magnetic field

Tom Bruhns · Feb 13, 2007

On Feb 12, 10:37 pm, "werty" <w...@swissinfo.org> wrote:

On Feb 12, 2:30 pm, "john jardine" <j...@jjdesigns.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

"Geronimo Stempovski" <geronimo.stempov...@arcor.de> wrote in message

news:45d04b34$0$27624$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...> I think transmitting high-speed signals is very easy when you have a
360-degree ground reference, round conductors,
and no other nearby signals like in coaxial cables. My aim is to design
PCB
tracks as much like a coaxial cable as
possible. Anyone tried this before? Is it possible with regular FR4,
anyway?
Thanks for your help.

Gero

Had trouble with crosstalk on a mass of video signals. Cured with a
multilayer board where each signal was 'boxed in' by ground plane to the
sides, above and below. Sort of square coax.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

----------------------------------------------------------

Boxed ! the wavelength is far greater than
your dimensions , thus higher modes can not
exist , thus you do NOT need sides .
When you reach 10 Ghz , then maybe
you need sides in ur boxed "coax" .

But the big joke , is in the real world ,
they use cheap PCB to xmit 2.5 Ghz .
No strip line , no microstrip , nada ..
It works well , so quit arguing reality .

BTW , i saw some novice , trying to
use juice cans to launch WiFi .
He figured the more cans , the more
gain . He had 3 cans , T'd .
to divide the power .
Gain is not in cans , its in size of
the dish .

Another book worm said all i needed
was $26 for 100 meters of blah blah
coax at 2.5 Ghz ..

10 times that price !
and 1.8" dia hard line !

At these wavelengths , its lower loss
to send it TEM and thru the air ,
not thru a coax .

This is goin to FPGA ? Do those relics
still exist ?! Oh well , i supose ya gotta
try to "protect" your firmware by reinventing
the CPU !

Ah, yes, reality. The reality is that we do need the vias for our
work. I can imagine that John J. may well also. When you're aiming
at 100+dB isolation among traces, you do have to be pretty careful,
even at "low" frequencies.

Cheers,
Tom

Jim Granville · Feb 13, 2007

werty wrote:

On Feb 12, 2:30 pm, "john jardine" <j...@jjdesigns.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

"Geronimo Stempovski" <geronimo.stempov...@arcor.de> wrote in message

news:45d04b34$0$27624$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...> I think transmitting high-speed signals is very easy when you have a

360-degree ground reference, round conductors,
and no other nearby signals like in coaxial cables. My aim is to design

PCB

tracks as much like a coaxial cable as
possible. Anyone tried this before? Is it possible with regular FR4,

anyway?

Thanks for your help.

Gero

Had trouble with crosstalk on a mass of video signals. Cured with a
multilayer board where each signal was 'boxed in' by ground plane to the
sides, above and below. Sort of square coax.

----------------------------------------------------------

Boxed ! the wavelength is far greater than
your dimensions , thus higher modes can not
exist , thus you do NOT need sides .
When you reach 10 Ghz , then maybe
you need sides in ur boxed "coax" .
snip

Seems video distribution is not one of your areas of expertise ?

Note that John was talking about crosstalk, in the analog domain,
and yes, what he did certainly will have a measurable improvement, and
is somewhat 'industry practise' when minimising crosstalk.
Note he says 'cured', that means he is on both sides of the problem,
and it is a brave (or something else?) person that counters such direct
experience

I imagine in extreme digital cases, such as where you are worried not
only about sending the clock, but also about the ps/fs of jitter, then
this design approach would also help : it's not hard to do.

-jg

John Larkin · Feb 13, 2007

On 12 Feb 2007 22:37:14 -0800, "werty" <werty@swissinfo.org> wrote:

This is goin to FPGA ? Do those relics
still exist ?! Oh well , i supose ya gotta
try to "protect" your firmware by reinventing
the CPU !

When you need, say, 40x the crunch power of a decent DSP processor,
those relics come in handy.

John

John Larkin · Feb 13, 2007

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:46:04 +1300, Jim Granville
<no.spam@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote:

werty wrote:
On Feb 12, 2:30 pm, "john jardine" <j...@jjdesigns.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

"Geronimo Stempovski" <geronimo.stempov...@arcor.de> wrote in message

news:45d04b34$0$27624$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...> I think transmitting high-speed signals is very easy when you have a

360-degree ground reference, round conductors,
and no other nearby signals like in coaxial cables. My aim is to design

PCB

tracks as much like a coaxial cable as
possible. Anyone tried this before? Is it possible with regular FR4,

anyway?

Thanks for your help.

Gero

Had trouble with crosstalk on a mass of video signals. Cured with a
multilayer board where each signal was 'boxed in' by ground plane to the
sides, above and below. Sort of square coax.

----------------------------------------------------------

Boxed ! the wavelength is far greater than
your dimensions , thus higher modes can not
exist , thus you do NOT need sides .
When you reach 10 Ghz , then maybe
you need sides in ur boxed "coax" .
snip

Seems video distribution is not one of your areas of expertise ?

Note that John was talking about crosstalk, in the analog domain,
and yes, what he did certainly will have a measurable improvement, and
is somewhat 'industry practise' when minimising crosstalk.
Note he says 'cured', that means he is on both sides of the problem,
and it is a brave (or something else?) person that counters such direct
experience

I imagine in extreme digital cases, such as where you are worried not
only about sending the clock, but also about the ps/fs of jitter, then
this design approach would also help : it's not hard to do.

-jg

I do stuff down to a few ps RMS jitter on a regular 6 or 8-layer
board, microstrip traces, with switching supplies and uPs and display
drivers on the same board. Picoseconds aren't tough these days.

John

john jardine · Feb 13, 2007

[...]
"werty" <werty@swissinfo.org> wrote in message
news:1171348634.104020.242500@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

----------------------------------------------------------

Boxed ! the wavelength is far greater than
your dimensions , thus higher modes can not
exist , thus you do NOT need sides .
When you reach 10 Ghz , then maybe
you need sides in ur boxed "coax" .

But the big joke , is in the real world ,
they use cheap PCB to xmit 2.5 Ghz .
No strip line , no microstrip , nada ..
It works well , so quit arguing reality .

BTW , i saw some novice , trying to
use juice cans to launch WiFi .
He figured the more cans , the more
gain . He had 3 cans , T'd .
to divide the power .
Gain is not in cans , its in size of
the dish .

Another book worm said all i needed
was $26 for 100 meters of blah blah
coax at 2.5 Ghz ..

10 times that price !
and 1.8" dia hard line !

At these wavelengths , its lower loss
to send it TEM and thru the air ,
not thru a coax .

This is goin to FPGA ? Do those relics
still exist ?! Oh well , i supose ya gotta
try to "protect" your firmware by reinventing
the CPU !

Que?.
Don't listen to the worms.
Video comes in forms other than digital.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Del Cecchi · Feb 14, 2007

John Larkin wrote:

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:36:15 +0100, "Uwe Hercksen"
hercksen@mew.uni-erlangen.de> wrote:

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:41:00 +0100, Geronimo Stempovski
geronimo.stempovski@arcor.de> wrote:

Now I'm looking for a diagram like frequency (some MHz to 10 GHz for
example) versus loss tangent and / or epsilon R for FR4. I only found a
poor
black-and-white copy from 1991 in a paper which I searched with Google. I
wouldn't have thought it to be so hard to find a graph... Does anybody
know
where I can find that?

Hello,

I am sorry to tell that, but for frequencies of 1 to 10 GHz, FR4 ist not
the right material, there are other PCB materials which are better for
high frequencies, take a look here
http://www.andus.de/Leiterplatten/Impedanz/hfmat.htm
They write there that FR4 may be used up to 4 GHz.

Bye

FR4 can be used at 20 GHz, depending on what you're trying to do.

John

Also you need to narrow down which variety of FR4 you are interested in.

--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesnt necessarily represent IBMs positions,
strategies or opinions.

John Larkin · Feb 14, 2007

On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:27:58 -0600, Del Cecchi
<cecchinospam@us.ibm.com> wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:36:15 +0100, "Uwe Hercksen"
hercksen@mew.uni-erlangen.de> wrote:

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 18:41:00 +0100, Geronimo Stempovski
geronimo.stempovski@arcor.de> wrote:

Now I'm looking for a diagram like frequency (some MHz to 10 GHz for
example) versus loss tangent and / or epsilon R for FR4. I only found a
poor
black-and-white copy from 1991 in a paper which I searched with Google. I
wouldn't have thought it to be so hard to find a graph... Does anybody
know
where I can find that?

Hello,

I am sorry to tell that, but for frequencies of 1 to 10 GHz, FR4 ist not
the right material, there are other PCB materials which are better for
high frequencies, take a look here
http://www.andus.de/Leiterplatten/Impedanz/hfmat.htm
They write there that FR4 may be used up to 4 GHz.

Bye

FR4 can be used at 20 GHz, depending on what you're trying to do.

John

Also you need to narrow down which variety of FR4 you are interested in.

FR4 is a commodity that's not well controlled. There really aren't
controlled varieties, and most pcb houses don't guarantee they'll
always use the same stuff. If you want loss or Er consistancy, you
usually have to call out something more specific. Or design so that it
doesn't matter.

John

werty · Feb 16, 2007

work. I can imagine that John J. may well also. When you're aiming
at 100+dB isolation among traces, you do have to be pretty careful,
even at "low" frequencies.

Cheers,
Tom- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

______________________________________

Its all theory . If its open , the RF will leak
out . Like the holes in a MicroWave dish
----------------
10:1 SWR , open lines ,
and NO radiation .
-------------------
Transmission lines repulse , but that
does NOT mean magnetic fringing
and sending mag flds everywhere .
----------------------

BTW
Study CAT5e Ethernet cable .
garbage !
USB cables are much faster .

I think ppl limit themselves to
whats avail in PCB , then complain
when it dont work , but if they'd
experiment , they'd find the problem
is using thin PCB .
Then they limit on putting down
100 transmission lines per mm .
You cant learn , unless you experiment.

you can't choke the dimensions
and get good results , a transmission
line needs exact dimensions , or you
lose .

In coax for 2.5 Ghz , for example ,
it WILL have a large diameter and
the center will have an exact dia and
ratio .. No substitutes .

Sending signals that will be amplified
use high Z ( ~65 ohms ) and
sending power needs low Z .
These rules can't be bent .
Thats what you're doin , is bending
rules ...

..

werty · Feb 16, 2007

On Feb 13, 7:51 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:46:04 +1300, Jim Granville

no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote:
werty wrote:
On Feb 12, 2:30 pm, "john jardine" <j...@jjdesigns.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

"Geronimo Stempovski" <geronimo.stempov...@arcor.de> wrote in message

news:45d04b34$0$27624$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...> I think transmitting high-speed signals is very easy when you have a

360-degree ground reference, round conductors,
and no other nearby signals like in coaxial cables. My aim is to design

PCB

tracks as much like a coaxial cable as
possible. Anyone tried this before? Is it possible with regular FR4,

anyway?

Thanks for your help.

Gero

Had trouble with crosstalk on a mass of video signals. Cured with a
multilayer board where each signal was 'boxed in' by ground plane to the
sides, above and below. Sort of square coax.

----------------------------------------------------------

Boxed ! the wavelength is far greater than
your dimensions , thus higher modes can not
exist , thus you do NOT need sides .
When you reach 10 Ghz , then maybe
you need sides in ur boxed "coax" .
snip

Seems video distribution is not one of your areas of expertise ?

Note that John was talking about crosstalk, in the analog domain,
and yes, what he did certainly will have a measurable improvement, and
is somewhat 'industry practise' when minimising crosstalk.
Note he says 'cured', that means he is on both sides of the problem,
and it is a brave (or something else?) person that counters such direct
experience

I imagine in extreme digital cases, such as where you are worried not
only about sending the clock, but also about the ps/fs of jitter, then
this design approach would also help : it's not hard to do.

-jg

I do stuff down to a few ps RMS jitter on a regular 6 or 8-layer
board, microstrip traces, with switching supplies and uPs and display
drivers on the same board. Picoseconds aren't tough these days.

John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

____________________________________

You are hoping that we believe switchers
cause lots of noise ....

Zero ripple is what switchers do !
The sudden pulse of current is only
around a very short loop , it does
not cause noise .
They dont even have "ground loops"

MassiveProng · Feb 16, 2007

On 15 Feb 2007 22:26:30 -0800, "werty" <werty@swissinfo.org> Gave us:

On Feb 13, 7:51 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:46:04 +1300, Jim Granville

no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote:
werty wrote:
On Feb 12, 2:30 pm, "john jardine" <j...@jjdesigns.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

"Geronimo Stempovski" <geronimo.stempov...@arcor.de> wrote in message

news:45d04b34$0$27624$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...> I think transmitting high-speed signals is very easy when you have a

360-degree ground reference, round conductors,
and no other nearby signals like in coaxial cables. My aim is to design

PCB

tracks as much like a coaxial cable as
possible. Anyone tried this before? Is it possible with regular FR4,

anyway?

Thanks for your help.

Gero

Had trouble with crosstalk on a mass of video signals. Cured with a
multilayer board where each signal was 'boxed in' by ground plane to the
sides, above and below. Sort of square coax.

----------------------------------------------------------

Boxed ! the wavelength is far greater than
your dimensions , thus higher modes can not
exist , thus you do NOT need sides .
When you reach 10 Ghz , then maybe
you need sides in ur boxed "coax" .
snip

Seems video distribution is not one of your areas of expertise ?

Note that John was talking about crosstalk, in the analog domain,
and yes, what he did certainly will have a measurable improvement, and
is somewhat 'industry practise' when minimising crosstalk.
Note he says 'cured', that means he is on both sides of the problem,
and it is a brave (or something else?) person that counters such direct
experience

I imagine in extreme digital cases, such as where you are worried not
only about sending the clock, but also about the ps/fs of jitter, then
this design approach would also help : it's not hard to do.

-jg

I do stuff down to a few ps RMS jitter on a regular 6 or 8-layer
board, microstrip traces, with switching supplies and uPs and display
drivers on the same board. Picoseconds aren't tough these days.

John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

____________________________________

You are hoping that we believe switchers
cause lots of noise ....

Zero ripple is what switchers do !
The sudden pulse of current is only
around a very short loop , it does
not cause noise .
They dont even have "ground loops"

We cannot use switchers to feed to rails on our 2 to 12 GHz designs.
NOISE CAN AND DOES get injected into such systems BY SWITCHING POWER
SUPPLIES.

YOU may not be aware of it, but those of us that work in such bands
are aware of high frequency switching noise, and it DOES show up under
spectrum analysis.

Your brain has a ground loop.

Grant Edwards · Feb 16, 2007

On 2007-02-16, werty <werty@swissinfo.org> wrote:

BTW
Study CAT5e Ethernet cable .
garbage !
USB cables are much faster .

I think ppl limit themselves to
whats avail in PCB , then complain
when it dont work , but if they'd
experiment , they'd find the problem
is using thin PCB .
Then they limit on putting down
100 transmission lines per mm .
You cant learn , unless you experiment.

Shite man, what are you using for a computer, a 40-column
Commodore PET?

[...]

Sending signals that will be amplified
use high Z ( ~65 ohms ) and
sending power needs low Z .
These rules can't be bent .
Thats what you're doin , is bending
rules ...

Even a PET wouldn't explain the random indentation.

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Remember, in 2039,
at MOUSSE & PASTA will
visi.com be available ONLY by
prescription!!

John Devereux · Feb 16, 2007

Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> writes:

On 2007-02-16, werty <werty@swissinfo.org> wrote:

BTW
Study CAT5e Ethernet cable .
garbage !
USB cables are much faster .

I think ppl limit themselves to
whats avail in PCB , then complain
when it dont work , but if they'd
experiment , they'd find the problem
is using thin PCB .
Then they limit on putting down
100 transmission lines per mm .
You cant learn , unless you experiment.

Shite man, what are you using for a computer, a 40-column
Commodore PET?

[...]

Sending signals that will be amplified
use high Z ( ~65 ohms ) and
sending power needs low Z .
These rules can't be bent .
Thats what you're doin , is bending
rules ...

Even a PET wouldn't explain the random indentation.

And the random word and punctuation spacing. Some kind of mobile
phone? The Microsoft Word Usenet Export Filter?

I think it's the usenet equivalent of green ink.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_ink>

--

John Devereux

Grant Edwards · Feb 16, 2007

On 2007-02-16, John Devereux <jdREMOVE@THISdevereux.me.uk> wrote:

Grant Edwards <grante@visi.com> writes:

On 2007-02-16, werty <werty@swissinfo.org> wrote:

BTW
Study CAT5e Ethernet cable .
garbage !
USB cables are much faster .

I think ppl limit themselves to
whats avail in PCB , then complain
when it dont work , but if they'd
experiment , they'd find the problem
is using thin PCB .
Then they limit on putting down
100 transmission lines per mm .
You cant learn , unless you experiment.

Shite man, what are you using for a computer, a 40-column
Commodore PET?

[...]

Sending signals that will be amplified
use high Z ( ~65 ohms ) and
sending power needs low Z .
These rules can't be bent .
Thats what you're doin , is bending
rules ...

Even a PET wouldn't explain the random indentation.

And the random word and punctuation spacing. Some kind of mobile
phone? The Microsoft Word Usenet Export Filter?

I think it's the usenet equivalent of green ink.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_ink

I love it! I'd never heard the phrase "green ink" before. It's
a keeper.

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Now, I think it would
at be GOOD to buy FIVE or SIX
visi.com STUDEBAKERS and CRUISE for
ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING!!

John Larkin · Feb 16, 2007

On 15 Feb 2007 22:26:30 -0800, "werty" <werty@swissinfo.org> wrote:

On Feb 13, 7:51 am, John Larkin
jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007 20:46:04 +1300, Jim Granville

no.s...@designtools.maps.co.nz> wrote:
werty wrote:
On Feb 12, 2:30 pm, "john jardine" <j...@jjdesigns.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:

"Geronimo Stempovski" <geronimo.stempov...@arcor.de> wrote in message

news:45d04b34$0$27624$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net...> I think transmitting high-speed signals is very easy when you have a

360-degree ground reference, round conductors,
and no other nearby signals like in coaxial cables. My aim is to design

PCB

tracks as much like a coaxial cable as
possible. Anyone tried this before? Is it possible with regular FR4,

anyway?

Thanks for your help.

Gero

Had trouble with crosstalk on a mass of video signals. Cured with a
multilayer board where each signal was 'boxed in' by ground plane to the
sides, above and below. Sort of square coax.

----------------------------------------------------------

Boxed ! the wavelength is far greater than
your dimensions , thus higher modes can not
exist , thus you do NOT need sides .
When you reach 10 Ghz , then maybe
you need sides in ur boxed "coax" .
snip

Seems video distribution is not one of your areas of expertise ?

Note that John was talking about crosstalk, in the analog domain,
and yes, what he did certainly will have a measurable improvement, and
is somewhat 'industry practise' when minimising crosstalk.
Note he says 'cured', that means he is on both sides of the problem,
and it is a brave (or something else?) person that counters such direct
experience

I imagine in extreme digital cases, such as where you are worried not
only about sending the clock, but also about the ps/fs of jitter, then
this design approach would also help : it's not hard to do.

-jg

I do stuff down to a few ps RMS jitter on a regular 6 or 8-layer
board, microstrip traces, with switching supplies and uPs and display
drivers on the same board. Picoseconds aren't tough these days.

John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

____________________________________

You are hoping that we believe switchers
cause lots of noise ....

Zero ripple is what switchers do !
The sudden pulse of current is only
around a very short loop , it does
not cause noise .
They dont even have "ground loops"

Please post the schematic of a zero-ripple switcher.

John

Michael A. Terrell · Feb 16, 2007

John Larkin wrote:

Please post the schematic of a zero-ripple switcher.

John

Sorry, but that feature is only available on the 0 volt model.

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Vladimir Vassilevsky · Feb 16, 2007

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

Please post the schematic of a zero-ripple switcher.

John

Sorry, but that feature is only available on the 0 volt model.

Indeed there are the topologies of the switchers with exactly zero or
almost zero ripple, assuming the ideal symmetry of everything.

Vladimir Vassilevsky

DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant

http://www.abvolt.com

John Larkin · Feb 16, 2007

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:25:11 GMT, Vladimir Vassilevsky
<antispam_bogus@hotmail.com> wrote:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

Please post the schematic of a zero-ripple switcher.

John

Sorry, but that feature is only available on the 0 volt model.

Indeed there are the topologies of the switchers with exactly zero or
almost zero ripple, assuming the ideal symmetry of everything.

Like a polyphase switcher with *big* inductors?

But I don't want "almost zero ripple", I want the real thing.

John

CBFalconer · Feb 16, 2007

John Larkin wrote:

.... snip ...

Please post the schematic of a zero-ripple switcher.

All it takes is an infinite capacity capacitor. The turn-on time
and inrush current may be high. However it avoids the need for a
UPS. Once they get the breakdown voltage up and get them into
production we can have all the electric cars we want, and dispense
with all batteries.

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>

"A man who is right every time is not likely to do very much."
-- Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA
"There is nothing more amazing than stupidity in action."
-- Thomas Matthews

Vladimir Vassilevsky · Feb 16, 2007

John Larkin wrote:

Please post the schematic of a zero-ripple switcher.
Sorry, but that feature is only available on the 0 volt model.

Indeed there are the topologies of the switchers with exactly zero or
almost zero ripple, assuming the ideal symmetry of everything.

Like a polyphase switcher with *big* inductors?
But I don't want "almost zero ripple", I want the real thing.

Zero ripple is a real thing.
Imagine the two identical bucks operating 50/50 duty with 180 degree
phase shift on the common load. Ideally, there will be no ripple at the
load at all. There are numerous patents on the variations of this idea,
allowing to adjust the duty, different topologies and such.

Vladimir Vassilevsky

DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant

http://www.abvolt.com

John Larkin · Feb 16, 2007

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:18:55 -0500, CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:

... snip ...

Please post the schematic of a zero-ripple switcher.

All it takes is an infinite capacity capacitor. The turn-on time
and inrush current may be high. However it avoids the need for a
UPS. Once they get the breakdown voltage up and get them into
production we can have all the electric cars we want, and dispense
with all batteries.

Right. You'd buy them charged, guaranted to run for 200K miles.

John

magnetic field

Tom Bruhns

Guest

Jim Granville

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

john jardine

Guest

Del Cecchi

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

werty

Guest

werty

Guest

MassiveProng

Guest

Grant Edwards

Guest

John Devereux

Guest

Grant Edwards

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Michael A. Terrell

Guest

Vladimir Vassilevsky

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

CBFalconer

Guest

Vladimir Vassilevsky

Guest

John Larkin

Guest

Log in

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor