Message from the Dawn of time...

RealityCheck01 · Nov 5, 2014

Based on 26th September 2011: Where is the discussion of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any other textbook?

We either have that Anthony Peratt is the only scientist in the world eek according to you Michael who thinks that lightning is possible in plasma or that it is common knowledge that lightning is possible in plasma. That means that there will be many textbooks stating this.

Peratt's book was published in the 80's. It was not the first plasma physics textbook ever published!

Peratt's book was published in the 80's. In the last 30 years, many textbooks have been written on plasma physics. They should all include that all important 'electrical discharges in plasma' chapter with all of the physics and mathematics.

26 September 2011 Michael: Where is the definition, discussion, examples, etc. of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any other textbook.

RealityCheck01 · Nov 5, 2014

Follow up to 26 September 2011 Michael: Where is the definition, discussion, examples, etc. of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any other textbook?

Textbooks are not the only scientific literature. There are also scientific papers. If lightning is possible in plasma than there should be a large body of published papers listing the theory and observations of lightning in plasma.

There are a small number of magnetic reconnection papers that label large current densities in magnetic reconnection as "electrical discharges" but this is not lightning.

6 November 2014 Michael: Please provide evidence that there are hundreds of papers on lightning (Peratt's example) in plasma.
(roughly 90 years since plasmas were recognized as distinctive - 2 papers a year about lightning in plasma is a really, really low estimate )

RealityCheck01 · Nov 5, 2014

Michael said:
Why?

Because these old JREF posts by actual astrophysicists reveal just how bad some of the past statements you have made about magnetic reconnection were, e.g. the really ignorant induction stuff, Michael:
8th March 2012: Magnetic Reconnection: In Plasma and In Vacuo by Tim Thompson

I have in fact supported my claim with several published references to magnetic reconnection in a vacuum. Here is a list of my posts on the topic, which the industrious reader may wish to peruse for the various references therein.

Magnetic Reconnection in Vacuo VIII (10 Dec 2011)

Magnetic Reconnection in Vacuo VII (9 Dec 2011)

Magnetic Reconnection in Vacuo VI: Mozina's Links (4) (8 Dec 2011)

Magnetic Reconnection in Vacuo VI: Mozina's Links (3) (7 Dec 2011)

Magnetic Reconnection in Vacuo VI: Mozina's Links (2) (7 Dec 2011)

Magnetic Reconnection in Vacuo VI: Mozina's Links (6 Dec 2011)

Magnetic Reconnection in Vacuo V (4 Dec 2011)

Magnetic Reconnection in Vacuo IV (1 Dec 2011)

Magnetic Reconnection in Vacuo III (22 Nov 2011)

Magnetic Reconnection in Vacuo II (22 Oct 2011)

Magnetic Reconnection in Vacuo (20 May 2011)

RealityCheck01 · Nov 5, 2014

Michael said:
Anthony Peratt's definition of electrical discharges in plasma:

Still wrong, Michael: That is part of a definition of electrical discharge. No mention of plasma in that part of a definition. Some simple English for you, Michael, plasma is a word that does not appear in the text you highlighted .

An electrical discharge is a sudden release of electric or magnetic stored energy. This generally occurs when the electromagnetic stress exceeds some threshold for breakdown that is usually determined by small scale properties of the energy transmission medium.

Michael · Nov 5, 2014

RealityCheck01 said:
Michael still cannot understand after a couple of years that "actual electrical discharges" = lightning etc. !

Your use of the term "actual" with respect to electrical discharges in plasma is exactly like your use of a "toy" version of reconnection. In each case, nature blows your claims right out of the water, yet you ignorantly make the same erroneous claims over and over and over again.

Dungey is respected in the realm of solar physics. You've never even published a paper on any topic in astronomy, let alone solar physics. Dungey clearly describes the process of "electrical discharges" in a plasma environment, demonstrating that your "actual" understanding of plasma physics is zero, which is quite predictable considering that you won't pickup a textbook on MHD theory.

Likewise your "toy" understanding of physics and of "reconnection" theory isn't "real", even by the author's own admissions. They made it "real" simply by adding A) plasma and B) plasma particle acceleration. All you and Clinger described were "toy" versions of physics, and nothing that can be distinguished from ordinary *magnetic flux* in a vacuum.

When are you *ever* going to read a real textbook on this topic RC? Your arguments from ignorance are simply *toyish* and *childish*.

Michael · Nov 5, 2014

RealityCheck01 said:
We either have that Anthony Peratt is the only scientist in the world eek according to you Michael who thinks that lightning is possible in plasma....

Bzzzt! No goalpost shifting. Dungey also claimed that "electrical discharges" are possible in plasmas. You're the only one claiming that "electrical discharges" (you didn't use the term lightening in your sig line) are "impossible" in plasmas. Either Dungey *and* Peratt are wrong and some guy that has never read a textbook on plasma physics is right, or the plasma experts are right, and you're wrong.

It's impossible to rectify your error, hence your ridiculous insertion of the term "actual/toy".

Justatruthseeker · Nov 6, 2014

RealityCheck01 said:
Based on 26th September 2011: Where is the discussion of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any other textbook?

We either have that Anthony Peratt is the only scientist in the world eek according to you Michael who thinks that lightning is possible in plasma or that it is common knowledge that lightning is possible in plasma. That means that there will be many textbooks stating this.

Peratt's book was published in the 80's. It was not the first plasma physics textbook ever published!

Peratt's book was published in the 80's. In the last 30 years, many textbooks have been written on plasma physics. They should all include that all important 'electrical discharges in plasma' chapter with all of the physics and mathematics.

26 September 2011 Michael: Where is the definition, discussion, examples, etc. of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any other textbook.

They do.

Plasmahtml

IEEE Xplore Abstract - Comparison of electrical discharge techniques for nonthermal plasma processing of NO in N2

You just refuse to read anything about plasma behavior, instead wanting to treat it like dust and gas.

Electric plasmas - Their nature and uses

Glow discharge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Electrical Discharges

Dielectric-Barrier Discharges: Their History, Discharge Physics, and Industrial Applications - Springer

You, on the other hand - want to reject actual experiments in favor of theory that does not match experiments. But yes, let's talk about electrical discharges in plasma. I got about 80 years of laboratory evidence. What do you have, some "claim" someone made that they don't exist, despite the laboratory experiments?

IEEE Xplore - Search Results

Or you can find even more under the misleading title:

IEEE Xplore - Search Results

RealityCheck01 · Nov 6, 2014

Michael's denial of science and English about MR in vacuum continues:
Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov has 2 sections called "4.4.2 Reconnection in vacuum" and "4.4.3 Reconnection in plasma".
Michael has been fantasying about the first section about vacuum containing plasma for three years now and persisting in not to be able to understand that there are two sections for two different topics.

7th November 2011: A section describing the process of reconnection in a vacuum has Michael going on about induction!
The fantasy that the vacuum in Somov's example contains charged particles (the section text is quoted here to refute this).
The fantasy that the currents in Somov's example are plasma (physically they cannot be plasma but could be wires carrying current for example)
The fantasy that the currents in Somov's example are non-neutral plasma.
Ignorance about Somov's example - the currents do not reconnect, the magnetic field lines do.
The fantasy that the currents in Somov's example are plasma
The fantasy that Somov's textbook is not a published textbook containing "4.4.2 Reconnection in vacuum" (followed by section "4.4.3 Reconnection in plasma"), etc.
I point out that the next section is about MR in plasma, which Michael has not been able to understand in the last 3 years !
The fantasy that the vacuum in Somov's example contains charged particles
30th October 2014: A new fantasy that the currents in Somov's example are plasma filaments. This is compounded by "AKA *Birkeland currents*"
The repeated ignorance of citing a Wikipedia article on magnetic reconnection in plasma to refute a textbook section on magnetic reconnection in vacuum
The delusion that a paper about MR on the Sun can only mention processes in plasma when Priest 1990 states "In a vacuum, magnetic reconnection is a trivial process..."
Cannot understand English: the Priest & Schrijver paper has a toy model of vacuum reconnection. They specifically exclude plasma from the model.
Cannot understand English: Tanaka 1990 has no problem with magnetic reconnection in vacuum.
The ignorance of citing a Wikipedia article on magnetic reconnection in plasma to refute papers mentioning magnetic reconnection in vacuum (6 November 2014)
SelfSim found a presentation that starts with 20 slides about MR for two wires in vacuum (no plasma!) which I listed on 26th February 2015.
The response from Michael was to resurrect a ~3 year inability to understand what a rate of reconnection is!

RealityCheck01 said:

20th March 2012: Michael Mozina's idea that a reconnection rate exists without plasma
with the inability to answer a simple question:
20th March 2012 Michael Mozina, What is the Alfvén speed for a vacuum?

Click to expand...

Michael's ignorance of electromagnetism is exposed with his idea that
Michael (30 October 2013): If we have electrical wires producing the current in the vacuum of Somov's example then would you claim that magnetic reconnection happens in the electrical wires?
somehow invalidates the example. As if his introduction of plasma does not:
how deluded is the statement that "electric currents are plasma" - Very !

30 January 2015 Michael is still denying that magnetic reconnection happens at the null point as explained in Somov's textbook and that this point is in vacuum in Somov's example. This is probably just to support his delusion that there is plasma in Somov's example. The post

RealityCheck01 said:
X marks the spot !

Michael: No X point = no magnetic reconnection. "Two field lines approach the X-point, merge there, forming a separatrix, and then they reconnect forming a field line which encloses both currents."

has 'plasma is a current' fantasy replies.

4th March 2012, a working astrophysicist, tusenfem, cites Birn & Priest, Reconnection of magnetic fields, Section 4.1.1 which starts with a discussion of vacuum superposition models.

Tim Thompson (a retired astrophysicist) also commented on this inability to understand MR. Tim Thompson's applicable JREF posts is at Magnetic Reconnection and Plasma Physics. When I pointed out this list, Michael's responses were basically the same as above - delusions that the MR in vacuum contained plasma.

W.D. Clinger provided a clear derivation of MR from Maxwell's equations with no plasma in various JREF posts which are listed here: Tutorial Derivation of Magnetic Reconnection by W.D. Clinger. Michael's response was and remains illuminating - no pointing out any mistakes in the derivation just rants about plasma missing in an example that is supposed to contain no plasma!

For an analysis of the responses on JREF by Michael see Deniers of Magnetic Reconnection, e.g.

Ignorance about Maxwell's equations (the magnetic constant in one of Maxwell's equations does not imply induction).
Going on about "reconnections per unit length"
That mathematics is "hand waving"

RealityCheck01 · Nov 6, 2014

Justatruthseeker said:
They do.

You need to learn some English and physics, Justatruthseeker.
Some of your citations are not to textbooks and so not strictly answers to the three year old eek question..
Plasmahtml contains no electrical discharges.

IEEE Xplore Abstract - Comparison of electrical discharge techniques for nonthermal plasma processing of NO in N2 is about generating plasma.

Electric plasmas - Their nature and uses has no mention of electrical discharges in plasmas - just discharges and plasmas.

Glow discharge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia forms plasma in gases.

Electrical Discharges is about Electrical Discharges! The word plasma also appears.

Dielectric-Barrier Discharges: Their History, Discharge Physics, and Industrial Applications - Springer has nothing about electrical discharges

A tip for you, Justatruthseeker: electrical discharges are used to create plasma. A search for "electrical discharge in plasma" will have many false results.
Google has about 1,170,000 results for "electrical discharges in plasma"
Google Scholar has about 268,000 results for "electrical discharges in plasma"
The SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System returns 9478 abstracts for "electrical discharges in plasma".

Please learn this to avoid wasting peoples time with irrelevant citations.

Did you notice the date on the question, Justatruthseeker?
26th September 2011: Where is the discussion of 'electrical discharges in plasma' in any other textbook?
Your response has the added implication that Michael is not competent enough to do a search to find the same results that you did (even if they are irrelevant) .

RealityCheck01 · Nov 6, 2014

I will add one more research trap for inexperienced players, Justatruthseeker :
Peratt's actual definition (not his title!) in his section about the generation of plasma is that it generally includes the breakdown of a dielectric medium. He has the example of lightning. Thus I have been emphasizing this for the last couple of years as "actual electrical discharges", i.e. as in Peratt's example of lightning. But silly me, I did not go back in a time machine and change my 2011 question !

Michael though cannot understand the concept of different authors using the same term for different processes. Back in 1953, Dungey used the term "electrical discharge" for a large current density in the magnetic reconnection that he was researching as the cause of solar flares. Dungey may have borrowed the term from a previous author. A few authors have followed his usages to today.

If you go looking for electrical discharges in plasma then some of the references you will find will be to Dungey's usage. Be aware that this is not the "actual electrical discharges" that the question is really about.

Michael · Nov 7, 2014

RealityCheck01 said:
Michael's denial of science and English about MR in vacuum continues:
Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov has 2 sections called "4.4.2 Reconnection in vacuum" and "4.4.3 Reconnection in plasma".

The only "fantasy" in play is your fantasy about thinking that you understand plasma physics without ever educating yourself to the topic.

Those A) *currents* that Somov included in his "vacuum", and B) the movement of those currents are what differentiate your "toy" version of "reconnection" (AKA magnetic flux in a vacuum) from the "real" plasma physics process called "magnetic reconnection". Even Priest explained the difference between a *real* understanding of magnetic reconnection and a *toy/pretend* understanding of reconnection theory. The *real* one *requires* plasma, whereas toys are simply *toys*!

You apparently don't comprehend the meaning of a scientific debate. Handing me links to *yourself* and some *random website* is not a "scientific debate". Scientific debates require *published* material, like Dungey's electrical discharges in solar flare paper. You keep citing yourself and *unplublished materials*. Notice a problem? I sure do. Apparently you're incapable of citing any reference that claims that "real" reconnection is a plasma optional process. Preist's paper even clearly differentiated between *toys* and *real* processes, but you simply ignored it. You heard the term "vacuum", and ignored the word *toy* entirely. Your selective listening skills are just pathetic.

Justatruthseeker · Nov 8, 2014

Michael said:
The only "fantasy" in play is your fantasy about thinking that you understand plasma physics without ever educating yourself to the topic.

Those A) *currents* that Somov included in his "vacuum", and B) the movement of those currents are what differentiate your "toy" version of "reconnection" (AKA magnetic flux in a vacuum) from the "real" plasma physics process called "magnetic reconnection". Even Priest explained the difference between a *real* understanding of magnetic reconnection and a *toy/pretend* understanding of reconnection theory. The *real* one *requires* plasma, whereas toys are simply *toys*!

You apparently don't comprehend the meaning of a scientific debate. Handing me links to *yourself* and some *random website* is not a "scientific debate". Scientific debates require *published* material, like Dungey's electrical discharges in solar flare paper. You keep citing yourself and *unplublished materials*. Notice a problem? I sure do. Apparently you're incapable of citing any reference that claims that "real" reconnection is a plasma optional process. Preist's paper even clearly differentiated between *toys* and *real* processes, but you simply ignored it. You heard the term "vacuum", and ignored the word *toy* entirely. Your selective listening skills are just pathetic.

Yes, people never bother to read about plasma physics, then think they understand how it behaves. Treating it like dust and gas and wondering why they require 95% ad-hoc fluff. My bad, they don't even wonder why, they just religiously believe they need all that ad-hoc fluff, because they fail to understand plasma physics in the slightest.

RealityCheck01 · Nov 9, 2014

Michael said:
...usual insults and delusion about electric currents being plasma snipped...

Michael's denial of science and English about MR in vacuum continues !

RealityCheck01 · Nov 9, 2014

Justatruthseeker said:
Yes, people never bother to read about plasma physics, then think they understand how it behaves.

Justatruthseeker: What is worse is people who read plasma textbooks and persist with delusions about magnetic reconnection in vacuum that looks based on ignorance about what plasma is !
Michael's denial of science and English about MR in vacuum continues ! (I will add another post about just how deluded that "electrical current is plasma" statement is).

I am rather shocked that you do not know that an electric current is not plasma, Justatruthseeker. You should know that the wires carrying electric current in your home are not plasma !

I have read a book on plasma physics, Justatruthseeker (at least the sections we are talking about). That book is called Cosmic plasma physics By Boris V. Somov. This is the English and science that Michael has denied for 3 years now:

Chapter 4. Motion of a Particle in a Field
4.4.2 Reconnection in Vacuum.
X-type points consist a topological peculiarity of a magnetic field. They are places where where redistribution of magnetic fluxes occurs, which changes the connectivity of field lines. Let us illustrate such a process by the simplest example of 2 parallel electric currents of equal magnitude I in vacuum as shown in Figure 4.17. The magnetic field of these currents forms three different fluxes in the plane (x,y). Two of them belong to the upper and the lower currents, respectively, and are situated inside the separatrix field line A, which forms the figure of the eight-like curve with zeroth X-point. The third flux belongs to both currents and is situated outside of the separatrix.

If the currents are displaced in the direction of each other, then the following magnetic flux redistribution will take place. The currents proper fluxes will diminish by the quantity dA, while their common flux will increase by the same quantity. So the field line A2 will be the separatrix of the final state.

This process is realized as follows: Two field lines approach the X-point, merge there, forming a separatrix, and then they reconnect forming a field line which encloses both currents. Such a process us termed reconnection of field lines or magnetic reconenction. A2 is that last reconnect field line.

Magnetic reconnection is of fundamental importance for the nature of many non-stationary phenomena in cosmic plasma. We shall discuss the physics of this process more fully in chapters 16 to 22. Suffice it to say that reconnection is inevitable associated with electric field generation. The field is the inductive one, since
[equation 4.65]
where A is the vector potential of magnetic field,
[equation 4.66]
In the above example, the electric field is directed along the z axis. It is clear if that if dt is the characteristic time of the reconnection process shown in Figure 4.17 then according to (4.65)
[equation 4.67]
the last equality will be justified n Section 9.2

Reconnection in vacuum is a real physical process: magnetic field lines move to the X-type neutral point and reconnect in it as well as
| the electric field is induced and can accelerate a charge particle or
| particles in the vicinity of the neutral point.

No plasma in the example - just a vacuum and two parallel, equal electric currents.
No plasma in the figure:

No plasma in the bridge to the next chapter but a mention the effect of the changing induced electric field on charge particle/particles.

Justatruthseeker, maybe you can display more understanding of Somov's example than Michael:
Please quote where Somov states that there is plasma in his example of magnetic reconnection in vacuum?

RealityCheck01 · Nov 9, 2014

Just how deluded is the statement that "electric currents are plasma", especially in the context of Somov's example of magnetic reconnection in vacuum where the magnetic fields are generated by two parallel, equal electric currents?
An electric current is not plasma!
The statement seems to be that the every electric current is a plasma but we know that to be delusional because there are also other situations where there is an electric current, i.e. in electrical wires (solids not plasma!).

The second bit of delusion for that statement is that in general plasma has no electric currents in it. There are bunches of correlated electrons and ions moving around in many directions ("collective behavior with many degrees of freedom"). Look at a surface in plasma and there will be equal and opposite charges flowing through this surface. This is at best an electric current of zero which is not Somov's example which has magnetic fields caused by two parallel, equal electric currents.

You can get macroscopic (non-zero) electric currents in plasma by applying external electromagnetic fields but that would be insane for Somov's example because he has no external electromagnetic fields.

The third bit of delusion is the simple fact that plasma is an ionized gas. If Somov's example which has magnetic fields caused by two parallel, equal electric currents has plasma in it then that plasma will expand to fill up any gaps. There will be no vacuum !

The fourth bit of delusion is the basic fact that magnetic reconnection does not happen at the two parallel, equal electric currents !

The main bit of delusion is what I have emphasized above: Somov's example has two parallel, equal electric currents. Plasma is not two parallel, equal electric currents. Nor are two parallel, equal electric currents, plasma .

Michael · Nov 10, 2014

Justatruthseeker said:
Yes, people never bother to read about plasma physics, then think they understand how it behaves. Treating it like dust and gas and wondering why they require 95% ad-hoc fluff. My bad, they don't even wonder why, they just religiously believe they need all that ad-hoc fluff, because they fail to understand plasma physics in the slightest.

Those that seem to know the absolute *least* amount MHD theory tend to be the most vocal, as well of the most verbally abusive in RC's case. It's a strange combo of ignorance, arrogance and pure aggression toward anything that rocks their world scientifically.

Michael · Nov 10, 2014

RealityCheck01 said:
Michael's denial of science and English about MR in vacuum continues !

Your ignorance simply continues. Even Priest (your own reference) clearly differentiated between a 'toy' (physically indistinguishable from magnetic flux in a vacuum), and the 'real' process of "magnetic reconnection" involved A) the introduction of plasma, and B) the *acceleration* of plasma as a result of the magnetic flux in a *conductor*, not a vacuum.

You continuously ignored Somov's *inclusion* of A) current/plasma in his vacuum and B) current/plasma displacement as a result of 'reconnection'. Without particle acceleration, it's not 'magnetic reconnection" it's a *toy/"lies to children"* version of knowledge. You wouldn't know the difference between *toy/lies to children* knowledge and *real* knowledge because you refuse to sit down and actually read a textbook on the this topic. When can we expect you to rectify that problem RC?

Somov's *entire textbook* is on the topic of MHD theory and plasma physics. It *assumes* that the reader understands that a 'current' in a 'vacuum' in the *context* of plasma physics, is of course a *form of moving plasma* inside the vacuum. The *displacement*/movement of charged particles is also *accounted for* in Somov's example. Like WIKI claims, there is both A) plasma present in the form of *current* inside his 'vacuum', and there is B) plasma particle *movement* where magnetic field energy is *converted* into something, namely *particle acceleration*.

There is no conversion of magnetic field energy into particle acceleration in your *toy/pretend* version of 'reconnection'. It's a *toy* understanding of the physics, a *lies to children* understanding of the physics.

Do yourself a favor and visit a library already. Isn't three years of arguing MHD theory from ignorance long enough?

Michael · Nov 10, 2014

RealityCheck01 said:
I am rather shocked that you do not know that an electric current is not plasma, Justatruthseeker.

He's apparently 'shocked' to learn that the *entire context* of Somov's book is "plasma physics" (not solid state physics) and that "current" in vacuum in the *context of plasma physics* is related to moving charged particles, AKA plasma. It's as if he's never read a single 'experiment' on the topic of reconnection which typically begins with two (Birkeland) "currents" plasma threads, that they move closer together during the experiment. He's basically trying to apply his poor understanding of solid state physics principles to the context of plasma physics!

The worst part is that if he actually understood solid state physics, he'd already know the proper scientific term for *very ordinary* "magnetic flux" in a vacuum.

Even his own cited reference noted the *key/critical* difference between RC's 'toy' understanding of plasma physics and a *real* one involves the *addition* of plasma to RC's *toy* understanding of the process.

Make no mistake about it, he *must* take Somov's example *out of the context of plasma physics*, and try to stuff words in his mouth by applying it to *solids*. If he doesn't take Somov's statements completely out of context, his entire argument falls apart, therefore he's stuck on his own personal denial-go-round, with his *toy* understanding of plasma physics.

Michael · Nov 10, 2014

RealityCheck01 said:
Just how deluded is the statement that "electric currents are plasma", especially in the context of Somov's example of magnetic reconnection in vacuum where the magnetic fields are generated by two parallel, equal electric currents?

It's deluded to think otherwise actually. Somov's example is in the *context* of MHD theory and *plasma physics* RC. It's not a book on solid state physics. You're *deluded* into trying to take Somov's example *out* of the context of plasmas and plasma physics. The reader is expected to have read his book and to understand the context of his example.

A "current" traversing a "vacuum" in the context of *plasma physics*, is *necessarily* a plasma particle in motion. The movement of charged particles is what *creates* the magnetic field around the "currents" in the first place!

You're delusional for intentionally taking Somov's example *out of context*. You're self deluded into thinking that you understand anything about MHD theory *without* bothering to properly educate yourself by at least reading a textbook or two on the topic. That's where your own personal delusions begin and end RC. That's why you're reduced to taking everyone's statements *out of context* and twisting them to suit yourself.

RealityCheck01 · Nov 10, 2014

Michael said:
...posts repeating the same delusions...

Some rather incoherent posts just repeating the delusion that MR in vacuum includes plasma, Michael.

The idiocy of thinking that I cannot read is obvious. Somov's textbook is on plasma physics. I cited the title three years ago when you first stated this delusion about his reconnection in vacuum example containing plasma.

Demanding that textbooks on plasma physics never mention vacuum is inane, especially since Somov's textbook has a section on magnetic reconnection in vacuum.

Message from the Dawn of time...

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Contributor

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency