| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Energy - Hydrogen Forum » High-frequency electrolyzers
Page 2 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Eeyore |
 Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Willie.Mookie@gmail.com wrote:
Quote: Eeyore wrote:
Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, Graham I couldn't have stated better my reasons for disregarding
your reports of 3 fold improvements in NiMH batteries... haha..
My batteries actually exist.http://www.en.varta-consumer.com/content.php?path=/1515_1138618221.ht...
And Sony has a 15 minute recharge version !http://products.sel.sony.com/battery/nimh_charger.php
And the latest improvement is low self-dischargehttp://www.vapextech.com.hk/instant.htmlhttp://products.sel.sony.com/battery/cycle_energy.php
70-85% of stored capacity available after one year of inactivity.
I would like to see a peer reviewed article discussing the chemistry
and mechanisms involved and see laboratory test results, rather than
promotional literature misquoted on usenet.
You're suggesting that world-reknowned brands Varta and Sony are lying about the capacity of their batteries ?
Your obession with academia is retarded. My experience is thast academics mostly don't even know left from right or up from down and usually live
many decades in the past.
Go buy a 2700mAh AA from Varta and test it if you don't believe their claims. That's more meaningful than any damn 'peer-reviewed paper' written by
a bunch of fuckwits.
Graham |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Robert Adsett |
| Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 10:11 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <1181306147.880719.176660@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
says...
Quote: On Jun 7, 8:20 pm, Robert Adsett <s...@aeolusdevelopment.com> wrote:
In article <1181259760.318128.268...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
says...
But my variable load electrolyzers are 85% efficient in the
electrolysis step. Proton Exchange Membranes (PEM) can be even more
efficient (single step) but not by much - but the costs are
tremendously high. The advantage of PEM is that you can go either way
with fair efficiency - 80% electricity to hydrogen to electricity -
under ideal condtions -but these fall off rapidly in less ideal
conditions..
Where do you get a > 80% efficient PEM cell?
http://waterfuelcell.org/WFCprojects/Tero/series_cell_v1.2.pdf
Well it's not PEM, it's not > 80% efficient (and I don't trust the
figures they do give). Giving a link to a site promoting > 100%
efficient electrolysis is a VERY bad start. It's also not commercially
available which would seem to be a minimum requirement to meet your
claims(1).
The link does give a rather, um, interesting approach. They split water
and place the results into a single container. Yes, hydrogen and oxygen
together, the mind boggles.
(1) It's worth emphasizing that to meet your claim you need to have a
cell that provides on the order of 90% efficient in each direction to
get that 80% round trip figure.
Robert
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 2:56 am |
|
|
|
|
On Jun 8, 9:34 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Quote: Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, Graham I couldn't have stated better my reasons for disregarding
your reports of 3 fold improvements in NiMH batteries... haha..
My batteries actually exist.http://www.en.varta-consumer.com/content.php?path=/1515_1138618221.ht...
And Sony has a 15 minute recharge version !http://products.sel.sony.com/battery/nimh_charger.php
And the latest improvement is low self-dischargehttp://www.vapextech.com.hk/instant.htmlhttp://products.sel.sony.com/...
70-85% of stored capacity available after one year of inactivity.
I would like to see a peer reviewed article discussing the chemistry
and mechanisms involved and see laboratory test results, rather than
promotional literature misquoted on usenet.
You're suggesting that world-reknowned brands Varta and Sony are lying about the capacity of their batteries ?
I am suggesting that any real progress would be reported in the
literature and that any claims of progress should be backed by
references to that literature - as I routinely provide you regarding
my comments.
Quote: Your obession with academia is retarded.
Spoken as the true idiot you are.
Quote: My experience is thast academics mostly don't even know left from right or up
from down and usually live many decades in the past.
Because they don't agree with your 'conclusions' right? haha..
Quote: Go buy a 2700mAh AA from Varta and test it if you don't believe their claims.
That's more meaningful than any damn 'peer-reviewed paper' written by
a bunch of fuckwits.
So, that would be a no, I don't have any peer reviewed papers in the
literature to back up my claims of a 3 fold increase in power to
weight for NiMH batteries. Got it! haha. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 3:07 am |
|
|
|
|
On Jun 8, 11:11 pm, Robert Adsett <s...@aeolusdevelopment.com> wrote:
Quote: In article <1181306147.880719.176...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
says...
On Jun 7, 8:20 pm, Robert Adsett <s...@aeolusdevelopment.com> wrote:
In article <1181259760.318128.268...@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
says...
But my variable load electrolyzers are 85% efficient in the
electrolysis step. Proton Exchange Membranes (PEM) can be even more
efficient (single step) but not by much - but the costs are
tremendously high. The advantage of PEM is that you can go either way
with fair efficiency - 80% electricity to hydrogen to electricity -
under ideal condtions -but these fall off rapidly in less ideal
conditions..
Where do you get a > 80% efficient PEM cell?
http://waterfuelcell.org/WFCprojects/Tero/series_cell_v1.2.pdf
Well it's not PEM,
That's true its just plain old stainless steel My understanding is
that for very sound fundamental reasons PEM is far more efficient than
plain old stainless steel. If you can show plain old stainless is
more efficient than PEM I'd like to see it.
Quote: it's not > 80% efficient
Yes it is. Its over 80% efficient electrolyzer and it talks about why
the shape of the power is important - it quite specifically talks
about actually building stuff and explains things in gory detail -
specifically answering the original poster's questions and supporting
nearly everything I said in response to it.
Quote: (and I don't trust the
figures they do give).
Why is that exactly? They go into detail relating the volume of gas
at STP to precise measurement of power they give. They lay everything
out in a lot of detail. What details did they get wrong?
Quote: Giving a link to a site promoting > 100%
efficient electrolysis is a VERY bad start.
First off, I didn't say anything about the site, I referenced the
paper which was quite detailed. Please show me where anyone said
anything about >100% efficiency. They didn't. They spoke of APPARENT
Quote: 100% efficiency due to volume changes because they were not at STP
conditions. They explained why some people sometimes make such claims
and were careful to show how such bogus results are sometimes arrived
at. That you believe that means they are making claims of >100%
efficiency indicates to me you either didn't read the paper with
understanding, or understand the paper perfectly well, but have your
own agenda going on. In either case, you are wrong in your statement
here.
Fact is, the paper gives a detailed step by step process whereby
anyone can electrolyze water into oxygen and hydrogen and do so in a
way that allows them to accurately estimate efficiencies by measuring
power consumed on the one hand, and measuring volumes of gas on the
other, adjusting for temperature and pressure.
They also ran a small engine intermittently only oxygen and hydrogen
which I thought was rather instructive as well.
Quote: It's also not commercially
available which would seem to be a minimum requirement to meet your
claims(1).
??? Since when was it impossible for a company to manufacture
stainless steel products ??? And what does this have to do with
efficiency claims ???
Quote: The link does give a rather, um, interesting approach. They split water
and place the results into a single container. Yes, hydrogen and oxygen
together, the mind boggles.
This does not invalidate their response. The bottom line you have
said nothing that invalidates my comment that quite inexpensive
electrolyzers can be built that are highly efficient.
Quote:
(1) It's worth emphasizing that to meet your claim you need to have a
cell that provides on the order of 90% efficient in each direction to
get that 80% round trip figure.
Robert
--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text - |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Eeyore |
| Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 4:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Willie.Mookie@gmail.com wrote:
Quote: Eeyore wrote:
You're suggesting that world-reknowned brands Varta and Sony are lying > about the capacity of their batteries ?
I am suggesting that any real progress would be reported in the
literature
Whose literature ? Have you never heard of commercial secrecy ?
Quote: and that any claims of progress should be backed by
references to that literature - as I routinely provide you regarding
my comments.
So, it can't exist unless a bunch of out-of-touch, superannuated, waste-of-space academics agrees it can ?
God, you're stupid !
Graham |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Eeyore |
| Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 4:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Willie.Mookie@gmail.com wrote:
Quote: Eeyore wrote:
Go buy a 2700mAh AA from Varta and test it if you don't believe their claims.
That's more meaningful than any damn 'peer-reviewed paper' written by
a bunch of fuckwits.
So, that would be a no,
Because you think it's cleverer to deny reality ? Your blinkered outlook is truly amazing. You 'believe' only in what you want to
believe.
Ever heard of Canute btw ?
Graham |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Eeyore |
| Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 4:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Willie.Mookie@gmail.com wrote:
Quote: I don't have any peer reviewed papers in the literature to back up my claims of a 3 fold increase in power to weight for NiMH
batteries. Got it! haha.
Yes, I can see you're a Grade A loonie.
Graham |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Eeyore |
| Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 4:39 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Willie.Mookie@gmail.com wrote:
It's not a PEM (a.k.a fuel cell) you utter fuckwit. It's an electrolyser. A completely
and utterly different thing altogether.
You're quite insane aren't you Mook ?
To the other poster, I understand that PEM fuel cells have not shown efficiency >
50%.
The other big problem with fuel cells it that it takes time for them to 'ramp up to
power'. You can't just draw power out of them willy-nilly 'on demand'. They have to be
'primed' if you like, with additional losses.
Graham |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 8:41 am |
|
|
|
|
On Jun 9, 5:32 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Quote: Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
You're suggesting that world-reknowned brands Varta and Sony are lying > about the capacity of their batteries ?
I am suggesting that any real progress would be reported in the
literature
Whose literature ? Have you never heard of commercial secrecy ?
Improvements as fundamental as the type you are suggesting would be
haralded in the literature. Obviously you don't read that literature
so you are unaware how that works, and how secrecy is maintained.
haha.. 3M for example promoted its giant birefringent optics through
the professional literature while maintaining tight control of the
core technology. I am certain any fundamental improvement in battery
technology would be treated comparably, if it exists.
Quote: and that any claims of progress should be backed by
references to that literature - as I routinely provide you regarding
my comments.
So, it can't exist unless a bunch of out-of-touch, superannuated, waste-of-space academics agrees it can ?
Pretty much. if by 'out-of-touch, superannuated,waste-of-space
academics' you mean folks who know what the hell is going on. yeah.
Quote:
God, you're stupid !
I now you are but what am I?
> Graham |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 8:45 am |
|
|
|
|
On Jun 9, 5:34 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Quote: Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Go buy a 2700mAh AA from Varta and test it if you don't believe their claims.
That's more meaningful than any damn 'peer-reviewed paper' written by
a bunch of fuckwits.
So, that would be a no,
Because you think it's cleverer to deny reality ?
Reality is what I'm asking for.
Quote: Your blinkered outlook is truly amazing.
Yeah,asking for pointers to literature that discuss a claim of
fundamental improvement in bonding energy of an electrochemical
reaction is pretty conservative, I'll admit it.
Quote: You 'believe' only in what you want to
believe.
No, that would be you Graham. I asked for evidence. You don't have
it and are calling me names because you want to believe what you want
to believe despite the lack of evidence supporting it.
Quote: Ever heard of Canute btw ?
Yes I have. And you're behaving just like him! haha.. I'm merely
asking for a pointer to some quality literature describing the
increases you're claiming. You're the one asserrting without any
evidence whatever huge increases in bonding energies. I'm asking for
data. You are making bold claims without data. So, put in the
context of the story here, I would ask, how far is the ocean from your
feet? Are you feeling water yet? And you would be the one saying, I
don't need to look at my stinkin' feet, or the water, I *KNOW* its
receding because I said so!
AHAHAHAHA...
> Graham |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 9:34 am |
|
|
|
|
On Jun 9, 5:39 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Quote: Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
Robert Adsettwrote:
....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Adsett wrote:
Where do you get a > 80% efficient PEM cell?
http://waterfuelcell.org/WFCprojects/Tero/series_cell_v1.2.pdf
Well it's not PEM,
That's true its just plain old stainless steel My understanding is
that for very sound fundamental reasons PEM is far more efficient than
plain old stainless steel. If you can show plain old stainless is
more efficient than PEM I'd like to see it.
It's not a PEM (a.k.a fuel cell) you utter fuckwit.
That's right. Its an electrolyzer AS I SAID! Now, Graham, I said
something quite plainly - and you responded in appropriately - that
would make YOU the fuckwit now woudln't it? Yes, I knew you could
understand that.
Quote: It's an electrolyser. A completely
and utterly different thing altogether.
You're making progress my boy. You are understanding a little here.
But you know, Proton Exchange Membranes - what the acronym PEM stands
for, actually can be used as electrolyzers TOO! Yeah, that's right.
And you know what Graham, because they potentiate the reaction you're
promoting with the electric field? You know what? They're MORE
effiicient than just water and steel. So, THAT's why I asked why he
wanted to see PEM data when the non-PEM data showed very high
efficiencies anyway? AND BESIDES - his question was stupid in the
context of what the original statement was anyway. He's lucky I
answered it at all. But here you go, going off on irrelevant tangents
just so you can call me names.
Quote: You're quite insane aren't you Mook ?
See? haha.. You really oughta see a therapist Graham. The way I see
it buddy, is that you can't understand half of what you read here, and
then you blame the people who write the stuff for your stupidity.
Yeah. And really that's not working out to well for you is it? No,
it isn't. And it never will. So, I'd suggest you actually try to
read with a little more comprehension and understanding and open mind
before saying stuff like you just said. Just some friendly advice
from a man who cares about you.
Quote: To the other poster, I understand that PEM fuel cells have not shown efficiency
50%.
Depends on the details.
Quote: The other big problem with fuel cells it that it takes time for them to 'ramp up to
power'. You can't just draw power out of them willy-nilly 'on demand'. They have
to be
'primed' if you like, with additional losses.
Depends on the details. But see Graham, the original question along
with the my response to it, and my response here, was about
electrolyzers. Now, here you are talking about fuel cells. FUEL
CELLS! And blaming me because I'm NOT talking about fuel cells.
YOU'RE THE ONE WHO DOESN'T UNDERSTAND old salt. So, I'd suggest that
you relax.
Stainless steel high voltage multi-celled electrolyzers can easily be
run with greater than 85% efficiency with solar panels to produce
oxygen and hydrogen gas from sunlight - and at very good capital
efficiency.
Checkit out.
At costs of $20 per kW of peak demand I have a simple variable load
electrolyzer that is 85% efficient and makes a ton of hydrogen for
every 50 GWh input into it. Connected with $70 per kW peak power
solar panels this system makes hydrogen for less than $170 per metric
ton in most sunny locations.
High pressure hydrogen gas produced at these sunny locations can be
transmitted at greater than 1 GW power levels through quite modest
high pressure pipes anywhere in the continental US for less than $100
per metric ton wheeling costs.
A ton of hydrogen displaces 23.2 barrels of oil and avoids the release
of 9.9 tons of carbon dioxide. At $68 per barrel and $18 per ton of
avoided carbon dioxide a ton of hydrogen is worth over $1,900
A ton of hydrogen displaces 134 mcf of natural gas and avoids the
release of over 7 tons of CO2 when used in place of natural gas. At
$8 per mcf and $18 per avoided ton of CO2 - a ton of hydrogen is worth
over $1,200
A ton of hydrogen displaces 6.17 tons of coal and avoids the release
of over 22.6 tons of CO2 when used in place of coal. At $40 per ton
for coal and $18 per avoided ton of CO2 this hydrogen is worth over
$600
The stranded coal can be converted to 1,817 gallons of gasoline with
the addition of 772 kg of hydrogen. At $3 per gallon this is worth
$5,451. - making the hydrogen worth over $7,000 - in this
application.
So, there is no reason with my technology that the United States
cannot come to dominate the energy supplies of the world by making a
commitment to hydrogen.
All users of coal and natural gas can easily use hydrogen produced at
low cost from sunlight Stranded coal is easily converted to gasoline
by adding more hydrogen to it.
Surplus gasoline is shipped over seas along with liquified natural gas
unused here. Hydrogen ultimately will be liquified too and shipped to
users overseas replacing the older hydrocarbon fuels..
And this approach gives us time to take control and keep it.
The US has 245 tons of easily recoverable coal reserves. This is
sufficient to provide 1,715 barrels of gasoline - more than double the
amount of hydrocarbons presently left in the world today - and enough
to supply the coming shortfall for over 50 years as older oil fields
all enter secondary production.
The world presently consumes 82 million barrels per day of liquid
fuels. By 2025 demand will grow to 115 million barrels per day - if
supply is unconstrained. However experts say by that time the
world's major petroleum fields will have all entered secondary
production, and by that time they will be producing around 45 million
barrels per day. Where will the 70 million barrels per day shortfall
come from? Chevron says it will come from alternatives and renewables
(Scientific American Page 1, June 2007) And those renewables are my
hydrogen and American Coal!!!
In 2025 that 70 million barrels of extra American oil per day means 10
million tons per day of American coal. And 1 million tons per day of
American hydrogen from 9 million tons of American water.
That will require 50 million MWh of solar electricity generated from
American sunlight. Which in turn requires the installation of 8.3
million million peak watts of solar panels at a cost of $750
billion.
Profits of $50 per barrel mean that $3.5 billion in profits each day
are earned. It also means that $1,278.3 billion in profits will be
earned EACH YEAR meaning each dollar invested in the equipment will
return over $17 !!! Clearly this is financially rewarding for
America. It amounts to over 10% of US GDP. Obviously making America
dominant in energy will strengthen out economy and give us direct
control of world affairs without resorting to military or intelligence
operations.
Does America have that kind of money? ABSOLUTELY. The US stock
market bubble of the 1990s burst in 2000 - and $3,000 BILLION
evaporated OVERNIGHT! And America was able to absorb that loss with
little effect. And in the past five years, America has earned all
that back and THEN SOME! So, clearly America has the capacity to
invest $750 billion over the next 15 years for something as important
and valuable as this - AND ELECTROLYZERS FORM A CRITICAL COMPONENT.
How long can America continue shipping oil at this rate? For over 50
years. But the other important thing to keep in mind, is that
despite the large-scale production of oil from coal and renewable
hydrogen (with zero emissions) - the renewable hydrogen can be used in
its own right.once people begin using it efficiently on a massive
scale.
Does American have enough land? Well, 8.3 million million watts of
electrical power using my low cost panels requires the installation of
12 million acres of solar panels. I am already organizing over 5
million acres in North America from private holders (all 3 of them!)
and looking for more.
Can we make that many panels? Sure, I'm organizing production now
that will generate over 200 million panels a year each 4' x 8 in
area. Even so, to cover 12 million acres in 7 years will require the
creation of 14 plants of this size - this is something that's
achievable over the next 7 years - allowing us to meet this production
target in 14 years from today - 2021.
We can do it America, dominate the world's energy supplies with US
water, coal and sunlight - and most importantly US technology. Doing
so will do little to undermine the value of present day oil companies
or their reserves, because they can't meet rising demand anyway and
everyone having enough actually promotes open markets, transparency,
and market sanity. Shortages and fear lead to disruptions of supply
and war. Its clear what must be done. And I have the technology to
do it.
And simple stainless steel electrolyzers are part of it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 9:45 am |
|
|
|
|
THE PARAGRAPH ABOVE THAT SAYS
The US has 245 tons of easily recoverable coal reserves. This is
sufficient to provide 1,715 barrels of gasoline - more than double
the
amount of hydrocarbons presently left in the world today - and enough
to supply the coming shortfall for over 50 years as older oil fields
all enter secondary production.
SHOULD SAY
The US has 245 billion tons of easily recoverable coal reserves. This
is
sufficient to provide 1,715 billion barrels of gasoline - more than
double the
amount of hydrocarbons presently left in the world today - and enough
to supply the coming shortfall for over 50 years as older oil fields
all enter secondary production.
AN INTERESTING POINT
The word 'billion' in this paragraph was there before I pressed [send]
button. I don't know what happened to it. But I am just saying without
any judgement whatever, the word 'billion was there before I pressed
[send] How do I know this? I copied it from a word processor and
pasted it in this window. And the word is THERE! haha..
So, there ya go.
Should someone start a site dedicated to usenet consistency? Just a
thought.
But I digress - which is the point perhaps.
Cheers
Bill |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Eeyore |
| Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 10:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Willie.Mookie@gmail.com wrote:
Quote: Eeyore wrote:
Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
You're suggesting that world-reknowned brands Varta and Sony are lying > about the capacity of their batteries ?
I am suggesting that any real progress would be reported in the
literature
Whose literature ? Have you never heard of commercial secrecy ?
Improvements as fundamental as the type you are suggesting would be
haralded in the literature.
They didn't bother with 'the literature'. They just got on and DID IT !
Only halfwits like you demand involving ivory tower, superannuated, brain-dead out-of-touch, academic know-nothing
fuckwits in everything.
Does that mean the product doesn't exist in your mind ?
Are you going to continue to *disbelieve* in 2700mAh NiMH AA cells ?
Graham |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Eeyore |
| Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 10:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Willie.Mookie@gmail.com wrote:
Quote: Eeyore wrote:
Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Go buy a 2700mAh AA from Varta and test it if you don't believe their
claims. That's more meaningful than any damn 'peer-reviewed paper' > > > written by a
bunch of fuckwits.
So, that would be a no,
Because you think it's cleverer to deny reality ?
Reality is what I'm asking for.
Reality is the 2700mAh NiMH AA cell.
Quote: Your blinkered outlook is truly amazing.
Yeah,asking for pointers to literature that discuss a claim of
fundamental improvement in bonding energy of an electrochemical
reaction is pretty conservative, I'll admit it.
Buying the product is too much of a step too close to the real world for you ?
Graham |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Eeyore |
| Posted: Sat Jun 09, 2007 10:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Willie.Mookie@gmail.com wrote:
Quote: Eeyore wrote:
Your blinkered outlook is truly amazing.
Yeah,asking for pointers to literature that discuss a claim of
fundamental improvement in bonding energy of an electrochemical
reaction is pretty conservative, I'll admit it.
Why would Varta want to give away their trade secrets ?
Quote: You 'believe' only in what you want to believe.
No, that would be you Graham. I asked for evidence.
The evidence is in the High Street you damn idiot - where you can BUY ONE ! How much
more 'evidence' do you need ?
Graham |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 2 of 5 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:47 am
|
|