Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX


PRE-REGISTER FOR THE*** 2018 ENERGY CONFERENCE ***

Page 25 of 29 FirstFirst ... 152324252627 ... LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 281

Thread: John Bedini's Magnetic Model

  1. #241
    Networking Architect Aaron Murakami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Spokane, Washington
    Posts
    1,143
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wing View Post
    I cleaned it up a bit more so we can get to the point...

    John has a video on the small window motor shown prior, first he spins the motor by hand it charges the capacitor then he runs the machine for a long while off the capacitor. What is charging the capacitor? It is the energy "As the magnet is sucked in the pulse is in the downward direction" " negative sine voltage is created" this "is power returning to the to the primary section" this charges the primary powering capacitor or primary battery." This is the "...first form of energy is what we all know as conventional, taught to us from all leading books in the field..." How many energies does John say you can harvest from the SG? I know he says at least three are available.

    The above is why John says the machine goes in and out of lense law when it generates the law applies and when it powers its self via the pulse it is out of the confines of the law and especially so when pulsed at the zero point or Bloch wall.

    That is what I am talking about. I hope it is clear. This is the same induced current that powers the trigger circuit. Aaron you said that when you were using your spark plasma ignition to run a SG the rotor was able to turn something like 25 revolutions between pulses at rpm. So there is quite a bit of angular momentum stored in the rotor magnetics and this can then be easily converted to electrical current and sent straight to the primary section between power pulses. This of course is separate and distinct from the positive sine wave spike and coil collapse.

    When one pulses the zero point of the magnet, you get rotation or angular momentum imparted to the rotor, by doing this you then are able to have access to the two opposite voltages being generated on each side of the zero point and you can harness either one separately or both at the same time if desired and power the motor. It should be noted that a North Pole magnet can generate a sine wave.

    Dave Wing
    The Plasma Ignition motor really isn't an SG, it's just a coil getting popped by the low voltage cap impulse over a gap. But yes, as it speeds up, it just goes faster than the cap can't get charged up to keep up with it. If it kept up with the speed of the magnet passing the rotor, it would get to ridiculous speeds. And that was with a coil that hardly had any turns on it. I haven't done any generator experiments with it, but there is quite a bit of momentum there for sure. It's a very crude an ugly experiment, but it just show you can run a motor like that. I'd like to go multi parallel windings with a lot of turns on a better geometry. I haven't optimized anything either. I'd like to build a really nice model - maybe a ZFM with quad 18awg windings, lots of them, with the plasma ignition discharge. I think it would be quite a demo!
    Aaron Murakami





    You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

  2. #242
    Networking Architect Aaron Murakami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Spokane, Washington
    Posts
    1,143
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Faraday88 View Post
    Hi Aaron,
    Very well..i'm in line with your opinion on all what you have stated...after all Scientific describtion are relative understandings!! Yes, absolutely JB using the spike for Battery is same as Other patents using the spike for splitting Water molecule..however this comparision if you ask me would be closer to the Stan meyer patent or the Xogen patent. if you remember Stan's patent saying that the H20 molecule can be fractured stricktly on Mechanical oscillation basis which differes from Faraday's electrochemical mode of causing the splitt and hence it is proportional to the Voltage for a given current.
    Sure enough! i know the commutator you are refering to is classical to that 1984 Machine there is no discrepancy over that!! cool pal I interguied on these essence 1) the Magnetic Structure of the monopole 2) Trifilar Coil configuration 3) Switching mechanism. pertaining to JB's Pat 6,545,444
    I'm keen to see the Front battery go over its Staring Voltage...have you personally seen JB acheive this?
    Best Regards,
    Faraday88.
    Years ago on icubenetwork, for whatever its worth, I was the first to propose that the Bedini SG showed the basic method that Meyer was actually using or at least showed the same kind of application of "voltage potential". That was on the first page of Meyer's tech doc word for word and nobody seemed to understand it - at least by what was posted online. It was because of what I learned from John and the SG that it became common sense what Meyer was doing with the WFC.

    I have seen John's front battery go up beyond its starting voltage. First time was with his machine using the commutator I showed in my video with the cd rom case variation. It had a plastic wheel rotor and he used the mechanical switch commutator.

    My own battery went up higher than the input with that ridiculous cd rom case commutator, but I was using 12v 7ah gel cells I think. At first I saw HUGE increases in voltage, posted a video and someone pointed out that my cheap voltmeter from harbor freight had the battery sign on and when those batteries go dead, the voltage will show much higher so I got fooled. However, with a new battery, I still got results, not as dramatic as the fluffed up results from the dead multimeter batt. However, the impedance was too high so the cap discharge to the front didn't effectively convert to real charging ability and was mostly an increased voltage fluffy charge. John's increase was a real load powering increase. I don't now if it would have run indefinitely, but certainly way beyond 1.0 COP and that proves the point at minimum.
    Aaron Murakami





    You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

  3. #243
    Senior Member Faraday88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Bangaluru, Karnataka, India
    Posts
    1,149
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron Murakami View Post
    Years ago on icubenetwork, for whatever its worth, I was the first to propose that the Bedini SG showed the basic method that Meyer was actually using or at least showed the same kind of application of "voltage potential". That was on the first page of Meyer's tech doc word for word and nobody seemed to understand it - at least by what was posted online. It was because of what I learned from John and the SG that it became common sense what Meyer was doing with the WFC.


    I have seen John's front battery go up beyond its starting voltage. First time was with his machine using the commutator I showed in my video with the cd rom case variation. It had a plastic wheel rotor and he used the mechanical switch commutator.

    My own battery went up higher than the input with that ridiculous cd rom case commutator, but I was using 12v 7ah gel cells I think. At first I saw HUGE increases in voltage, posted a video and someone pointed out that my cheap voltmeter from harbor freight had the battery sign on and when those batteries go dead, the voltage will show much higher so I got fooled. However, with a new battery, I still got results, not as dramatic as the fluffed up results from the dead multimeter batt. However, the impedance was too high so the cap discharge to the front didn't effectively convert to real charging ability and was mostly an increased voltage fluffy charge. John's increase was a real load powering increase. I don't now if it would have run indefinitely, but certainly way beyond 1.0 COP and that proves the point at minimum.
    As per my Research, Meyer uses two distinct method that is applicable in the Bedini battery Charger patent also. 1) Meyer Patent: 'Gas Voltage Controll circuit'(Integrated Gas Voltage control circuit) is Similar to Bedini Patent Method of 'Pulse Charging a battery and driving other devices with a pulse''. 2) Meyer Patent : Method for the production of a Fuel gas is similar to Bedini Patent : Circuit and related methods for Charging a Battery. In the last Patent makes use of very low Voltage input to produce large Gas out put in Meyer case and in the Bedini case it charges a Battery whose terminal voltage is higher the source charging it. (with a Voltage as low as 0.7V!! as per the Patent.)
    Sorry it was a bit off topic but nonetheless very significant
    Rgds,
    Faraday88.
    Last edited by Faraday88; 03-07-2017 at 10:21 AM.
    'Teaching can endure a quest for knowledge..but Learning solves an anomaly'

  4. #244
    Senior Member Faraday88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Bangaluru, Karnataka, India
    Posts
    1,149
    Quote Originally Posted by John_Koorn View Post
    Not sure if this is relevant to the discussion, but the discussion reminded me of it, so I'll post it anyway.

    When I was at the first Eagles conference John Bedini was having a discussion with one of the other presenters, whose name escapes me now, but suffice to say it was a very interesting one - most if it went over my head.

    Anyway, the topic of anti-gravity came up and John mentioned super-pole magnets - specifically 2 magnets where the North poles were stuck together to form a "scalar North" pole. John explained to me that rotating scalar Norths have anti-gravity properties. He said if I didn't believe him then take a scalar North magnet and a regular magnet (of the same weight) and drop them both from the same height. Which one will hit the ground first?

    John K.
    Hey John, I remember you telling me the same ....I have another experiment that i did share with the group.. the Repulsion between N-N is stronger than that of S-S..
    this can be proven by Anti-gravity again... the N-N repusion would weigh lighter than S-S try it out please...
    Rgds,
    Faraday88.
    'Teaching can endure a quest for knowledge..but Learning solves an anomaly'

  5. #245
    Senior Member Faraday88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Bangaluru, Karnataka, India
    Posts
    1,149
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron Murakami View Post
    According to Dollard, the core should equal the mass of the copper in the inductor for the best efficiency.

    Maybe Tom can work up some 3D printed coil form for a certain wire size and turns that this can be tested for the SG.
    Hi Aaron,
    This also evokes a thought about the 'Size-comparison-relation' between the Coil(or Coil + Core mass) against the Battery Mass(primary Battery and of course an equal size of the secondary battery bank)....what would happen if we sized the Coil to equate the weight (mass) of the battery (Newman's like massive coils spool)..makes sense ...but as you increase the coil (number of turns) the DCR increases so also the Radiant Increases too! I feel The Radiant comes closer and closer to the Impedance of the conductor (copper) and becomes apart of it!! is the switching transistor under more stress of damage??
    Rgds,
    Faraday88
    'Teaching can endure a quest for knowledge..but Learning solves an anomaly'

  6. #246
    Senior Member Faraday88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Bangaluru, Karnataka, India
    Posts
    1,149
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron Murakami View Post
    Here is one relative lab note to the basic magnet structure.

    I don't think anyone here has seen this one - no new revelations but for the record.

    If anyone has seen this exact one, please let me know where you saw it so I can know what timeframe or collection it was in if John posted it. I wasn't in some of the Yahoo groups so don't know.

    It was so faded I could hardly see it so had to change the contrast a few times just to be able to read it.

    Sorry Aaron some how i missed this post of your..just read it and liked your opinion...however i wonder about the mechanism of (opening the Energy Path way into the bloch wall) the N-N Squeeze between two Magnets, what happen to their respective Bloch walls...
    Here is my explanation as to what must be the happening:
    The idea is to make the Bloch wall a part of the coil's electrical circuit and by doing this the coil pumps in the Vacuum Energy from the Bloch wall along the Radiant Field of the transient spike(of the coil). Now, when you arrange a N-N squeeze, you shift the Bloch wall location.. perhaps to the Poles, with the effect that the Poles taking the place of the Bloch wall (super pole or the pencil beam as JB called it)...
    look what has happend!!! the Outside has suddenly become a part of the Inside and Vice -versa. just my guess
    Rgds,
    Faraday88.
    'Teaching can endure a quest for knowledge..but Learning solves an anomaly'

  7. #247
    Senior Member Faraday88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Bangaluru, Karnataka, India
    Posts
    1,149
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron Murakami View Post
    Patrick,

    I'm not brushing you off - I've supported your work and ideas for years and am shocked at your response.

    If I were to brush off your experiments, I'd tell you that you are not getting the effects you are reporting - that is different from someone giving you their opinion on your experiment.

    There are 2 tangibles and one theoretical intangible thing moving in a basic circuit.

    One is the Heaviside flow moving from positive terminal of the battery towards the negative. That Heaviside flow is the organized and condensed positive charge of the aether or "positive virtual photons" that gathers at the positive terminal of the dipole. When that flows over the wire, it is condensed and ordered. That Heaviside Flow is what Electromotive Force is. The pressure of that gas sitting at the dipole has a voltage reading - that is the voltage potential, that is the first kind of voltage. The second kind of voltage is when it actually flows over the surface of the wave guide (conductor) towards ground or lower potential - that is what the EMF is.

    The second thing moving over the wire is the theoretical anti-photon or negative charge of the aether moving to the negative terminal of the battery and then flowing towards the higher potential. Bearden will quote ET Wittaker's paper on the partial differential equations of mathematical physics dealing with bi-directional em flows and other references to support his belief in that. We know the EMF is there but the anti-flow is theoretical.

    The third thing that moves over the wire is the electrons ripped from the copper atoms themselves. They are electrically attracted to the positively charged EMF flowing from the positive dipole terminal towards the negative terminal. While the EMF is moving almost at light speed, these electrons are jiggling slowly down the wire towards the positive terminal at a couple inches per hour - very slow and sluggish.

    Bearden explaining those features of the electrons of how they're "pinned", and "trying to get started down the wire," is exactly what the Drude Electron Gas Model is about - so how is that brushing anything off? I'm just calling that effect by its name - it is useful to know what something is called. We also don't "hold back current" we can only try to pulse the EMF fast enough so current doesn't flow. "holding back" implies we're actively doing something with the current and we're not. Preventing it's flow with switching mechanisms is what its about.

    I'm not saying the transistor is holding anything, I said it is a bottleneck. Whether you switch on the negative or positive, it is still the positive potential whether directly from the battery or from the coil being an extension of the + part of the dipole that is moving to ground. The difference being that if switched on the negative side of the coil, the coil already contains the positive potential and if switching on positive, the positive potential still has to make it to the coil through the transistor or any other switch. Anywhere there is a bottleneck to the EMF withe instantaneous application of EMF will force the voltage up just like putting a banana in a tailpipe will force the pressure up until it is so high the engine can't overcome it. If the banana shoots out, then the engine can continue to run and the pressure voltage drops back down.

    You and Bearden both are taking about EMF over a circuit where it is switched on and cut off fast enough before the electrons can start moving (not killing the dipole). It is EMF whether electrons are moving or not. If current is there, then you have transverse propagation with losses and if there is no current, you can have a longitudinal extraluminal propagation since there is no current to drag it down. You may not think you are talking about or are after pure EMF, but you are.

    That EMF (Heaviside flow) is what potentializes the circuit, but it is a misuse of the term potentialized if you don't want current. That is because what gets potentialized to move into action is current. If you don't want current, you are not potentializing anything. You are then moving the EMF (without current) as pure potential over the circuit. That means you're not dissipating energy since energy is only happening if work is done and if no current moves, no work is done. If the electron current doesn't move, then the EMF is no longer limited to light speed since current it is not dragging the EMF down, it can then move at extraluminal speeds from the positive terminal of the dipole to its destination.

    You are mentioning that once current moves the game is over - meaning you're killing the dipole. Yes, that is Bearden-Bedini 101. But then you say if current moves the best you can do is recuperating losses with the back spike. The two concepts are incompatible - voltage without current and then recovering the spike from a coil. You can have EMF-radiant potential-whatever you want to call it move through the coil without current moving and you will not have a magnetic field to capture a back spike from.

    With that being the case, on experiments where you want to see if you're successfully transmitting EMF without getting current to move, then put a coil there. If no magnetic field is created, then that would be a successful experiment. I've done that with low capacitance high voltage capacitors discharging into inductors - I can't say no current, but very little since mostly voltage. Magnetic field I'm sure was created, but so small I couldn't detect it because I'm sure a small bit of current was there from the cap dump.

    You can only work to charge the coil with minimum losses (if you want magnetism) for as short as necessary and it will take current to do that. The EMF flow without current does not apply to charging coils in any of these circuits or experiments or Bedini's energizers, etc... if there is no current, they won't even work. The closest thing to the transmission of the "radiant" potential, EMF without current, etc... in the Bedini circuit is after the fact - it is the recovery from the coil where that spike can theoretically be applied as pure potential with no current to a battery to charge the battery with potential and no current from the circuit - but the battery still charges with current, current that is developed internally in the battery. But even then, the spike still has current, a little, but it is still there.

    Magnetic field is from ampere turns and is not from voltage turns or any other manifestation of pure radiant potential - there is no way around it. If you can charge a coil without getting current to move, then you have a Trillion dollar invention. If that was actually proven and I verified it, I'd invest every expendable dime I had into it. The point is not kill the dipole, but for creating a magnetic field, current with no voltage is the route for that and not the other way around.

    Not killing the dipole by preventing the movement of current on the input side is always talked about by Bearden and company but it is theoretical as the perfect situation. But it actually is not applied in any of the circuits. In practice, the best they can do is by not having a closed loop circuit like a flashlight that is on constantly or a normal DC motor attached to a battery. The only "not killing the dipole" application in these circuits is by using pulsed off/on circuits so the the dipole is not closed loop for any longer than it has to be but it is still closed while the switch is on. So by having it be a cyclic system, the dipole lasts longer. It won't prevent it from getting killed, it only delays the inevitable death of the dipole. But that is the practical application of the knowledge about not killing the dipole - they're not trying to prevent current from flowing.

    Another way to "not kill the dipole" in an SG circuit for example is the radiant kickback to the front battery. That decreases the net draw from the battery and helps it run longer. You can scope the input battery and if you have enough turns and windings on the coil, you will see the little bumps that rise above the battery voltage on each cycle. If you start using diodes faster than what Bedini recommended, then you lose that effect and more radiant goes to the output battery so you can choose where you want it. Peter's last presentation has parts that are exactly related to that concept. But that is another application of extending the dipole's life and may not have even been intentional when Bedini designed his circuits. He used the diodes he used, it gave that kickback to the front battery, he knew it did that, but I don't necessarily believe he designed that ahead of time by intentionally using slow diodes.

    In any case Patrick, please don't take someone else's interpretation of what you're saying or doing as brushing you off. That's the last thing I would want to do - the whole point to these forums is to share work and ideas - and counterviews are required to grow anything. If we all agree on everything, then we have no need for each other.
    Aaron, Interpretation may vary but the truth remains the same when we really intend to explain something!!.. Bearden's dipole killing interpretation is a different route of the Quadrant to explain the same thing as you did..
    BTW.. Current without Voltage happens in a seemingly 'non-electrical circuit' and this is nothing but a simple Bar Magnet Dipole and that is what we are after in the SSG machine ..what say??
    Rgds,
    Faraday88.
    Last edited by Faraday88; 04-30-2017 at 03:05 AM. Reason: correction in spell
    'Teaching can endure a quest for knowledge..but Learning solves an anomaly'

  8. #248
    Senior Member Faraday88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Bangaluru, Karnataka, India
    Posts
    1,149
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom C View Post
    when you see John draw his monopole wheel, he often draws the lines of force interacting with each other (dave has uploaded one of them above) now imagine those lines of force traveling between the poles of the earth and the sun.

    The universe is electric.

    the gas model of the sun is wrong in so many ways, the surface of the sun is calcium ferrite and iron composite.

    www.thesurfaceofthesun.com

    there is a movie called thunderbolts of the gods, and another one called the electric universe, both do a good job of explaining the electric model

    NASA has found magnetic ribbons connecting the sun and the earth

    https://science.nasa.gov/science-new...008/30oct_ftes

    it connects the entire universe

    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard...magnetic-field

    and another


    http://www.space.com/24692-mysteriou...ar-system.html


    everything in the universe is electromagnetic, it all operates at frequency....

    The masons understood this, so did leedskalnin.

    Tom C
    Hi Tom C,

    All the forces of Interactions in Physics can be deduced to Electromagnetic Interactions (of course including the Gravity) it would be simpler that way..i wonder why did history take a wrong course and complicate it....it could be just that they did not not understand it to be so....
    Rgds,
    Faraday88.
    'Teaching can endure a quest for knowledge..but Learning solves an anomaly'

  9. #249
    Senior Member Faraday88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Bangaluru, Karnataka, India
    Posts
    1,149
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron Murakami View Post
    Haven't see those vids since they came out, but any dipole that polarizes the aether and has a conduction so that the positive potential turns into EMF can move to the lower potential and get dissipated to a degree on the way is happening in every circuit all the time.

    The virtual poles always seemed very real to me - just stronger per area (more focused).

    Later, I'll show something I came up with years ago to enhance the Q1, Q2 (scalar poles) to make the rotor turn even faster with less input. Actually part of an addendum to go with the SG trilogy - don't want to get into that right here at this point.

    Isn't that structure intrinsic in any rotor for the SG if all like poles are facing out?

    What voltage before being loaded? Input or output battery?
    Hi Aaron,
    Years ago i remember JB stated/commented somewhere about the monopole motors: ''the coils arrangement is something that i cannot talk about...Magnets are made by me i cannot go into that either.. but yes it is standard materials (ceramic #8)''
    There is thread where I candidly ask JB about the link between his SSG and the Floyed sweet VTA. and this was my response have read himself co-relating them for that 'useable bias current'.
    JB declined in response writing his reply in RED
    about any co-relation between the two.
    I also remember him saying:'Faraday saw only one thing and made it a law'
    (I think I have some of his comments..which are golden now!.. i shall post for all to refer to and draw their own understanding ).
    The Floyed sweet method of 'conditioning 'the magnet is again Intrinsic way of Magnetizing the specimen sample..but in that case there is Quantum motion and no real spatial Displacement of magnets or the pick up coils.
    John himself was ousted by Sweet after he pointed out the bias current significant now in the modern SSG.
    more i shall share as i explore into the various ways of getting the true Monopole.
    Rgds,
    Faraday88.
    'Teaching can endure a quest for knowledge..but Learning solves an anomaly'

  10. #250
    Senior Member Faraday88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Bangaluru, Karnataka, India
    Posts
    1,149
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron Murakami View Post
    Even Einstein's original model, before he went to the dark side, was that of an elastic aether.

    Space can be stretched out, but that is a separate quality from mass displacing it.

    Space has one dimension and that is space. It has a coordinate system that can describe a position in that singular dimension of space but coordinates are not dimensions. So there is no such thing as "3D space + time".

    This is also a mathematical engineering reality when it comes to electricity and is algebraically indisputable if numbers mean anything to you or anyone else.

    Space is not filled with aether, it is aether.

    It is possible for space to be stretched so that the density of aether is low - in that case, light travels very fast relative to space with higher density in which case, it travels very slow.

    The premise to Einstein's intentional or unintentional psychosis was to wave the Jedi hand so you won't see the droids even though they're sitting right there. It's hard to tell what he actually believed or what appears to be what he was told to push. I'll elaborate later on but don't want to get far off topic from this thread.

    Space can be "compressed" or at least densified - contrary to the belief that aether is in-compressible - that is a misunderstanding because of the belief that aether will permeate all mass and therefore you cannot squeeze down on something if it slips through your fingers.

    All of this is certainly different than the "pertubations" of the aether.

    To look at space being compressed or thinned, the example that most people here would be familiar with is the inductive spike - so what is time? It can be logically deduced without fantastical ideas simply looking at it for what it is instead of what it has been turned in to by mainstream brainwashing.

    Everything has to at least start with ideas so good on you.

    My ideas are an amalgam of Bearden, Bedini, Dollard, JJ Tompson, Faraday, etc... and a bit of my own in the attempt to tie them together into a unified model and I've been working on that for about 18 years and its very simple. So far, it's predicted everything from gravitational attraction to the Bifeld Brown effect to real work you get from an inductive spike, etc...

    How does this all tie into Bedini's magnetic model? Parts of it do, but he took his model only so far. Bearden tried to put an academic understanding to Bedini's work. When I first started to study Bearden's work, John actually warned me not to get caught up in it and not to go that route. He was straight up about that right in the beginning. That seems contrary to the Bedini/Bearden work, but its true - he told me exactly that. Any model as rigorous as Bearden's model is self limiting to the imagination. It doesn't necessarily mean that Bearden is wrong either, but models can be traps and that is what I think is the point to John's comments.

    John actually thought my model of time made more sense than his own, which he didn't really elaborate on his time model very much, but he said that when I shared my viewpoints on the matter based on simply observing the basics in front of my face. But he did comment that what I shared with him was along the lines of what Bearden said, but I can't find a close enough analogy to what Bearden said in regards to time to see that close of a comparison. I actually think it is quite a bit off from what Bearden has said.
    Hi Aaron,
    This is where Synchronicity comes to play its role....i'm sure you will agree.
    Rgds,
    Faraday88
    'Teaching can endure a quest for knowledge..but Learning solves an anomaly'

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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