Author Topic: EM Drive Developments - related to space flight applications - Thread 3  (Read 1873341 times)

Offline zen-in

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 531
  • California
  • Liked: 468
  • Likes Given: 365
Please notice that the first worldwide replication test by a "Do it yourself", by Iulian Berca (in Romania), had a measured thrust force that when calculated as an average of runs in tests 3 and 3.1, subtracting out the likely "gas effect", as per @deltaMass calculated net thrust of 0.29gf effective thrust, which is 2.84mN, according to the EM Drive wiki page:  http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results

...


That is an overly optimistic analysis of Iulian's experiment.   He did 3 tests.   The first, which attempted to observe a horizontal deflection, was null.   Test 3.0 (are there other tests that haven't been reported?  That sounds familiar) attempted to measure an upward force on the cavity.   His one measurement from that experiment was 0.508 gram force.   If that force was entirely from the RF energy and not from air heating inside the cavity one would expect the first test to show a deflection since he did say that approximately a gram force was necessary to cause an observable horizontal deflection.     Experiment 3.1 was a 180 change in orientation.   Again, if the force was entirely from the RF energy one would expect an equal but opposite force.    The fact that the measured force in the downward direction was 7X smaller nullifies both experiments.    Another experiment that could be done would be to stick a lighted match inside the cavity and measure the "thrust" that produces.

This is not a criticism of Iulian.   I think he showed a lot of ingenuity and craftsmanship.  And if he has decided to move on to other projects, so much the better.

Online aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2785
  • 92129
  • Liked: 724
  • Likes Given: 249
The problem I wonder about with the tunneling photons conjecture is that the barrier height seems to be insurmountable. When I claculated the probability of a photon tunneling through the 35 micron copper, the answer was zero. Not just a very small number but something on the order of 1e-110 as I recall. That zero. Now, as I don't claim to have much skill in math/physics, there is a strong probability that I was off by a few orders of magnitude so maybe someone would take a closer look.

We could also look at the thickness of the big end of the various thrusters and see if there is a relationship between thickness (tunneling barrier height) and thrust. The big end because tunneling photons would cause thrust by an action-reaction mechanism and there likely would be more action at the larger area of the big end. Anyway, that would be the right direction for the EW experiments.
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Please notice that the first worldwide replication test by a "Do it yourself", by Iulian Berca (in Romania), had a measured thrust force that when calculated as an average of runs in tests 3 and 3.1, subtracting out the likely "gas effect", as per @deltaMass calculated net thrust of 0.29gf effective thrust, which is 2.84mN, according to the EM Drive wiki page:  http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results

...


That is an overly optimistic analysis of Iulian's experiment.   He did 3 tests.   The first, which attempted to observe a horizontal deflection, was null.   Test 3.0 (are there other tests that haven't been reported?  That sounds familiar) attempted to measure an upward force on the cavity.   His one measurement from that experiment was 0.508 gram force.   If that force was entirely from the RF energy and not from air heating inside the cavity one would expect the first test to show a deflection since he did say that approximately a gram force was necessary to cause an observable horizontal deflection.     Experiment 3.1 was a 180 change in orientation.   Again, if the force was entirely from the RF energy one would expect an equal but opposite force.    The fact that the measured force in the downward direction was 7X smaller nullifies both experiments.    Another experiment that could be done would be to stick a lighted match inside the cavity and measure the "thrust" that produces.

This is not a criticism of Iulian.   I think he showed a lot of ingenuity and craftsmanship.  And if he has decided to move on to other projects, so much the better.

I noticed that somebody put Iulian's test in the wiki http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results with this message, quoting DeltaMass:

Quote
Because of the high profile nature of the tests, they are included here merely to give a rough comparison to the more scientifically rigorous tests. The measured thrust in this table is an average of multiple runs in tests 3 and 3.1, subtracting out the likely effects of hot air. @deltaMass calculated the net thrust for the EmDrive across both tests to be 0.29gf effective thrust, which is 2.84mN. 

Which gives a thrust/InputPower similar to the one measured by NASA.

On the basis of your comment above, do you think that Iulian's test should be taken out of the comparison table?

Or, if you think that  Iulian's test should remain in the comparison table, what numbers would you suggest to put in the table instead of the numbers in the table?
« Last Edit: 06/04/2015 04:53 AM by Rodal »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
...Well yes. In my spare time I play a zombie survival game. ....
;)
« Last Edit: 06/04/2015 04:57 AM by Rodal »

Offline zellerium

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 171
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 279
  • Likes Given: 400


...
The fact that the measured force in the downward direction was 7X smaller nullifies both experiments.    Another experiment that could be done would be to stick a lighted match inside the cavity and measure the "thrust" that produces.

This is not a criticism of Iulian.   I think he showed a lot of ingenuity and craftsmanship.  And if he has decided to move on to other projects, so much the better.

I know it has already been discussed here, but I think it is important to note that Iulian's downward thrust test was working against hot air as well as the spring force, so we should expect the result to be less than the upward test.

If the magnetron was not producing the force, what other mechanism could have resulted in a positive change in the scale?
 

Online aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2785
  • 92129
  • Liked: 724
  • Likes Given: 249
Quote
...do you think that Iulian's test should be taken out of the comparison table?

Absolutely not!

If anything is to be changed (and It might already be there) it would be to include each piece of raw measurement data, or max, min and mean for each case where the each case is for the same configuration, orientation power, etc. Of course this detail may be more appropriate to the tester's data page, and not the summary comparison.
Retired, working interesting problems

Online WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1350
  • Likes Given: 1813
...The  speed of light is ONLY constant in an inertial reference frame. As soon as you introduce acceleration or gravity, it is not constant.

...What you are saying about the speed of light is true, but where you are going wrong is counting this as acceleration. This does not mean that photons accelerate or decelerate. Light does not get slowed or sped up. Light being affected by gravity is a geometric argument, light follows the null geodesic.
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/gr/c_in_gfield.htm
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesics_in_general_relativity

Once again, just because the speed of light appears to be different in or out of a gravity well as viewed by a distant observer, has nothing to do with photons being accelerated/decelerated.

Light entering a gravity well is blueshifted, light exiting a gravity well is red shifted. Light crossing a gravity well is curved. That is what really happens.

It is my experience and opinion that "curved space time" and "variable refractive index" are two interpretations of the same phenomenon. You can't say one is correct and the other is not, just because the opinion of main stream physicists "prefer" GR over PV. You are entitled to your own opinion however, please don't discredit me for having one of my own.

IMO, it is a matter of taste, both make the same predictions, including frame dragging which I've briefly shown in this thread in previous posts. As an engineer, if you tell me I need to curve space-time with planetary size masses, I may as well quit my job and go fishing. However, if you tell me space-time can be modeled as a variable refractive index medium that can be "engineered" within a narrow bandwidth of the EM spectrum, and it's up to me to find a way to do it, by George I'll accept the challenge!

Quote
Now onto the PV model of GR...
Harold E. Puthoff has a lot of neat ideas (I've read his work too) and his PV model (his alternative approach to general relativity and quantum mechanics) certainly is interesting reading but none of it is accepted by the scientific community. I do find some merit in some of what he says (because the QED vacuum is a dielectric and vacuum polarization is a real thing) but there is no proof that it has anything to do with gravitation.

I can refute this if you like. Every test of GR is a test of PV. They predict the exact same metric solutions. This was first published by Joe Depp, where he derived the Schwarzschild solution and the Reissner-Nordstrom solution from PV, by combining Hal's work and the paper I wrote on Event Horizons in the PV Model.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/251231445_Event_horizons_in_the_PV_Model
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265522894_Polarizable_Vacuum_and_the_Reissner-Nordstrom_Solution
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265111294_Polarizable_Vacuum_and_the_Schwarzschild_Solution
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275336571_The_Electromagnetic_Quantum_Vacuum_Warp_Drive_%28Slides%29

I then took what he did and found a solution to the Kerr metric and frame dragging problem in my quest for warp drive. I then re-designed Alcubierre's warp drive equation into one that is potentially realistic. In that paper which I'm hoping will be published in JBIS, I describe precisely how PV and GR are related, Power in = Power out. I describe what exotic matter really is and how gravity "works" as an equilibrium between the vacuum ZPF and the ground state of matter. This equilibrium is governed by the stress energy tensor, at the quantum scale just as GR requires. When the equilibrium symmetry is broken, the system accelerates. Except PV is now BETTER than GR because I have a QFT compatible theory now that is not a simple scalar field anymore. 

Quote
EmDrive is already on very shaky ground from a theoretical standpoint, and reports of thrust from them are also on shaky ground. Do we really need fringe science on the table right now? We're all screaming, "It ain't a warp drive!" and you're bringing taboo science to the table that isn't accepted by the scientific community, and proclaiming, it is a warp drive.
http://www.earthtech.org/publications/PV_Found_of_Physics.pdf
http://arxiv.org/find/physics/1/au:+Puthoff_H/0/1/0/all/0/1

I never said the EM Drive can go FTL, it can't and I only said it mimics gravity, which it does. It is pretty well accepted around here that "conventional physics" is not going to explain it. I'm trying to show how conventional physics, when interpreted correctly, can explain it perfectly well. It's not my fault it works this way.  8)

Todd


Offline zen-in

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 531
  • California
  • Liked: 468
  • Likes Given: 365

That is an overly optimistic analysis of Iulian's experiment.   He did 3 tests.   The first, which attempted to observe a horizontal deflection, was null.   Test 3.0 (are there other tests that haven't been reported?  That sounds familiar) attempted to measure an upward force on the cavity.   His one measurement from that experiment was 0.508 gram force.   If that force was entirely from the RF energy and not from air heating inside the cavity one would expect the first test to show a deflection since he did say that approximately a gram force was necessary to cause an observable horizontal deflection.     Experiment 3.1 was a 180 change in orientation.   Again, if the force was entirely from the RF energy one would expect an equal but opposite force.    The fact that the measured force in the downward direction was 7X smaller nullifies both experiments.    Another experiment that could be done would be to stick a lighted match inside the cavity and measure the "thrust" that produces.

This is not a criticism of Iulian.   I think he showed a lot of ingenuity and craftsmanship.  And if he has decided to move on to other projects, so much the better.

I noticed that somebody put Iulian's test in the wiki http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results with this message, quoting DeltaMass:

Quote
Because of the high profile nature of the tests, they are included here merely to give a rough comparison to the more scientifically rigorous tests. The measured thrust in this table is an average of multiple runs in tests 3 and 3.1, subtracting out the likely effects of hot air. @deltaMass calculated the net thrust for the EmDrive across both tests to be 0.29gf effective thrust, which is 2.84mN. 

Which gives a thrust/InputPower similar to the one measured by NASA.

On the basis of your comment above, do you think that Iulian's test should be taken out of the comparison table?

Or, if you think that  Iulian's test should remain in the comparison table, what numbers would you suggest to put in the table instead of the numbers in the table?

If it was up to me I would report his test verbatim.   Just quote what he stated in his blog.    Readers can form their own conclusions.

Online WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1350
  • Likes Given: 1813
We are using the same definition of open system :)

I do think Shawyer  attempted to "open" the cavity by invoking Special Relativity (incorrectly). White uses the QV (almost in an extra dimensional way) to open the system. Yang appears to make no attempt at doing so and thus the reason for my question.

Going extra dimensional, 4+1, also opens up the cavity. However, in looking over Randall/Sundrum I realized that their +1 is not on our D-Brane and is rather the bulk itself.  According to string theory this means RF energy can not enter the +1 dimension,yet  in the same breath Randall wonders if Standard Model particles are in the bulk.  Of course there is the possibility of other dimensions outside of their theory.

I am hoping that given Yang's substantially higher thrust that the manner in which the cavity is opened up could be discerned helping theory move forward.

A perfectly reasonable argument for calling it an open system is to acknowledge that vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field are common to both inside and outside the cavity. They are everywhere.

That just flipped on a light bulb! I was thinking about the magnetic gauge potential, vector field. It cannot be shielded by copper or any conductor, and results in the Aharonov-Bohm effect on moving electrons. The Aharonov-Bohm effect is basically a phase shift of the electron wave function, due to its interaction with the gauge field. As I was saying, interference patterns, blah, blah, blah...,

"This is the quantum-mechanical law, which replaces the Lorentz force!" (qv x B) (Felsager - Geometry Particles, and Fields, Ch. 2, sec. 2.6. GREAT book by the way!

In TM01 mode, there is a solenoidal magnetic field, B circulating around the axis of the frustum. In this configuration, the gauge vector field, A is toroidal and coaxial with the frustum, it exits through the copper end plates front and back and is by definition and "open" system.

In TE01 mode however, I think the magnetic field is toroidal inside the frustum, (correct?) trapping the A field inside.  Hmmm.... I know Lorentz forces are what is making it move, so this is relevant. Just haven't decided how yet.  :o

Todd

 

Offline Jared

  • Member
  • Posts: 11
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 8
This is not a criticism of Iulian.   I think he showed a lot of ingenuity and craftsmanship.  And if he has decided to move on to other projects, so much the better.

According to his last blog entry, he is currently preparing a new test setup (Test No.4) with manually adjusted cavity lengths to see which one produces the most thrust.

http://www.masinaelectrica.com/emdrive-independent-test/

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
Hello Todd - it's me, the thorn in your side.
Quote
It is my experience and opinion that "curved space time" and "variable refractive index" are two interpretations of the same phenomenon. You can't say one is correct and the other is not, just because the opinion of main stream physicists "prefer" GR over PV. You are entitled to your own opinion however, please don't discredit me for having one of my own.
But I can disagree with your opinion. So I shall.

In a curved space time, a photon travels its geodesic at c.
In a medium with a non-unity refractive index n, a photon is involved with continual interactions with atoms and molecules, and is continually absorbed and re-emitted, and part of the time it is expressed as a phonon or a polariton etc. Whenever it is actualised, which is part of the time, it travels at the vacuum value of c.  As a result of this messy collection of processes, it appears as though the photon is travelling at c/n along its straight refracted path.

These two scenarios are not equivalent at all.

Online WarpTech

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1301
  • Do it!
  • Vista, CA
  • Liked: 1350
  • Likes Given: 1813
Hello Todd - it's me, the thorn in your side.
Quote
It is my experience and opinion that "curved space time" and "variable refractive index" are two interpretations of the same phenomenon. You can't say one is correct and the other is not, just because the opinion of main stream physicists "prefer" GR over PV. You are entitled to your own opinion however, please don't discredit me for having one of my own.
But I can disagree with your opinion. So I shall.

In a curved space time, a photon travels its geodesic at c.
In a medium with a non-unity refractive index n, a photon is involved with continual interactions with atoms and molecules, and is continually absorbed and re-emitted, and part of the time it is expressed as a phonon or a polariton etc. Whenever it is actualised, which is part of the time, it travels at the vacuum value of c.  As a result of this messy collection of processes, it appears as though the photon is travelling at c/n along its straight refracted path.

These two scenarios are not equivalent at all.

So, in your opinion, the EM ZPF does not exist and has no interaction with light propagation? I think there are enough experiments to prove the existence of the EM ZPF. I think it is also fairly easy to show without invoking any other ZPF's, only the EM ZPF. By using the density of coherent Boson's in the ground state, it is simple to construct a space-time that has a variable refractive index due to relative energy density, polarization and flow of momentum of the EM field, i.e. the stress energy tensor of the EM field. The "zero" of zero point is the ground state, it is a "relative" measurement in a gravitational field. I can do the same for the gluon field as well!

Also, in QED, that's precisely how it works! A photon is annihilated at point "a" and created at point "b". "c" is just a statistic!


Todd
« Last Edit: 06/04/2015 06:17 AM by WarpTech »

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
To equate the smooth motion of a photon along a curved geodesic to the jumpy progress of a photon in a medium seems a stretch to me.

So to indulge this idea a little more: refractive index in the real world is a complex number, as are relative permeability and permittivity. What equivalent complex number describes gravity? What does the imaginary part mean? What is "imaginary gravity"?
« Last Edit: 06/04/2015 08:08 AM by deltaMass »

Offline OttO

  • Member
  • Posts: 81
  • France
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 11
It will be probably to light an effect but:

Evanescent Artificial Gauge Potentials for Neutral Atoms
http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.7106

and

Artificial magnetic field induced by an evanescent wave
http://www.nature.com/srep/2015/150108/srep07672/full/srep07672.html


"The artificial magnetic field is able to reflect falling atoms that can be observed experimentally"


Is it a way to give momentum to the external atmosphere? With the copper thickness and the working frequency it is doubtful.
« Last Edit: 06/04/2015 08:07 AM by OttO »

Offline OttO

  • Member
  • Posts: 81
  • France
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 11
To equate the smooth motion of a photon along a curved geodesic to the jumpy progress of a photon in a medium seems a stretch to me.

It could be   ;):

Quantum phenomena modelled by interactions between many classical worlds
http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.6144

"we perform numerical simulations using our approach. We demonstrate, first, that it can be used to calculate quantum ground states, and second, that it is capable of reproducing, at least qualitatively, the double-slit interference phenomenon"

Offline deltaMass

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
  • A Brit in California
  • Liked: 671
  • Likes Given: 275
Electromagnetic fields and transmission properties in tapered hollow metallic waveguides

https://www.osapublishing.org/oe/fulltext.cfm?uri=oe-17-1-34&id=175583

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325
Electromagnetic fields and transmission properties in tapered hollow metallic waveguides

https://www.osapublishing.org/oe/fulltext.cfm?uri=oe-17-1-34&id=175583

???

I don't understand your message after page after page of you disagreeing with Todd. In your previous message you even begin by stating: "Todd - it's me, the thorn in your side." ( http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37642.msg1384562#msg1384562 )  Now in this message it appears as if you are pointing out a new article to the audience? This is exactly the same report on geometrical attenuation that WarpTech has used for the geometrical attenuation argument in the theory that you have been arguing against. 
« Last Edit: 06/04/2015 12:57 PM by Rodal »

Offline Rodal

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5895
  • USA
  • Liked: 6045
  • Likes Given: 5325

That is an overly optimistic analysis of Iulian's experiment.   He did 3 tests.   The first, which attempted to observe a horizontal deflection, was null.   Test 3.0 (are there other tests that haven't been reported?  That sounds familiar) attempted to measure an upward force on the cavity.   His one measurement from that experiment was 0.508 gram force.   If that force was entirely from the RF energy and not from air heating inside the cavity one would expect the first test to show a deflection since he did say that approximately a gram force was necessary to cause an observable horizontal deflection.     Experiment 3.1 was a 180 change in orientation.   Again, if the force was entirely from the RF energy one would expect an equal but opposite force.    The fact that the measured force in the downward direction was 7X smaller nullifies both experiments.    Another experiment that could be done would be to stick a lighted match inside the cavity and measure the "thrust" that produces.

This is not a criticism of Iulian.   I think he showed a lot of ingenuity and craftsmanship.  And if he has decided to move on to other projects, so much the better.

I noticed that somebody put Iulian's test in the wiki http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results with this message, quoting DeltaMass:

Quote
Because of the high profile nature of the tests, they are included here merely to give a rough comparison to the more scientifically rigorous tests. The measured thrust in this table is an average of multiple runs in tests 3 and 3.1, subtracting out the likely effects of hot air. @deltaMass calculated the net thrust for the EmDrive across both tests to be 0.29gf effective thrust, which is 2.84mN. 

Which gives a thrust/InputPower similar to the one measured by NASA.

On the basis of your comment above, do you think that Iulian's test should be taken out of the comparison table?

Or, if you think that  Iulian's test should remain in the comparison table, what numbers would you suggest to put in the table instead of the numbers in the table?

If it was up to me I would report his test verbatim.   Just quote what he stated in his blog.    Readers can form their own conclusions.
That's not the way (to have verbatim descriptions) that the person that set up the wiki ( http://emdrive.wiki/Experimental_Results ), set-up that page.  My understanding is that the page was set up by the creator of the wiki as a table of Experimental Results, so that the readers could quickly gather the data from the experiments, as engineers and scientists do, from a table with numbers, rather than using words.  A table with numbers under a common format for all researchers.

I think that the person that set-up the wiki made a great choice in this respect, because a table of numbers has a hygienic effect: it forces the analyst to make a numerical choice, in a common format for all the experiments from different researchers, rather than just reproduce verbatim what was reported without a common format.

Putting the data in numbers, in the same format, forces all the researchers to speak the same language, so that the reader can then understand what is being reported, and the reader can extract conclusions from such a table.

The choice here is either not to include the experiments by Iulian (if you think that his tests self-nullify each other, and therefore you think that you cannot put any  numbers in the common format) or, if to include them, to put a number for the experiments.  @aero wrote, that Iulian's experiments should remain in the table.  In that case, if you think that the quoted numbers from deltaMass are incorrect and misrepresent the true tests, what numbers for Iulian tests would you suggest to put in the table under the agreed format?
« Last Edit: 06/04/2015 01:54 PM by Rodal »

Offline OttO

  • Member
  • Posts: 81
  • France
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 11
http://arxiv.org/abs/1506.01099

The presence of the dielectric in the central part of the resonance cavity shifts the magnetic fields maximum from regions close to the metallic wall towards the dielectric surface,

Is it another reason to use a dielectric or just why it has been proposed?
« Last Edit: 06/04/2015 01:09 PM by OttO »

Offline CW

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 187
  • Germany
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 51
Wouldn't the tunnelling effect also be constrained by conservation of momentum and therefore apply at both ends of the frustrum?
You have to look at the energy density regarding radiation pressure, and don't ignore the lateral conical walls.
Then perform a quantum tunneling analysis.  Momentum will be favored to one side if there is a gradient of emission.

correct and
The tunneling effect acts instantaneous. At the moment a photon is tunneling it impulse acts, that's like its reflected in a wall <z (lower qua the real length of the cavity). There has to be a blue shift of the signal means higher frequency like calculated r and z dependent.

Are you sure that's a net blue shift?  The frustum has to gain momentum which means the photon loses energy and red shifts.  Is the blue shift something that photon's do when they tunnel?
Yes, if there is a potential barrier (cutoff frequency, diameter )most of the photons would be reflected (may be at the sidewall may be at the energy barrier) but some photons able to tunneling that barrier in just zero time, i think than the cavity acts like shorter than it is.
The small end looks like it is narrow to the small end. Its more a intuitiv thing, i have the luck to work with conical cavities for special applications. Got network analyser, Spectrum Analyzer, circulator, load, tapered cavities all available and i am able to build conical cavities like a want but in K-Band area
 8)

I'm just wondering.. if tunneling happens instantaneously (in the literal sense), then there is no time to measure anything - it happens without any dt . Hence, I don't think it can be said that photons increase or decrease frequency during the transition through the barrier.. if there is null time passing, then logically no measurements can take place, from which we can derive a claim about how frequencies of photons might change during a null time transition.
;)
« Last Edit: 06/04/2015 01:29 PM by CW »
Reality is weirder than fiction

Tags: