force in the larger uniform magnetic field. I see a direct analogy between the behavior of magnetic lines of force and the way I described the behavior of the gyroscope or spinning mass.

 

I think mother nature uses this concept over and over throughout many portions of our reality. I went on to explore a little further just how the spinning mass would behave if the applied torque were in the same plane as the spinning mass. That was a very interesting mathematical venture. I would almost swear I was looking at the orbital dynamics of the electron. When I solved the equation for zero, I got two energy states. Doesn't the hydrogen atom have two energy states? Then I put it down, untill just recently. I have to ask the question: does time change direction with each orthogonal directional change of torque in the spinning mass? If the answer to that question is yes, then I am sitting on a unified field theory.

 

So I'm curious to see what you think about this, since it is very rare for me to actually find anyone interested in this kind of stuff.

 

Off I go, I got a motherload of stuff I want to get done today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I have to give you the visualization first. It's just the way I comprehend how the physics behind a gyroscope works. I built this gyrodrive that I previously talked about 27 years ago."

 

you have a big head start on me. in 1981, you were figuring out the gyroscope, i was busy being born. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Einstein,

 

Since I have never been introduced to the cross product that you are talking about. So that caught my eye. I lightly looked through what a cross product is. It does seem like a rather complex way to describe an orthogonal torque.

 

 

This would tend to tell me that you do not have a good understanding of vectors and how they combine with one another. Have you had a class in vector statics, or even better vector dynamics? Recall that a vector has magnitude and direction. Force is a vector, and it is not only important what the magnitude of a force is, but it is also important in what direction that force is pointed. The vector cross product is a required way of doing mathematical business for how any two vectors are added together. I suggest it is something you should spend more time learning about, to see why the vector cross product reflects the reality of physics.

 

Word Salad = Visualization. I have to give you the visualization first. It's just the way I comprehend how the physics behind a gyroscope works.

 

 

That may be, but I do not have to read your word salad to know if your modeling equations are accurate. I can deal with the equations first, and then if you want to have a discussion of how you perceive the physical situation, we can do that later....after we ensure your equations accurately describe physical reality. That's just how I roll as a teacher. ;)

 

M(V+v)^2/R - M(V-v)^2/R = X

 

M is calculated mass for each side of the spinning mass

V is the velocity of the applied torque

v is the rotational velocity of the spinning mass

R is the radius of the spinning mass

X is the resultant orthogonal torque

 

 

There are a lot of questions I have for you about this equation and definitions.

 

1) Is this a vector equation? Are we to assume V, R, and thus X are all 3-D vectors? If so, are you aware of how you must perform vector math operations when you multiply or divide vectors?

 

2) Will this model account for differing mass distributions of the gyro rotor across its radius? This is the purpose of the real gyro models using Moment Of Inertia (I), rather than Mass (M)... The link I provided you derived the physical gyro relations using (I), which is a tensor, rather than (M) which is a scalar.

 

3)Are you aware that your units do not match on each side of your equation? Performing a dimensional analysis of either term on the left side of your equation yields fundamental units of:

 

[Mass]*[Length]/[Time^2]

 

But you define the left side (X) as a torque, which has units of:

 

[Mass]*[Length^2]/[Time^2]

 

4) Can you therefore understand that your equation is subtracting energy terms on the left hand side, but expecting them to equal a torque on the right hand side, and that this is therefore a fundamental error?

 

5) Have you tried to model these equations in MS Excel to produce tables of numbers that you believe can predict an actual calibrated gyro?

 

I think that is enough for now. Based on past discussions I have had with you, I have a feeling you will not answer my questions but instead complain about my approach of not paying attention to your words. But I am an engineer...and that makes me "equation man"... :) I want to point out the basic problems in your equations to help you fix them. And I want to know if you understand vectors and how they represent physical reality. This is really important because it could result in a bigger "a ha" for you once you come to understand the power of vector and tensor mathematics.

 

RMT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...