Help with Laplace Transform for PLL VCO, Kvco?????

Dr. Slick · Mar 24, 2004

Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net> wrote in message news:<89krt5jydy7f.dlg@news.individual.net>...

And what if you DON'T use DC? What if you use a tuning sinewave
of a frequency that is close to the VCO's operating frequency?

Operate the loop outside of it's bandwidth? You'd have a modulator,
no? Or are you talking about just the VCO? I'd think you'd get a f'd
up envelope or a phase modulation.

how can you modulate outside of the loop bandwidth? The loop
will "correct" your modulation.

maybe i was standing on my head when i wrote that. Never bothered
thinking of modulating the VCO at a freq close to it's freq. Why
would you do that?

You wouldn't, it's just a theoretical question.

Once again, 1/s is 1/s, no matter where you find it, and s=jw,
so there IS a frequency component in the denominator of Kv/s,
so i'm thinking it might be the phase gain that goes to infinity
at 0 Hz. And then it becomes finite as you add frequency to the tuning
voltage (w>0 rad/sec).

Slick

Dr. Slick · Mar 24, 2004

Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net> wrote in message news:<1v5d0s07k8uv7.dlg@news.individual.net>...

That was going to be part of my next reply. Slick is desperately
looking for an analogy between caps and VCOs. Like the spring and
the RLC tank. The analogy just isn't there. The 1/s is only the
result of the integral. The whole PLL system could do without the
1/s in the VCO gain if a FD (not PD) were used so that throws any
analogy out the door, anyway.

I think YOU are desperate because neither you, nor anyone else here has
a CLEAR answer to my question, though you might pretend you do.

A lot of engineers just go through the motions of understanding
some pretty not-so-simple concepts, and just bull-sh** their way by
pretending they understand more than they really do, but they consequently
don't learn as much as they could.

Fear of admiting you don't know something... you eventually figure out
who you can trust.

Paradoxically, the people i trust the most are the ones who can actually
admit, "I don't know."

If the 1/s doesn't apply to the VCO alone, how does one get
a integration of a DC voltage (which represents a single frequency) into
an ever increasing phase?

It may be that the phase gain (phi_out/phi_in) is what goes to
infinity.
At DC tuning voltage, the phase of the input doesn't change, so for
every 1
rad of phi_in, the phi_out is infinitely large.

However, perhaps if you use a non-zero frequency for the tuning
voltage (like a sine wave of a non-zero frequency), then the change in
phi_out for every 1 rad of phi_in will NOT be infinite anymore.

Slick

Dr. Slick · Mar 24, 2004

Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net> wrote in message news:<koyhivr3mn9h$.dlg@news.individual.net>...

The whole PLL system could do without the
1/s in the VCO gain if a FD (not PD) were used so that throws any
analogy out the door, anyway.

strictly speaking the 1/s MUST be "there" (otherwise it wouldnt be in the
transfer function)

it's there *because* of the use of a PD. You wouldn't need it with
an FD. I said, "FD (not PD)".

its just hiding inside the PD (and perhaps the loop
filter)

You *could* say it's hiding in the PD but the fact is, you need it
to convert VCO freq to phase because the PD needs a phase input to
compare to the ref phase. With an FD it's trivial to just get rid of
the 1/s and do the thing in freq. f_in, f_out, f_error. And if you
can't see that, download Dean's Book.

If the 1/s doesn't apply to the VCO alone, how does one get
a integration of a DC voltage (which represents a single frequency) into
an ever increasing phase?

It may be that the phase gain (phi_out/phi_in) is what goes to
infinity.
At DC tuning voltage, the phase of the input doesn't change, so for
every 1
rad of phi_in, the phi_out is infinitely large.

However, perhaps if you use a non-zero frequency for the tuning
voltage (like a sine wave of a non-zero frequency), then the change in
phi_out for every 1 rad of phi_in will NOT be infinite anymore.

even though we draw it in the VCO. He made me think about it though,
and probably asked a question that others have pondered

There'd be less pondering if they'd just read Dean's Book. This
thread's been running 9 days. 9 days to cover one paragraph.

I'm glad you are thinking about it Terry.

Mike seems to know everything already, so maybe he doesn't have
to post anymore.

BTW, i tried to find this "Dean's Book" with Google and couldn't,
naybe you could give us a link.

Slick

Jim Thompson · Mar 24, 2004

On 23 Mar 2004 12:51:08 -0800, radio913@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote:

Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net> wrote in message news:<1v5d0s07k8uv7.dlg@news.individual.net>...

That was going to be part of my next reply. Slick is desperately
looking for an analogy between caps and VCOs. Like the spring and
the RLC tank. The analogy just isn't there. The 1/s is only the
result of the integral. The whole PLL system could do without the
1/s in the VCO gain if a FD (not PD) were used so that throws any
analogy out the door, anyway.

I think YOU are desperate because neither you, nor anyone else here has
a CLEAR answer to my question, though you might pretend you do.

A lot of engineers just go through the motions of understanding
some pretty not-so-simple concepts, and just bull-sh** their way by
pretending they understand more than they really do, but they consequently
don't learn as much as they could.

Fear of admiting you don't know something... you eventually figure out
who you can trust.

Paradoxically, the people i trust the most are the ones who can actually
admit, "I don't know."

If the 1/s doesn't apply to the VCO alone, how does one get
a integration of a DC voltage (which represents a single frequency) into
an ever increasing phase?

It may be that the phase gain (phi_out/phi_in) is what goes to
infinity.
At DC tuning voltage, the phase of the input doesn't change, so for
every 1
rad of phi_in, the phi_out is infinitely large.

However, perhaps if you use a non-zero frequency for the tuning
voltage (like a sine wave of a non-zero frequency), then the change in
phi_out for every 1 rad of phi_in will NOT be infinite anymore.

Slick

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Throughout the history of this great country there have actually
been people of only two political persuasions: fighters and yellow-
bellies. WE MUST NOT LET THE LATTER PREVAIL IN THE NEXT ELECTION!

Active8 · Mar 24, 2004

On 23 Mar 2004 12:42:18 -0800, Dr. Slick wrote:

Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net> wrote in message news:<89krt5jydy7f.dlg@news.individual.net>...

And what if you DON'T use DC? What if you use a tuning sinewave
of a frequency that is close to the VCO's operating frequency?

Operate the loop outside of it's bandwidth? You'd have a modulator,
no? Or are you talking about just the VCO? I'd think you'd get a f'd
up envelope or a phase modulation.

how can you modulate outside of the loop bandwidth? The loop
will "correct" your modulation.

maybe i was standing on my head when i wrote that. Never bothered
thinking of modulating the VCO at a freq close to it's freq. Why
would you do that?

You wouldn't, it's just a theoretical question.

Once again, 1/s is 1/s, no matter where you find it, and s=jw,
so there IS a frequency component in the denominator of Kv/s,
so i'm thinking it might be the phase gain that goes to infinity
at 0 Hz. And then it becomes finite as you add frequency to the tuning
voltage (w>0 rad/sec).

Slick

Negative again. The phase gain is Kv, otherwise known as VCO gain.
It comes from a spec sheet in some cases and is given as Hz/V to
convert to phase, you divide by s so you get rad/V, which is

Hz/(Vs), not Hx/V*s as someone put it elsewhere
--
Best Regards,
Mike

Active8 · Mar 24, 2004

On 23 Mar 2004 13:05:32 -0800, Dr. Slick wrote:

Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net> wrote in message news:<koyhivr3mn9h$.dlg@news.individual.net>...
snip

even though we draw it in the VCO. He made me think about it though,
and probably asked a question that others have pondered

There'd be less pondering if they'd just read Dean's Book. This
thread's been running 9 days. 9 days to cover one paragraph.

I'm glad you are thinking about it Terry.

Mike seems to know everything already, so maybe he doesn't have
to post anymore.

BTW, i tried to find this "Dean's Book" with Google and couldn't,
naybe you could give us a link.

Oh, you going to insult me and then ask for a link. Fuck off. All
you're doing is posting the same repetitious BS post after post.

"I think the phase would go to infinity since the input phase
doesn't change." over and over and over and you've been told
repeatedly that that's the case and yet you keep posting "My theory
for today..."

My theory for today is that you're a troll.

Slick

--
Best Regards,
Mike

Walter Driedger · Mar 24, 2004

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:9mc16017a7d4crmdb1tm5hcf6m4nppmc9u@4ax.com...

Throughout the history of this great country there have actually
been people of only two political persuasions: fighters and yellow-
bellies. WE MUST NOT LET THE LATTER PREVAIL IN THE NEXT ELECTION!

Reminds me of the charge of the Light Brigade. What a gutsy bunch of
idiots! They were all dead when it was over. What a waste.

Jim Thompson · Mar 24, 2004

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 03:16:50 GMT, "Walter Driedger"
<walter@driesmithdger.ca> wrote:

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:9mc16017a7d4crmdb1tm5hcf6m4nppmc9u@4ax.com...

Throughout the history of this great country there have actually
been people of only two political persuasions: fighters and yellow-
bellies. WE MUST NOT LET THE LATTER PREVAIL IN THE NEXT ELECTION!

Reminds me of the charge of the Light Brigade. What a gutsy bunch of
idiots! They were all dead when it was over. What a waste.

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Throughout the history of this great country there have actually
been people of only two political persuasions: fighters and yellow-
bellies. WE MUST NOT LET THE LATTER PREVAIL IN THE NEXT ELECTION!

Dr. Slick · Mar 24, 2004

Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net> wrote in message news:<3tfe5nof3yy1$.dlg@ID-222894.news.uni-berlin.de>...

I'm glad you are thinking about it Terry.

Mike seems to know everything already, so maybe he doesn't have
to post anymore.

BTW, i tried to find this "Dean's Book" with Google and couldn't,
naybe you could give us a link.

Oh, you going to insult me and then ask for a link. Fuck off. All
you're doing is posting the same repetitious BS post after post.

"I think the phase would go to infinity since the input phase
doesn't change." over and over and over and you've been told
repeatedly that that's the case and yet you keep posting "My theory
for today..."

My theory for today is that you're a troll.

And my theory is you don't really know what you are talking about.

Slick

Dr. Slick · Mar 24, 2004

Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net> wrote in message news:<1af7bwb3bzxw6.dlg@ID-222894.news.uni-berlin.de>...

Once again, 1/s is 1/s, no matter where you find it, and s=jw,
so there IS a frequency component in the denominator of Kv/s,
so i'm thinking it might be the phase gain that goes to infinity
at 0 Hz. And then it becomes finite as you add frequency to the tuning
voltage (w>0 rad/sec).

Slick

Negative again. The phase gain is Kv, otherwise known as VCO gain.
It comes from a spec sheet in some cases and is given as Hz/V to
convert to phase, you divide by s so you get rad/V, which is

Hz/(Vs), not Hx/V*s as someone put it elsewhere

Incorrect. It's rad/(sec*volt) or Hz/volt.

Slick

Active8 · Mar 24, 2004

On 23 Mar 2004 20:44:22 -0800, Dr. Slick wrote:

Active8 <reply2group@ndbbm.net> wrote in message news:<1af7bwb3bzxw6.dlg@ID-222894.news.uni-berlin.de>...

Once again, 1/s is 1/s, no matter where you find it, and s=jw,
so there IS a frequency component in the denominator of Kv/s,
so i'm thinking it might be the phase gain that goes to infinity
at 0 Hz. And then it becomes finite as you add frequency to the tuning
voltage (w>0 rad/sec).

Slick

Negative again. The phase gain is Kv, otherwise known as VCO gain.
It comes from a spec sheet in some cases and is given as Hz/V to
convert to phase, you divide by s so you get rad/V, which is

Hz/(Vs), not Hx/V*s as someone put it elsewhere

Incorrect. It's rad/(sec*volt) or Hz/volt.

Slick

How can that be if 1/s converts freq to phase?
--
Best Regards,
Mike

Kevin Aylward · Mar 24, 2004

Active8 wrote:

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:50:03 -0800, Terry Given wrote:

That was going to be part of my next reply. Slick is desperately
looking for an analogy between caps and VCOs. Like the spring and
the RLC tank. The analogy just isn't there. The 1/s is only the
result of the integral.

I have had some interesting arguments over the years because of
analogies. Most often with someone who has limited technical
knowledge (clearly Dr Slick doesnt fall into this category - his
questions are pretty good) who persists in clinging to an analogy by
asking ever-more ridiculous "then why doesnt it behave like this"
type questions, the answer to which is usually "because your analogy
sucks"

The whole PLL system could do without the
1/s in the VCO gain if a FD (not PD) were used so that throws any
analogy out the door, anyway.

strictly speaking the 1/s MUST be "there" (otherwise it wouldnt be
in the transfer function)

it's there *because* of the use of a PD.

Well, debatable. Do holes exist?

What we can say is this:

The *output* angular frequency is Wout.

Wout = K.Vin(t)

d(Phout)/dt = Wout = K.Vin

Phout = integral(K.Vin(t))

Phout(s) = K.Vin(s)/S

As models go, this doesn't explicitly refer to a phase detector.
However, without something that responds to phase, the output phase
doesn't mean much. So, from a mathematically point of view, it "exists"
without a phase detector as much as any other mathematical equation
"exists". From a physical point of view, Vin(s) needs to represent phase
in his model, so it needs to extract phase from a frequency input. So in
this sense, it needs a phase detector.

I see this as more of a philosophical issue than one of physics. Does
white noise contain all frequencies, or does the measuring equipment
create them by using a tuned filter?

Its summed up by:

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not,
however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world." -
Einstein.

You wouldn't need it with
an FD. I said, "FD (not PD)".

You wouldn't need to use a phase model model.

Once you learn enough, you realise that a damped 2nd order
denominator covers most real situations, and crude 1st order
approximations (average energy etc) are almost as good. I dont think
it works so well without the understanding though - most cookbooks
dont give you much information on the applicable ranges of their
formulae, so you dont know when you are getting into trouble.

That's why it's best to understand using the math in every detail.

Debatable. This depends on your definition of what "every" math detail
is. I doubt if even 1% of EE's can understand the derivation of the
inverse Laplace transform using the Bromwich contour.

Even as far as root-locus and Nyquist stability, AFAIC.

I have yet to be convinced of any net advantage for either root-locus or
Nyquist. It seems more of historical use by my book. Frequency phase
(bode) plots give you pretty much everything you need to know as far as
small signal reponses go, in my view. By and large, all you need to know
is what is happening at the final net 0 phase point.

I would certainly like to hear a *good* argument from someone who
actually uses those techniques, extensively, and believes them to be
indispensable. I see it more a method to keep control theory professors
employed.

And you have
to be able to understnd how to damp the thing for settling time and
all that.

Yes.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

Allan Herriman · Mar 24, 2004

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 08:50:31 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
<kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

I have yet to be convinced of any net advantage for either root-locus or
Nyquist. It seems more of historical use by my book. Frequency phase
(bode) plots give you pretty much everything you need to know as far as
small signal reponses go, in my view. By and large, all you need to know
is what is happening at the final net 0 phase point.

I would certainly like to hear a *good* argument from someone who
actually uses those techniques, extensively, and believes them to be
indispensable. I see it more a method to keep control theory professors
employed.

Kevin, I always use root locus methods when designing PLLs.

At the very least, it means that no other engineer is going to mess
with my design!

Regards,
Allan.

Kevin Aylward · Mar 24, 2004

Allan Herriman wrote:

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 08:50:31 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

I have yet to be convinced of any net advantage for either
root-locus or Nyquist. It seems more of historical use by my book.
Frequency phase (bode) plots give you pretty much everything you
need to know as far as small signal reponses go, in my view. By and
large, all you need to know is what is happening at the final net 0
phase point.

I would certainly like to hear a *good* argument from someone who
actually uses those techniques, extensively, and believes them to be
indispensable. I see it more a method to keep control theory
professors employed.

Kevin, I always use root locus methods when designing PLLs.

But why?

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

Allan Herriman · Mar 24, 2004

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:23:53 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
<kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Allan Herriman wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 08:50:31 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

I have yet to be convinced of any net advantage for either
root-locus or Nyquist. It seems more of historical use by my book.
Frequency phase (bode) plots give you pretty much everything you
need to know as far as small signal reponses go, in my view. By and
large, all you need to know is what is happening at the final net 0
phase point.

I would certainly like to hear a *good* argument from someone who
actually uses those techniques, extensively, and believes them to be
indispensable. I see it more a method to keep control theory
professors employed.

Kevin, I always use root locus methods when designing PLLs.

But why?

Why not? I find it easier to visualise what will happen when the gain
changes.
I do realise that Bode and root locus plots contain equivalent
information, and could use Bode plots if I had to, although I would
find them cumbersome.

[ I'm probably not a typical designer though - If you asked me to
build a Butterworth filter, I'd start by drawing a bunch of poles in a
cicle. ]

I also disagree with "By and large, all you need to know is what is
happening at the final net 0 phase point" - how do you go about
designing for a particular amount of reference supression or output
noise spectrum?

Regards,
Allan.

Jim Thompson · Mar 24, 2004

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:37:13 +1100, Allan Herriman
<allan.herriman.hates.spam@ctam.com.au.invalid> wrote:

[snip]

[ I'm probably not a typical designer though - If you asked me to
build a Butterworth filter, I'd start by drawing a bunch of poles in a
cicle. ]

[snip]
Regards,
Allan.

480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax

480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Throughout the history of this great country there have actually
been people of only two political persuasions: fighters and yellow-
bellies. WE MUST NOT LET THE LATTER PREVAIL IN THE NEXT ELECTION!

John Woodgate · Mar 24, 2004

I read in sci.electronics.design that Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote (in <ms8360h24qgnc47jn3qdlnuukhtbua8gfs@
4ax.com&gt

about 'Help with Laplace Transform for PLL VCO, Kvco?????', on
Wed, 24 Mar 2004:

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:37:13 +1100, Allan Herriman <allan.herriman.hates
.spam@ctam.com.au.invalid> wrote:

[snip]
[ I'm probably not a typical designer though - If you asked me to
build a Butterworth filter, I'd start by drawing a bunch of poles in a
cicle. ]

[snip]
Regards,
Allan.

I do that too. But only because I can't remember the coefficients for
higher order ones ;-)

I prefer to draw a bunch of (incoming) checks into a pile.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

Active8 · Mar 24, 2004

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 01:37:13 +1100, Allan Herriman wrote:

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:23:53 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Kevin: You're right on the "every minute detail of the math" point.

I was referring to the details of the transfer function math. That
Braumfield or whatever inverse Laplace stuff... I don't even worry
about how the transform pairs were derived by the simple methods.

Allan Herriman wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 08:50:31 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

I have yet to be convinced of any net advantage for either
root-locus or Nyquist. It seems more of historical use by my book.
Frequency phase (bode) plots give you pretty much everything you
need to know as far as small signal reponses go, in my view. By and
large, all you need to know is what is happening at the final net 0
phase point.

I would certainly like to hear a *good* argument from someone who
actually uses those techniques, extensively, and believes them to be
indispensable. I see it more a method to keep control theory
professors employed.

Kevin, I always use root locus methods when designing PLLs.

But why?

Why not? I find it easier to visualise what will happen when the gain
changes.
I do realise that Bode and root locus plots contain equivalent
information, and could use Bode plots if I had to, although I would
find them cumbersome.

[ I'm probably not a typical designer though - If you asked me to
build a Butterworth filter, I'd start by drawing a bunch of poles in a
cicle. ]

They stay warmer that way don't they?

I also disagree with "By and large, all you need to know is what is
happening at the final net 0 phase point" - how do you go about
designing for a particular amount of reference supression or output
noise spectrum?

--
Best Regards,
Mike

Kevin Aylward · Mar 25, 2004

Allan Herriman wrote:

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 11:23:53 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

Allan Herriman wrote:
On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 08:50:31 -0000, "Kevin Aylward"
kevindotaylwardEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk> wrote:

I have yet to be convinced of any net advantage for either
root-locus or Nyquist. It seems more of historical use by my book.
Frequency phase (bode) plots give you pretty much everything you
need to know as far as small signal reponses go, in my view. By and
large, all you need to know is what is happening at the final net 0
phase point.

I would certainly like to hear a *good* argument from someone who
actually uses those techniques, extensively, and believes them to
be indispensable. I see it more a method to keep control theory
professors employed.

Kevin, I always use root locus methods when designing PLLs.

But why?

Why not? I find it easier to visualise what will happen when the gain
changes.
I do realise that Bode and root locus plots contain equivalent
information, and could use Bode plots if I had to, although I would
find them cumbersome.

[ I'm probably not a typical designer though - If you asked me to
build a Butterworth filter, I'd start by drawing a bunch of poles in a
cicle. ]

I also disagree with "By and large, all you need to know is what is
happening at the final net 0 phase point" - how do you go about
designing for a particular amount of reference supression or output
noise spectrum?

Wrong point to disagree with. Why do you think the "By and large" bit
was in there

This makes it imposible to disagree with the statement.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

"quotes with no meaning, are meaningless" - Kevin Aylward.

Pellucid · Mar 26, 2004

"Dr. Slick" <radio913@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1d15af91.0403222254.16bb0a3f@posting.google.com...

"Terry Given" <the_domes@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:<VdN7c.13589$rw6.253262@news.xtra.co.nz>...

However, perhaps if you use a non-zero frequency for the tuning
voltage (like a sine wave of a non-zero frequency), then the change in
phi_out for every 1 rad of phi_in will NOT be infinite anymore.

I believe this concurs with what you have written as well, eh
Terry

Slick

How would the above relate to the fact that an FM modulated VCO can be
modulated by modulating the control loop?

Help with Laplace Transform for PLL VCO, Kvco?????

Dr. Slick

Guest

Dr. Slick

Guest

Dr. Slick

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Active8

Guest

Active8

Guest

Walter Driedger

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

Dr. Slick

Guest

Dr. Slick

Guest

Active8

Guest

Kevin Aylward

Guest

Allan Herriman

Guest

Kevin Aylward

Guest

Allan Herriman

Guest

Jim Thompson

Guest

John Woodgate

Guest

Active8

Guest

Kevin Aylward

Guest

Pellucid

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor