Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 32
Like Tree17Likes

Thread: Choice of mounts

  1. #1
    Steelystan's Avatar
    Steelystan is offline Junior Member
    Points: 7,243, Level: 59
    Level completed: 47%, Points required for next Level: 107
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    First 1000 Experience Points365 Days+ Registered Achievement!750 Days+ Registered Achievement!2 Posts Achievement1000 Days+ Registered Achievement!
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kettering, UK
    Posts
    7
    Points
    7,243
    Level
    59
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0x 0 Posts

    Default Choice of mounts



    Hello All

    Newbie alert, (both to the forum and astronomy!)

    For years I've considered buying a telescope as the night sky has always fascinated me, and I feel on the threshold of forking out for my first proper instrument.

    My son has owned a tiny 2" refractor for a few years, which is so badly made it may as well be an old toilet roll middle and a pair of jam jar bottoms, but actually, playing with it taught me a numebr of things that were independent of its shortcomings.

    Firstly, at highish magnifications, (I calculate I was attempting to squeeze about x150 out of it, which I've read is unfeasible anyway for an aperture of that tiddly size) the image scuds across the field of view like a housefly. I managed to resolve Jupiter as a blurry disc, but it was moving to fast I swear it had a motion trail behind it!

    Secondly, I couldn't undertsand how focus on a nice bright thing like the moon, even at x50 could be relatively steady one night and like looking through a plate of jelly the next. That is until I just looked with my naked eye and realised how hazy, windy and disturbed the atmosphere was on the second night. It seems to me, no scope will deal with this, so the conditions have to be tolerated, including ambient light effects.

    Thirdly, putting aside light polution and seeing conditions, the tiny aperture I was playing with made it obvious that dim objects require a decent aperture to become visible, (or photographable), so all other things being equal like, weight cost etc, a large aperture is "a good thing".

    Fourthly, I've been thinking about taking photos, as this is another interest of mine terrestrially speaking. Have I got this right?...an equatorial mount will, given tracking capability, provide camera orientation which is rotationally neutral with respect to the sky as the mount tracks, whereas an alt-azimuth mount, even with tracking capability would see the camera rotating with respect to the sky. I can visualize this by holding a CD at arms length and mimicking the motion of both mounts. It looks to me as I've described.

    So, I need to decide what sort of mount I want.

    I like the mainstream Newtonian-Dobsonian options because of the relative high aperture versus cost balance. I can see how I could afford a 10" instrument fairly safely, but this would be a manually adjust alt-az, so I'm wondering about the image drift I mentioned - will it drive me mad? And photography seems all but excluded for this kind of mount.

    An equitorial seems to be a better option for both manual or automated tracking, and thus photography too, but telescopes enjoying these features mean I spend a lot of loot around the glass as opposed to on it.

    Is there a compromise of automated dob mount with camera rotation, or have I just invented something impossibly expensive for an amateur?

    If any of what I've just said makes any sense at all, I'd appreciate your advice, ridicule or mere sympathy.

    Thanks

    SS

  2. #2
    AustinPSD's Avatar
    AustinPSD is offline Super Moderator
    Points: 56,828, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 2.0%
    Achievements:
    200+ Posts Achievement!First 1000 Experience PointsGot three Friends20+ Friends Achievement!5+ Referrals Achievement!
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    McDonald Observatory, Mt. Locke
    Posts
    6,921
    Points
    56,828
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    743
    Thanked 5,863x 3,113 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hi and welcome to the forums! No ridicule is due, all are good and thoughtful questions. Perhaps the only sympathy due will be toward your budget.

    I'm going to answer a few/part of these questions with the bias of an astrophotographer and imager. With that caveat:

    - For astrophotography, you need ideally an equatorial mount. This can take the form of either a German Equatorial Mount (GEM), or an alt-azimuth mount on what's known as an equatorial wedge.

    In either form, the alignment to the celestial pole removes (hides) the rotational effects of the Earth on the sky, allowing long-exposure durations of the stellar field without corresponding field rotation.

    There are components, known as field de-rotators used on pure alt-azimuth mounted telescopes. The field de-rotator is mechanically complex, heavy, somewhat unique (as in nearly custom for a specific telescope), and almost always very, very expensive. This puts a de-rotator out of the grasp of most amateur class instruments and astronomers.

    But to the point - an equatorially aligned mount is a must-have for long-exposure astrophotography.

    - GEM and wedge-adapted alt-az mounts are capable of producing equivalent results. To some extent, the choice is related to the choice of optical tube one makes. For example, many SCT's come mounted on alt-az mounts/tripods. Some have integrated wedges. Others have optional wedges, while some do not have a wedge available at all.

    The most straight-forward approach is to consider the mount, optical tube, finder, guide-scope, etc. all as separate and loosely coupled components, and acquire them independently of one another (to an extent) to end up with the best kit possible.

    - For astrophotography, the mount is the single most important component. It is difficult, frustrating, and can be impossible to do good imaging on an inferior mount. The mount needs to have high tracking accuracy, the capability for periodic error correction, the ability to take auto-guider input, to be properly aligned, and have adequate mechanical construction and stability for the load, including optical tube, camera, guide-scope and guide-camera, filters, counterweights, etc. A low end mount suitable for AP out of the box runs $1100 USD - $1500 USD. Representative commodity examples include:

    Synta OEM mount family:

    - Skywatcher HEQ5 Pro
    - Orion Sirius

    - Skywatcher HEQ6 Pro
    - Celestron CGEM
    - Orion Atlas

    There are more expensive, accurate and capable mounts than those enumerated, but they are not necessary as starter equipment.

    Enough about mount for the moment....

    Optics, aka the telescope itself.

    For imaging/AP, a refractor, catadioptic telescope like an SCT, RC, or Mak are good choices.

    Poor to mediocre choices include Newtonian reflectors - while a very few are designed to support imaging, most are not and can lead to difficulty, frustration, and poor results.

    A specialized form of Newtonian scope, the Dob is not a good choice either. It shares all the negatives of Newts with respect to imaging applications, and is constrained (typically) to a non-tracking alt-az mount.

    Thematically, AP/imaging leads to bank-breaking expense, because from an aperture/dollar perspective a Newt or Dob has economic appeal, but do not work well for AP/imaging...

    I'll take a breath for now - but for more good reading on the topic, again with a bias toward AP/imaging go here:

    Catching the Light: Astrophotography by Jerry Lodriguss
    headdown and craigwithers like this.
    CGEM 800 HD, NexGuide,
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
    XT8 Limited Edition, Oberwerk BT-100, Canon 20D/20Da/T3i/60D/5D Mk III, various eyepieces, adapters, geegaws, widgets, and tiddlybits

  3. The Following 17 Users Say Thank You to AustinPSD For This Useful Post:

    + Show/Hide list of the thanked

    57amp (08-07-2014),admin (01-07-2010),Agent420 (01-07-2010),birdguy (07-29-2012),craigwithers (09-16-2015),frazzles114 (01-29-2012),fuzzyword (02-10-2012),Gabespal (01-23-2011),Ghostryderflyby (01-10-2010),HankBarton (08-14-2019),JAHamm (01-21-2013),otternorth (10-09-2012),ottUp (01-07-2010),Richard Kapela (10-27-2018),Roelfie (12-16-2012),snorvich (09-08-2012),telekiwi (01-08-2010)

  4. #3
    Steelystan's Avatar
    Steelystan is offline Junior Member
    Points: 7,243, Level: 59
    Level completed: 47%, Points required for next Level: 107
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    First 1000 Experience Points365 Days+ Registered Achievement!750 Days+ Registered Achievement!2 Posts Achievement1000 Days+ Registered Achievement!
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kettering, UK
    Posts
    7
    Points
    7,243
    Level
    59
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0x 0 Posts

    Default

    Mmm. Thanks for the detailed reply - its given me what I was hoping for, an opinion, rather than a further list of options I hadn't yet researched!

    It seems to me I would do well to build up to astrophotography as my experience and budget allow, which is far from the end of the world. I like your point about bringing various components together from diverse sources too.

    One question that now springs to mind - Put magnification aside for the moment, I notice many photographs are described as being composed of stacks of many images collected over hours. Is this because the image is not aparent in all its glory and colour using just one layer? I can see how saturation and luminosity would be built up with many "Identical" layers. I've done some low light photography using the bulb setting on my DSLR, and accepting the movement of the field when pointing up, I was surprised just how long it takes to register any real colours at such low light levels. My camera is limited to , I think, about 18 minutes on a bulb exposure, but what would be the problem with taking a 2 hr shot with a camera that would allow such a long exposure?


    Anyway, considering this then, I'm wondering if the human eye can see a similar view, bearing in mind its contrast sensitivity is many times that of even the best cameras, and hence is able to see a comparable image to those photographed if photography is sidestepped at first. I guess I'm asking if I will see exciting images even though I can't capture them?
    xchaser likes this.

  5. #4
    WWPierre's Avatar
    WWPierre is offline HYPER GIANT
    Points: 66,466, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    10 Days registered3 Years + Achievement400+ Posts AchievementGhost Achievement! Averaging 5+ posts a day!1000 Days+ Registered Achievement!
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Squamish B.C.
    Posts
    6,948
    Points
    66,466
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    1,095
    Thanked 2,953x 1,808 Posts

    Default

    Hi SS, your post is spot on, both in your observations and the conclusions. If I were you, I would go the dob route to get started. As for the target scooting across the FOV and driving you mad, I wouldn't worry. There are only 3 planets worth looking at for any length of time, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Your focal ratio will be about f/5, which, with a good wide-angle eyepiece will allow comfortable viewing at even relatively high magnifications. Most of your viewing will be of clusters, nebulae, and galaxies, probably, most of which are better seen at fairly low magnifications, and they stay in the FOV for a long time.

    I tend to find targets, and then look at them afterwards on the internet for detail beyond the capabilities of my kit.
    astro_dude and Starship like this.
    Meade 16" LightBridge; Celestron G-8N Bird-Jones/motorized EQ5;
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
    127 Mak/go-to EQ5; Burgess 127f8 refractor; Sky-Watcher 5" F/5 collapsible dob; 90mm Mak/motorized EQ2; Royal Astro 76/910-GEM; Meade 60x700 refractor/alt/az; Zhumell 25x100 Coin Ops; GalilleoScope. Celestron 8mm-24mm zoom; lots of fixed EPs,some good, some..not so much. A small collection of surveying instruments; a forest of tripods; Canon Rebel Xti. Confirmed gadget junkie; Custodian of the Magnetic North Pole (Send $1.00 to Pierre each time you use a compass.)
    49-41-37.03N 123-09-29.61W Calculated magnetic declination: 17° 39' East

    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.


    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

    We have been broadcasting our presence to the Universe for 100 years now. If there is a detachment of Galactic Pest Control within 100 light years, they are already on the way.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to WWPierre For This Useful Post:

    Sc0rch (10-15-2011)

  7. #5
    ottUp's Avatar
    ottUp is offline Star Giants
    Points: 8,876, Level: 65
    Level completed: 43%, Points required for next Level: 174
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    10 Days registered365 Days+ Registered Achievement!First 1000 Experience Points750 Days+ Registered Achievement!200+ Posts Achievement!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    134
    Points
    8,876
    Level
    65
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 120x 63 Posts

    Default

    Great responses. May I just add: you asked specifically whether there is a way to do imaging with a Dob because they are, you correctly point out, a great visual scope.

    Yes and no, mainly No. There are certainly motorized Dobs, including equatorial. But such motorization is targeted at convenient visual observing (e.g. Jupiter doesn't race out of the field at high power). The mechanics of the dob (long tube almost entirely on one side of a pivot axis) make it susceptible to small movements due to wind or vibration that would be unnoticed in visual use but would spoil a photo.

    In my experience you can use a motorized dob to do lunar and planetary imaging with a webcam, but long-exposure dso imaging is asking too much of that configuration. Dobs are great visual scopes, though. Starting with one, and tackling imaging later, would be a fine strategy.

    - Richard
    Last edited by ottUp; 01-06-2010 at 08:23 PM. Reason: Spelling
    C9.25,AT8RC,SV105,SV80,Pronto,TV60
    on: ParamountMX,G11,GM8,DM6,HalfHitch,M4
    Ottawa, Canada

  8. #6
    Bob327's Avatar
    Bob327 is offline HYPER GIANT
    Points: 41,366, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    10 Days registered200+ Posts Achievement!First 1000 Experience PointsGot three Friends365 Days+ Registered Achievement!
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Frederick Maryland
    Posts
    9,247
    Points
    41,366
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked 4,039x 3,068 Posts

    Default

    Anyway, considering this then, I'm wondering if the human eye can see a similar view, bearing in mind its contrast sensitivity is many times that of even the best cameras, and hence is able to see a comparable image to those photographed if photography is sidestepped at first. I guess I'm asking if I will see exciting images even though I can't capture them?


    NOPE... Visual astronomy is a Black and White world for the most part...

    Bob G
    CPC1100 housed in a slotted domed observatory (Exploradome) 4 and 5 inch refractors for use from the lawn, a 8" Sct (NS 8i) for star parties...
    I Hate the winter so I use heated Motorcycle clothing to stay warm while observing in winter
    Retired, also have 2 other hobbies
    1. tinker with older Corvettes (6 in garage)
    2. make a heck of a lot of sawdust in my wood shop.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Bob327 For This Useful Post:

    Malvina (09-01-2011)

  10. #7
    AustinPSD's Avatar
    AustinPSD is offline Super Moderator
    Points: 56,828, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 2.0%
    Achievements:
    200+ Posts Achievement!First 1000 Experience PointsGot three Friends20+ Friends Achievement!5+ Referrals Achievement!
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    McDonald Observatory, Mt. Locke
    Posts
    6,921
    Points
    56,828
    Level
    100
    Thanks
    743
    Thanked 5,863x 3,113 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    More on the topics of exposure duration, stacking, and visual observation...

    All mounts, no matter how expensive have tracking error(s). The error sources include, but are not limited to:

    - imprecision in machining and machining tolerances in the gear/drive train. This is collectively lumped under the term "periodic error", and usually manifests itself over some "period" of revolution in the mount's drive train. Periodic errors can occur at one or more characteristic frequencies in the drive train, depending on the specific source of the error.

    - drive motor / control system resolution errors; these come from slight variations in motor speed, quantization errors in digital drive controllers, etc.

    - mechanical issues, including motor stalls, wind load and vibration, vibration from surroundings imparted on the mount/tripod, human induced vibrations, including bumps, camera shutter/mirror motion, cabling drag, etc.

    The above factors and more influence the tracking accuracy (angular error) of all mounts, from the least expensive to the most expensive.

    Some of them are correctable through various means, for example periodic error can be "trained for", and corrected out of the tracking error by microcontroller-based systems embedded in the mount/hand-control. Other errors get dealt with by using guide correction - either manually, via a guide-scope or off-axis guider/guiding eyepiece (eyepiece with a reticle) or by use of a CCD-based auto-guider camera, either integrated into the main imager, or perhaps stand-alone and distinct from the imager. The guide camera feeds a specialized port on the mount, feeding corrective direction changes into the drive system, based on keeping a guide star in the imaging field centered.

    Having said all that, even with the best, highest precision mount, and most sophisticated error correction systems, the exposure duration is limited to a maximum based on the accumulated error threshold from all sources.

    Aside from errors in the mount/tracking system, particularly for digital imagers, there is an inherent "noise floor" present in the CCD or CMOS sensor, and integration electronics that further limit exposure duration. Some of the noise is thermal, and related to the ambient temperature during the imaging session. Some of the noise is inherent in the sensor itself at a quantum level. All together, the noise sources create a problem in that the longer the exposure duration, the greater the impact of the intrinsic system noise. Some sources are linear with exposure time, while others are non-linear (with normal and inverse relationships).

    Given that upper limit on exposure duration, it is sometimes (often) required that we have a means of collecting more light to form the desired image than the exposure duration limit.

    This is accomplished by "stacking" image frames, along with specialized non-image frames including dark frames (no exposure), light frames (normalized total exposure) and bias frames (exposures with known balance conditions). The frames are stacked together into a composite image, with software assistance to form a final composite image which can in some regard be thought of as the "sum" of all the signal or exposure time of all the sub-frames that form the composite.

    The relative signal-to-noise ration increases with each sub-frame "stacked" into the composite. There is a point of diminishing returns, beyond which the SNR gain is negligible. This threshold is a function of many things, including the sensor characteristics, exposure durations in each frame, noise floor, etc.

    With regard to the visual aspect - the human eye and vision system is an "integrator" with a logarithmic response to light, and varied sensitivity over parts of the visible electromagnetic spectrum. Even the best human observer lacks the visual stamina, balanced spectrum response and total integration capability to form the kind of color images obtained by long exposure CCD sensors. For the most part, it is possible to see distinct color in planetary objects, in part because they are relatively bright, and in part because they are relatively close. For galaxies, nebulae and deep space objects, seeing much, if any color visually is not possible because the objects are relatively dim, very far away, and diffuse (surface brightness as opposed to point-source brightness like a planet).
    astro_dude likes this.
    CGEM 800 HD, NexGuide,
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
    XT8 Limited Edition, Oberwerk BT-100, Canon 20D/20Da/T3i/60D/5D Mk III, various eyepieces, adapters, geegaws, widgets, and tiddlybits

  11. The Following 15 Users Say Thank You to AustinPSD For This Useful Post:

    + Show/Hide list of the thanked

    admin (01-07-2010),Agent420 (01-07-2010),astro_dude (01-12-2013),birdguy (07-29-2012),dewald (11-22-2012),fuzzyword (02-10-2012),Gabespal (01-23-2011),Ghostryderflyby (01-10-2010),JAHamm (01-21-2013),Malvina (09-01-2011),ottUp (01-07-2010),Richard Kapela (10-27-2018),snorvich (09-08-2012),telekiwi (01-07-2010),Termhn (01-28-2014)

  12. #8
    Steelystan's Avatar
    Steelystan is offline Junior Member
    Points: 7,243, Level: 59
    Level completed: 47%, Points required for next Level: 107
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    First 1000 Experience Points365 Days+ Registered Achievement!750 Days+ Registered Achievement!2 Posts Achievement1000 Days+ Registered Achievement!
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kettering, UK
    Posts
    7
    Points
    7,243
    Level
    59
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0x 0 Posts

    Default

    Many thanks for that - I was driving my kids this morning and started thinking about the accumulated noise issue but hadn't considered the idea of corrective images that can counter some of thie noise effect - very intriguing. I am aware that most DSLRs have a similar mechanism for layering "anti-noise" on to a long exposure image during processing, although I always take my pics in RAW format which has no such proocessing. It seems to me the multiple images avoids putting all eggs in one basket too in terms of some of the mechanical errors that can creep in.

    Thanks to all respondents in this thread - I can see this is very energetic and generous spirited group.

    Regards

    SS

  13. #9
    Steelystan's Avatar
    Steelystan is offline Junior Member
    Points: 7,243, Level: 59
    Level completed: 47%, Points required for next Level: 107
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    First 1000 Experience Points365 Days+ Registered Achievement!750 Days+ Registered Achievement!2 Posts Achievement1000 Days+ Registered Achievement!
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kettering, UK
    Posts
    7
    Points
    7,243
    Level
    59
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0x 0 Posts

    Default

    [QUOTE=WWPierre;1057138586]...If I were you, I would go the dob route to get started. As for the target scooting across the FOV and driving you mad, I wouldn't worry. There are only 3 planets worth looking at for any length of time, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Your focal ratio will be about f/5, which, with a good wide-angle eyepiece will allow comfortable viewing at even relatively high magnifications. Most of your viewing will be of clusters, nebulae, and galaxies, probably, most of which are better seen at fairly low magnifications, and they stay in the FOV for a long time. QUOTE]

    Yep, I am of this mind now, having read the excellent advice from respondents. My idea of what "good" looks like are decidely modest in ambition - the naked eye sees pretty much everything as a wobbly point of light, even planets, (moon excepted of course) and merely to see shape/form of some kind would excite me - to see a planet as a disc, or a galaxy as a vague elipse would be amazing. When I mentioned all this to my wife, I promised her I would be able to show her Saturn's rings for less than the cost of a car (well, you have to give yourself some protection eh?) and she told me I was mad, thinking it costs millions to see anything. She's seen too much about the Hubble on the Discovery channel. It'll be nice to see her face once I've gotten going and she can join in.

    SS

  14. #10
    ottUp's Avatar
    ottUp is offline Star Giants
    Points: 8,876, Level: 65
    Level completed: 43%, Points required for next Level: 174
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    10 Days registered365 Days+ Registered Achievement!First 1000 Experience Points750 Days+ Registered Achievement!200+ Posts Achievement!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    134
    Points
    8,876
    Level
    65
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 120x 63 Posts

    Default

    To put some numbers to the issue of the sensitivity of the eye vs a camera:

    Camera sensitivity is measured as QE (Quantum Efficiency), which is the percentage of arriving photons that are detected and converted to a useful signal. My CCD camera - a fairly typical one - has a QE of 65%. The human eye has been measured as having sensitivity equivalent to a QE of about 5%. So just taking sensitivity into account, the CCD is many times more sensitive - then you add the additional considerations of long exposure times, noise sensitivity, etc.

    "See saturn's rings for less than the cost of a car"? A lot less - more like the cost of your pub tab for 2 weeks. However, if your wife was satisfied with the "car price" threshold, perhaps not correcting her downward any more would be a good strategy....

    - Richard
    fmhill, snorvich and NukeWasted like this.
    C9.25,AT8RC,SV105,SV80,Pronto,TV60
    on: ParamountMX,G11,GM8,DM6,HalfHitch,M4
    Ottawa, Canada

  15. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to ottUp For This Useful Post:

    Agent420 (01-07-2010),fmhill (07-12-2012),fuzzyword (02-09-2012),Gabespal (01-23-2011),JAHamm (01-21-2013),Malvina (09-01-2011),Sc0rch (10-18-2011),snorvich (09-10-2012)

 

 
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Eyepiece set choice
    By pedalmasher in forum Astronomy Beginners Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 12-16-2010, 03:56 AM
  2. Web Cam Choice?
    By seal killer in forum CCD Imaging Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-20-2010, 07:36 AM
  3. help with a choice
    By ct sky in forum US Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-10-2009, 04:54 PM
  4. Telescope choice
    By larrymiracle@earthlink.net in forum General Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-14-2004, 09:13 PM
  5. Telescope Choice
    By Tom Hole in forum Amateur Astronomy Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-02-2003, 12:04 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Powered by vBulletin®
All times are GMT. The time now is 04:14 PM.