Fuel Savings from Roadbed Electrification Pays for the Power

On Jun 1, 5:30 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:
On Jun 1, 4:45 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:
On Jun 1, 3:30 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

A snow plow can be adapted to keep the conductor exposed.

An actual slot like the toy probably won't be the best way to go.
Tracking or steering will be similar to speed cruise control with the
road bed conductors only recessed enough so that they will be
difficult to short out during a roll over accident.

How do you plow water?

Before proposing a new system, it would behoove you to look at existing
systems.

Existing electrified roadways run in the kilovolt range.

There is no way such a system can possibly work exposed to the elements,
which is why all existing electrified roadways are either in tunnels
or elevated to keep them out of the water.

Not that Bret's idea makes any sense, but what exactly are you talking
about here? You can easily have a 'third rail' system where the
conductor is elevated slightly to deal with surface water---you've
apparently never seen the water in the NYC subway tunnels.

Bret is talking about electrifying existing roads.

How do you change lanes with a elevated rails in the road?

Even if you put period breaks in the elevated rails to allow lane changes,
what happens when someone screws up and hits the start of an elevated
rail at 65 MPH?

Did you see the part where I said Bret's idea makes no sense?

Since this is all silly tech speculation anyway, I was just pointing
out that something *could* be done along those lines.  You could also
use stretches of road as moving recharge areas, with no lane changes.
You get into the left lane, your blades engage the third rail, and you
are on autopilot for 60 miles while your battery gets topped up. Then
go back to the regular traffic.  There wouldn't be a 'start' of the
third rail to run into.

It seems we are going around in circles.

If the third rail isn't elevated, how do you keep it out of the water?

If he third rail is elevated, how do you not have a 'start' to it?

OK, I would rather talk about something realistic but: The 'start' of
the third rail is before the first on-ramp. Visualize something like a
Jersey barrier on the left side of the road. Your car has blades that
can be extended sideways to engage with a conductor track embedded in
the barrier. There is a buried continuous conductor in parallel with
the elevated contact track, so that a break in that track (result of a
big sideways crash) doesn't disable the system. (Small sideways
crashes get absorbed by the barrier, but they don't happen anyway
because you go on autopilot as soon as you move into that lane,)

Since we're fantasizing, this road has four lanes each way. The three
right lanes are normal traffic, but if your battery is getting low,
you pull into the left lane, extend your blades, and get a charge for
some length of roadway. Everything in the other three lanes is normal,
with lane changes and exits and so on.

What's the problem?

-tg

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

In sci.physics tgdenning@earthlink.net wrote:

On Jun 1, 5:30 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:
On Jun 1, 4:45 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics tgdenn...@earthlink.net wrote:
On Jun 1, 3:30 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

A snow plow can be adapted to keep the conductor exposed.

An actual slot like the toy probably won't be the best way to go.
Tracking or steering will be similar to speed cruise control with the
road bed conductors only recessed enough so that they will be
difficult to short out during a roll over accident.

How do you plow water?

Before proposing a new system, it would behoove you to look at existing
systems.

Existing electrified roadways run in the kilovolt range.

There is no way such a system can possibly work exposed to the elements,
which is why all existing electrified roadways are either in tunnels
or elevated to keep them out of the water.

Not that Bret's idea makes any sense, but what exactly are you talking
about here? You can easily have a 'third rail' system where the
conductor is elevated slightly to deal with surface water---you've
apparently never seen the water in the NYC subway tunnels.

Bret is talking about electrifying existing roads.

How do you change lanes with a elevated rails in the road?

Even if you put period breaks in the elevated rails to allow lane changes,
what happens when someone screws up and hits the start of an elevated
rail at 65 MPH?

Did you see the part where I said Bret's idea makes no sense?

Since this is all silly tech speculation anyway, I was just pointing
out that something *could* be done along those lines.  You could also
use stretches of road as moving recharge areas, with no lane changes.
You get into the left lane, your blades engage the third rail, and you
are on autopilot for 60 miles while your battery gets topped up. Then
go back to the regular traffic.  There wouldn't be a 'start' of the
third rail to run into.

It seems we are going around in circles.

If the third rail isn't elevated, how do you keep it out of the water?

If he third rail is elevated, how do you not have a 'start' to it?


OK, I would rather talk about something realistic but: The 'start' of
the third rail is before the first on-ramp. Visualize something like a
Jersey barrier on the left side of the road. Your car has blades that
can be extended sideways to engage with a conductor track embedded in
the barrier. There is a buried continuous conductor in parallel with
the elevated contact track, so that a break in that track (result of a
big sideways crash) doesn't disable the system. (Small sideways
crashes get absorbed by the barrier, but they don't happen anyway
because you go on autopilot as soon as you move into that lane,)

Since we're fantasizing, this road has four lanes each way. The three
right lanes are normal traffic, but if your battery is getting low,
you pull into the left lane, extend your blades, and get a charge for
some length of roadway. Everything in the other three lanes is normal,
with lane changes and exits and so on.

What's the problem?

In the real world, so many I don't know where to start...

In a fantasy world, Tinker Bell's pixie dust is a more elegant solution.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

On Jun 1, 5:50 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:

A snow plow can be adapted to keep the conductor exposed.

An actual slot like the toy probably won't be the best way to go.
Tracking or steering will be similar to speed cruise control with the
road bed conductors only recessed enough so that they will be
difficult to short out during a roll over accident.

How do you plow water?

Before proposing a new system, it would behoove you to look at existing
systems.

Existing electrified roadways run in the kilovolt range.

There is no way such a system can possibly work exposed to the elements,
which is why all existing electrified roadways are either in tunnels
or elevated to keep them out of the water.

Not that Bret's idea makes any sense, but what exactly are you talking
about here? You can easily have a 'third rail' system where the
conductor is elevated slightly to deal with surface water---you've
apparently never seen the water in the NYC subway tunnels.

Very bumpy when you switch lanes.

I also don't think they run on kilovolts, but I can't remember and
don't really care.
I will once again pitch wheelmotor platforms as the way out for
elecric/hybrid vehicles.

Way out of what?

Your incessant whining about the cost of batteries. You're not the
only one, of course, but easy to pick on...

-tg

Bret Cahill

 

[krw]

On Mon, 1 Jun 2009 13:32:15 -0700 (PDT), tgdenning@earthlink.net
wrote:

On Jun 1, 3:38 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
If the cost of a power plant is $4/watt then the cost of the power
plant/mile is $8 million.

In other words, the fuel savings from electrification would pay for
the capital cost of the power plants in 2 1/2 years.

What is the cost to run power conductors in the roads, and to re-work
all cars to be electric? I'm not saying it is a bad idea; had we gone
with electric cars from the beginning, this would be an excellent idea.
But it sounds like a lot of re-work and the analysis isn't complete.

It might work in a small community. Zermatt in Switzerland banned
internal combustion engine vehicles (except for some special vehicles
like fire engines) about 20 years ago, both to reduce air pollution
(important in this tourist town) and because of the very narrow streets.
Almost all vehicle trffic is electric, running off batteries. It would
be much greener to have no batteries at all and run everything directly
off the grid.

I once considered an electric car conversion, because electricity is
cheaper than gasoline. The batteries are the killer. Cost of batteries
per mile is about the same as gasoline per mile. That pushed the
advantage to the gasoline powered car.

If you could dispose of the batteries, it would be no contest: electric
cars would be the way to go.

I usually chime in on Bret's ramblings on this issue but why not try
with some new blood... If you build a car using wheelmotors, the
lifetime cost would probably be cheaper, including batteries.

There's a minor issue about sprung weight but in general, all the
significant waste of energy has been eliminated.

Tweaking 3% here and 2% there won't save the day when oil is going up
100% a year.

Sooner or later transportation will power off the grid, either with
some kind of energy storage or directly.

For some
reason, there is a fixation on the traditional drivetrain,

Retooling an auto line costs billions.

Chump change these days. But that's not the issue; it is the profit
model that relies on proprietary design. Anyone can make wheelmotors
that will fit on any platform. Anyone can write control software.

See: "unsprung weight"

 

[Bret Cahill]

I get it now. Usenet is a game where suckers come in and offer an
idea, and the regular users try and think of every stupid reason in
the world it is impossible and to belittle anyone who actually SAYS
anything.

I see you've not studied science either.

I see you're wrong.

My observation is that a bunch of people with weak egos come here to
insult people, throwing every petty and slightest objection at them as
if it was a law of physics.

Like the claim that snow makes electric cars on electrified roads
impossible. I still see the electric buses moving down Seattle streets
when it snows, so that is obviously not true. But the people making the
objections never have to PROVE their statements, so it is no problem to
them if they are completely wrong, and they go away feeling oh so
superior.

� �Those are powered by overhead canenary lines, not high voltage rails
embedded into the roadway.

The goal was to run electric cars without batteries. It's been done with
electric buses, electric trains and subways for a century. It is amazing
to find so many people think it is impossible.

That's nothing. One dunce on sci.electronics.basics was adamant that
circular furrows were impossible. That one was so jaw dropping
moronic you wonder, "where did he get _that_ prejudice from?" He
recanted when circular farming was in fact a common practice only to
blunder on thinking the word "huge" would fit somewhere in a
spreadsheet.

Then he suggested adiabatic engine systems might have difficulty
scaling up, thereby revealing he was 100% clueless about thermo, a
subject that is required for EE at every accredited university.

Finally the dunce claimed he had a "money making patent" probably the
dumbest bluster possible, although he might surprise everyone and come
up with something to make himself look even more moronic.

That dunce posts under the name "John Fields."

� �Don't go a way mad. �Oh, too late, here they are with your straight
jacket. �Just go away, and don't bother to write..

How's that defamation suit coming? I'll pay court costs if ya want.

You know how it works. If you make idle threats about defamation
suits and then don't follow through with a _real_ legal action, then
everyone will know you are a fraud.

Which proves that you're just another damaged ego on the usenet, looking
to validate your worthless life by proving your superiority by flaming
people.

An acquaintence of mine without my permission or any prior knowledge
googled my name and saw the sci.electronics.basics dunces in action.

He said they were "nobodies trying to be somebody."

I came here to look for people for my website, and came for the same
reason I go to the zoo and watch the monkeys. They're so... almost human
like.

Zoo monkeys are are little brighter than our dunces.


Bret Cahill

 

[krw]

On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 18:30:01 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

<snip>

Does the word "winter" mean anything to you?

Does the term "snow plow" mean anything to you?

How do you plow water?

The twit obviously hasn't even seen a snow plow.

Do the phrases "short circuit" and "electrolysis corrosion" mean anything
to you?

Not to worry, though. With all the losses, snow won't stay around
long.

 

[krw]

On Sun, 31 May 2009 19:04:59 -0500, Marvin the Martian
<marvin@ontomars.org> wrote:

On Sun, 31 May 2009 18:51:54 -0500, krw wrote:

On Sun, 31 May 2009 18:46:00 -0500, Marvin the Martian
marvin@ontomars.org> wrote:


I get it now. Usenet is a game where suckers come in and offer an idea,
and the regular users try and think of every stupid reason in the world
it is impossible and to belittle anyone who actually SAYS anything.

I see you've not studied science either.

I see you're wrong.

No, you've demonstrated that you've never touched a science book.

My observation is that a bunch of people with weak egos come here to
insult people, throwing every petty and slightest objection at them as if
it was a law of physics.

....nor psychology.

Like the claim that snow makes electric cars on electrified roads
impossible.

As comrade Cahill proposed, certainly.

I still see the electric buses moving down Seattle streets
when it snows, so that is obviously not true. But the people making the
objections never have to PROVE their statements, so it is no problem to
them if they are completely wrong, and they go away feeling oh so
superior.

Busses <> cars.

Enough!

Ok, you've yelled "uncle". You can leave now.

 

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

A snow plow can be adapted to keep the conductor exposed.

An actual slot like the toy probably won't be the best way to go.
Tracking or steering will be similar to speed cruise control with the
road bed conductors only recessed enough so that they will be
difficult to short out during a roll over accident.

How do you plow water?

The issue was snow.

The issue was NEVER snow.

The issue was, and is, moisture of any kind shorting out a kilovolt system.

<snip nonsense>


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Bret Cahill]

Electric vehicles work in the real world in one of two ways:

Through overhead wires where they are open to the elements.

The wires wouldn't have to be overhead exactly though...

I'm thinking of a system where the "wire", rather more like a skid
plate, is along one side of interstate highways (say the right side for
sake of example.)

It would have to be high enough not to fry DWIs. The height is what
makes overhead line electrification so ugly. Take a gander at the
electric train lines in the NE. Nowdays aesthetes even whine about
windmills! Back in Netherlands windmills are a _tourist_ attraction.

Why not suspend the wire inside of a well drained pipe _under_ the
road?

That would have all the advantages of overhead wires yet it wouldn't
be a uggy as Marcus Hook.

Cars in the right hand lane could hook up to the grid

And charge up.

while in motion, cars in the left lane would run on battery power.

And charge down. A Feb. patent application is based on periodic
charging from the roadbed.

If there is any speed restriction due to the physical connection, that
would be handled naturally since the right lane is the "slow" lane
anyway. Cars that are off the interstate system would use their
batteries and plug in when parked.

Hybrid electric is the way to go. The goal isn't elimination of all
liquid fuel, just reducing it drastically enough so bio diesel can
take over.

There are plenty of technical issues that would still need to be
overcome, (including installing trolly poles on a 4,000 kg vehicle
without destabilizing it,) but if electric cars were ubiquitous, there
would be plenty of incentive to overcome them.

Trillions is available for innovation.

I think Bret's idea has some merit, but starting with the most
experimental part of the system is a recipe for failure IMHO. First get
us in a situation where every town is swarming with electric cars that
want to travel longer distances...

Few will buy a car that won't go longer distances.

To get started gummint needs to first electrify some well selected
freeways and then offer unmetered electric power for non commercial
vehicles, at least for the first 2 decades..

Any mohead can drop an electric motor into any chassis and drive for
free.

The auto companies can focus on the chassis, suspension, steering and
upholstery but they need to KTFWF the drive train.


Bret Cahill

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

tgdenning@earthlink.net wrote:

Chump change these days. But that's not the issue; it is the profit
model that relies on proprietary design. Anyone can make wheelmotors
that will fit on any platform. Anyone can write control software.

-tg

Really? Then show us the ones you sell, and the source code for the
control software you wrote.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

krw wrote:

On Mon, 01 Jun 2009 18:30:01 GMT, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

snip

Does the word "winter" mean anything to you?

Does the term "snow plow" mean anything to you?

How do you plow water?

The twit obviously hasn't even seen a snow plow.

Do the phrases "short circuit" and "electrolysis corrosion" mean anything
to you?

Not to worry, though. With all the losses, snow won't stay around
long.

Too bad the idiot troll doesn't leave, too.


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

tgdenning@earthlink.net wrote:

OK, I would rather talk about something realistic but: The 'start' of
the third rail is before the first on-ramp. Visualize something like a
Jersey barrier on the left side of the road. Your car has blades that
can be extended sideways to engage with a conductor track embedded in
the barrier. There is a buried continuous conductor in parallel with
the elevated contact track, so that a break in that track (result of a
big sideways crash) doesn't disable the system. (Small sideways
crashes get absorbed by the barrier, but they don't happen anyway
because you go on autopilot as soon as you move into that lane,)

Since we're fantasizing, this road has four lanes each way. The three
right lanes are normal traffic, but if your battery is getting low,
you pull into the left lane, extend your blades, and get a charge for
some length of roadway. Everything in the other three lanes is normal,
with lane changes and exits and so on.

What's the problem?

How about highways with exits on both sides of the hroadway?


--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

 

In sci.physics Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

In the real world, so many I don't know where to start...

You need to become a can do _problem solver_.

I've been solving real problems in the real world using real science
and real engineering for about 40 years now.

I have little patience for kooks who think arm waving and babble will solve
anything.

Hell, you can't even define the problem without drooling nonsense, much
less solve it.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

In sci.physics Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

tgdenning@earthlink.net wrote:

OK, I would rather talk about something realistic but: The 'start' of
the third rail is before the first on-ramp. Visualize something like a
Jersey barrier on the left side of the road. Your car has blades that
can be extended sideways to engage with a conductor track embedded in
the barrier. There is a buried continuous conductor in parallel with
the elevated contact track, so that a break in that track (result of a
big sideways crash) doesn't disable the system. (Small sideways
crashes get absorbed by the barrier, but they don't happen anyway
because you go on autopilot as soon as you move into that lane,)

Since we're fantasizing, this road has four lanes each way. The three
right lanes are normal traffic, but if your battery is getting low,
you pull into the left lane, extend your blades, and get a charge for
some length of roadway. Everything in the other three lanes is normal,
with lane changes and exits and so on.

What's the problem?


How about highways with exits on both sides of the hroadway?

Other than they run costs way up, slow down traffic, and tend to be
dangerous, how about them?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

 

[Bret Cahill]

A snow plow can be adapted to keep the conductor exposed.

An actual slot like the toy probably won't be the best way to go.
Tracking or steering will be similar to speed cruise control with the
road bed conductors only recessed enough so that they will be
difficult to short out during a roll over accident.

How do you plow water?

Before proposing a new system, it would behoove you to look at existing
systems.

Existing electrified roadways run in the kilovolt range.

There is no way such a system can possibly work exposed to the elements,
which is why all existing electrified roadways are either in tunnels
or elevated to keep them out of the water.

Not that Bret's idea makes any sense, but what exactly are you talking
about here? You can easily have a 'third rail' system where the
conductor is elevated slightly to deal with surface water---you've
apparently never seen the water in the NYC subway tunnels.

Very bumpy when you switch lanes.

I also don't think they run on kilovolts, but I can't remember and
don't really care.
I will once again pitch wheelmotor platforms as the way out for
elecric/hybrid vehicles.

Way out of what?

Your incessant whining about the cost of batteries.

Where does the electricity come from for the wheelmotors?


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

A snow plow can be adapted to keep the conductor exposed.

An actual slot like the toy probably won't be the best way to go.
Tracking or steering will be similar to speed cruise control with the
road bed conductors only recessed enough so that they will be
difficult to short out during a roll over accident.

How do you plow water?

Before proposing a new system, it would behoove you to look at existing
systems.

Existing electrified roadways run in the kilovolt range.

There is no way such a system can possibly work exposed to the elements,
which is why all existing electrified roadways are either in tunnels
or elevated to keep them out of the water.

Not that Bret's idea makes any sense, but what exactly are you talking
about here? You can easily have a 'third rail' system where the
conductor is elevated slightly to deal with surface water---you've
apparently never seen the water in the NYC subway tunnels.

Bret is talking about electrifying existing roads.

How do you change lanes with a elevated rails in the road?

Even if you put period breaks in the elevated rails to allow lane changes,
what happens when someone screws up and hits the start of an elevated
rail at 65 MPH?

Did you see the part where I said Bret's idea makes no sense?

Since this is all silly tech speculation anyway, I was just pointing
out that something *could* be done along those lines. �You could also
use stretches of road as moving recharge areas, with no lane changes..
You get into the left lane, your blades engage the third rail, and you
are on autopilot for 60 miles while your battery gets topped up. Then
go back to the regular traffic. �There wouldn't be a 'start' of the
third rail to run into.

It seems we are going around in circles.

If the third rail isn't elevated, how do you keep it out of the water?

If he third rail is elevated, how do you not have a 'start' to it?

OK, I would rather talk about something realistic but: �The 'start' of
the third rail is before the first on-ramp. Visualize something like a
Jersey barrier on the left side of the road. Your car has blades that
can be extended sideways to engage with a conductor track embedded in
the barrier. There is a buried continuous conductor in parallel with
the elevated contact track, so that a break in that track (result of a
big sideways crash) doesn't disable the system. (Small sideways
crashes get absorbed by the barrier, but they don't happen anyway
because you go on autopilot as soon as you move into that lane,)

Since we're fantasizing, this road has four lanes each way. The three
right lanes are normal traffic, but if your battery is getting low,
you pull into the left lane, extend your blades, and get a charge for
some length of roadway. Everything in the other three lanes is normal,
with lane changes and exits and so on.

What's the problem?

In the real world, so many I don't know where to start...

You need to become a can do _problem solver_.

Americans don't like nattering naybobs of negativism.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

I see you're wrong.

No, you've demonstrated that you've never touched a science book.

Try not to spree, but if you must spree, keep your carbon footprint
down.

Just spree local like that fundy in Kansas.


Bret Cahill

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

In sci.physics Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

tgdenning@earthlink.net wrote:

OK, I would rather talk about something realistic but: The 'start' of
the third rail is before the first on-ramp. Visualize something like a
Jersey barrier on the left side of the road. Your car has blades that
can be extended sideways to engage with a conductor track embedded in
the barrier. There is a buried continuous conductor in parallel with
the elevated contact track, so that a break in that track (result of a
big sideways crash) doesn't disable the system. (Small sideways
crashes get absorbed by the barrier, but they don't happen anyway
because you go on autopilot as soon as you move into that lane,)

Since we're fantasizing, this road has four lanes each way. The three
right lanes are normal traffic, but if your battery is getting low,
you pull into the left lane, extend your blades, and get a charge for
some length of roadway. Everything in the other three lanes is normal,
with lane changes and exits and so on.

What's the problem?


How about highways with exits on both sides of the hroadway?

Other than they run costs way up, slow down traffic, and tend to be
dangerous, how about them?

They do exist. In some instances, a left exit is the only way it can
be built. With signs starting two miles from the exit, warning that it
is to the left it is as safe as any other. It does require a slightly
longer exit lane for the traffic to slow down. I an thinking of one of
I-4 near Orlando's International Drive, a very busy international
tourist area.




--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense!

 

[Bret Cahill]

Now, what is the construction and maintenance costs to electrify
roadways?

The answer to that will require some funding.

No, it's readily estimable

Which is work that requires funding.

.. . .

Go back to your toy
race cars.

No one sells slot cars for toys anymore. They only use RC battery EVs
for the infinitely greater freedom.

The only place where roadbed electrification makes sense is on a real
life freeway.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

Unfortunately with big rigs using it, it won't stay flat for long, so
the idea is stillborn.

Forbid the big rigs from using the lanes.

That's half the petroleum being consumed on the freeways.

Replace "big rigs" with rail.

Replace fresh lettuce with wilted lettuce.

Ever notice the "We Deliver" UP slogan doesn't make any claims about
being on time.?

The governments build roads for cars and
trucks, but not rails. Big trucks get a subsidy; low cost roads. As was
pointed out by one of my engineering profs, roads last just about forever
with cars on them, and have a 20 year life when you allow heavy trucks to
use them. So, if you're going to subsidize trucks, why not rail as well?

Pay to electrify the railroads. Everyone agrees that's possible.

Better still, reinforce the freeways with something like main line RR
rail and use a steering / tracking full service "cruise control" to
position trucks right on top of the rails.

This would greatly alleviate the maintenance problem in either
conventional or electrified roadbeds.


Bret Cahill