Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums
Privacy Policy |
Please read our Terms
of Service | Signup and
Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu.... uh, User
HandyAndy
sage
Reged: 01/11/08
Posts: 412
Loc: West Midlands and around
|
|
Hi,
Thanks.
As I am trying to compare 'like for like' would it be possible to do the spot diagram for a 6" as its got a lens at the front. What are the F no limitations and what is required at 6".
Cheers. Andrew.
--------------------
Monarch 8x42, Zeiss 10x50 WA
10mm F2, Pentax 60mm F5
City: 7" MN78: MK4#2, 10" F6.3: MK4#1, 16" F5 ParaCorr
Country: 5" F9.5, 8" VISAC: GP2
Car: 6" F5 MPCC: SP, 5" 127mm F7.5
TV 55mm, Paragon 40mm, UO Pretoria 28mm
B&L 32 Pl, Clave's 25, 8, 6, 2x
Hyperions 5, 8, 13, 17, 24, 31
Nagler1 9mm, Meade 14mm 4000 UWA
Antares 1.6x, 0.7x, 0.5x
|
DAVIDG
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 12/02/04
Posts: 1447
Loc: Hockessin, De
|
|
Quote:
Hi,
Thanks.
As I am trying to compare 'like for like' would it be possible to do the spot diagram for a 6" as its got a lens at the front. What are the F no limitations and what is required at 6".
Cheers. Andrew.
Here is a spot diagram of a 6" f/12 which a friend owns. Note that it is again diffraction limited for all colors at a field of view of over 1/2 a degree and has polychromatic Strehl ratio of 0.995.
Schupmanns can be made as fast as f/9.75, maybe even faster. Gerry Login displayed a 10.25", f9.75 at Riverside about 10 years ago were it received excellent reviews.
The largest Schupmann is the Swedish 0.97 meter used for solar work.
- Dave
--------------------
Homemade 'scopes 8"f/7,6" f/5", 6"f/4, 4.25" Schief. 60mm Coronagraph,60mm H-alpha system, 4.25" White-light Solar Newtonian,solar spectroscope, 4.5" f/16 Schupmann Medial refractor, 14 Stellafane awards 7 in optics
Engineering = Taking what you have and making what you need.
|
HandyAndy
sage
Reged: 01/11/08
Posts: 412
Loc: West Midlands and around
|
|
Hi,
We can add the Shupmann I think:
Two Elements:
-8" Newtonian @ F8
Three Elements:
-7" Maksutov Newtonian @ F8
-6" Doublet Refractor @ F15 and Star Diagonal
Four Elements:
-8" Newtonian @ F8 and Paracorr
-6" Triplet Refractor @ F9 and Star Diagonal
-6" Shupmann @ F12 and Star Diagonal
-7 "Maksutov @ F15 and Star Diagonal
The trend seems to be that more elements mean better correction. With modern coatings we get better results.
Also longer focal length aids simplicity.
Perhaps an ED Refractor with UHC filter will make a great Deep Sky telescope as a Mono(Chromat). We only see dim objects as green anyway.
I am coming down to Eddgies view of three telescopes:
4" Refractor for wide field
One of our 'best' at a nominal 6" for planets and the Moon
16" F5 and Paracorr for Deep Sky
Which eyepieces would be best for each?
Cheers. Andrew.
--------------------
Monarch 8x42, Zeiss 10x50 WA
10mm F2, Pentax 60mm F5
City: 7" MN78: MK4#2, 10" F6.3: MK4#1, 16" F5 ParaCorr
Country: 5" F9.5, 8" VISAC: GP2
Car: 6" F5 MPCC: SP, 5" 127mm F7.5
TV 55mm, Paragon 40mm, UO Pretoria 28mm
B&L 32 Pl, Clave's 25, 8, 6, 2x
Hyperions 5, 8, 13, 17, 24, 31
Nagler1 9mm, Meade 14mm 4000 UWA
Antares 1.6x, 0.7x, 0.5x
|
DAVIDG
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 12/02/04
Posts: 1447
Loc: Hockessin, De
|
|
One thing you need to consider is MTF curves which will show how well the 'scope is at resolving low contrast features. Spot diagrams only tell part of the story. You need to look at both of them. For the very best planetary resolution you want an unobstucted system and superior color correction. This also plays a part in deepsky observing, since 'scopes with superior MTF curves have higher contrast which allow fainter objects to be detected.
By the way a Paracorr adds some amount of under corrected spherical abberation. One would need to make the mirror hyberbolic to fully correct for it.
As for eyepieces, if the f-ratio is F/7 or slower any good orthoscopic eyepiece would work very well. No need to use anything fancier.
- Dave
--------------------
Homemade 'scopes 8"f/7,6" f/5", 6"f/4, 4.25" Schief. 60mm Coronagraph,60mm H-alpha system, 4.25" White-light Solar Newtonian,solar spectroscope, 4.5" f/16 Schupmann Medial refractor, 14 Stellafane awards 7 in optics
Engineering = Taking what you have and making what you need.
|
HandyAndy
sage
Reged: 01/11/08
Posts: 412
Loc: West Midlands and around
|
|
Hi,
Could I add a Single lens refractor at F15 with UHC filter for deep sky monochromatic observations?
Perhaps a simple dialyte with the final corrector in green filter glass?
Is there an easy to use freeware program to calculate spot diagrams, MTF and those colour focus curves?
Cheers. Andrew.
--------------------
Monarch 8x42, Zeiss 10x50 WA
10mm F2, Pentax 60mm F5
City: 7" MN78: MK4#2, 10" F6.3: MK4#1, 16" F5 ParaCorr
Country: 5" F9.5, 8" VISAC: GP2
Car: 6" F5 MPCC: SP, 5" 127mm F7.5
TV 55mm, Paragon 40mm, UO Pretoria 28mm
B&L 32 Pl, Clave's 25, 8, 6, 2x
Hyperions 5, 8, 13, 17, 24, 31
Nagler1 9mm, Meade 14mm 4000 UWA
Antares 1.6x, 0.7x, 0.5x
|
DAVIDG
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 12/02/04
Posts: 1447
Loc: Hockessin, De
|
|
A single lens refractor will not produce a good image even with a UHC filter. The chromatic abberation causes the color to come to focus at different distances. Using a UHC only removes some narrow wavelengths, the rest of the wavelengths still will not all come to focus at the same spot and the result is a blurry image.
The same is true if you use a green filter. Attached is spot diagram of the objective of my 4.5" f/16 Schupmann which is double convex lens that is corrected for spherical abberation and coma. I set the wavelength range to go from 514nm to 550nm and had the lens focus on 546nm. The black dot in the center is the airy disk and the lens focuses perfectly for 546nm but the wavelengths at 514 and 550 are a blur. Your also throwing away a huge amount of light. A green eyepiece filter passes about 40nm out about 250nm in the visible spectra.
As for a simple dialyte, they are made from a large crown objective and smaller flint lens. The color correction is no better then standard achromat. Replace the flint element with a menicus crown element that is silvered on the back and add a 1" diameter spherical mirror and you have a Schupmann with perfect color correction and very close to a perfect MTF curve.
One of the best free raytracing programs is OLSO EDU.
- Dave
--------------------
Homemade 'scopes 8"f/7,6" f/5", 6"f/4, 4.25" Schief. 60mm Coronagraph,60mm H-alpha system, 4.25" White-light Solar Newtonian,solar spectroscope, 4.5" f/16 Schupmann Medial refractor, 14 Stellafane awards 7 in optics
Engineering = Taking what you have and making what you need.
|
Almagne
member
Reged: 02/25/08
Posts: 28
|
|
Quote:
...you have a Schupmann with perfect color correction and very close to a perfect MTF curve.
- Dave
Oh man, oh man, Dave...those spot diagrams...the talk of the Schupmann...you are killing me!
It almost makes me want to learn to push glass. Let's see...initially learn by making a 4.5" f/12 in Schupmann... then maybe move up to a 12"...
|
DAVIDG
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 12/02/04
Posts: 1447
Loc: Hockessin, De
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
...you have a Schupmann with perfect color correction and very close to a perfect MTF curve.
- Dave
Oh man, oh man, Dave...those spot diagrams...the talk of the Schupmann...you are killing me!
It almost makes me want to learn to push glass. Let's see...initially learn by making a 4.5" f/12 in Schupmann... then maybe move up to a 12"...
That is were I started about 1 1/2 years ago and now I'm working on a 9 1/2" and very portable 4" f/12 "star party scope". Making one wasn't nearly as difficult as I thought it would be and it has exceded my expectations in image quality, plus it cost me less then $200 to make.
- Dave
--------------------
Homemade 'scopes 8"f/7,6" f/5", 6"f/4, 4.25" Schief. 60mm Coronagraph,60mm H-alpha system, 4.25" White-light Solar Newtonian,solar spectroscope, 4.5" f/16 Schupmann Medial refractor, 14 Stellafane awards 7 in optics
Engineering = Taking what you have and making what you need.
|
HandyAndy
sage
Reged: 01/11/08
Posts: 412
Loc: West Midlands and around
|
|
Hi,
I was thinking of a telescope specifically for viewing gas clouds glowing in green light. An O3 filter would be more specific.
Maybe an IR or UV blocker may be needed as well.
We have specific Solar Scopes, some for a specific wavelength, so why not one for O3?
There is a thread on how many scopes do you need!
I did look for a 4" singlet lens but no joy on Google at least.
Anyway you have a possible Shupmann convert so one result from the thread.
Cheers. Andrew.
--------------------
Monarch 8x42, Zeiss 10x50 WA
10mm F2, Pentax 60mm F5
City: 7" MN78: MK4#2, 10" F6.3: MK4#1, 16" F5 ParaCorr
Country: 5" F9.5, 8" VISAC: GP2
Car: 6" F5 MPCC: SP, 5" 127mm F7.5
TV 55mm, Paragon 40mm, UO Pretoria 28mm
B&L 32 Pl, Clave's 25, 8, 6, 2x
Hyperions 5, 8, 13, 17, 24, 31
Nagler1 9mm, Meade 14mm 4000 UWA
Antares 1.6x, 0.7x, 0.5x
|
DAVIDG
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 12/02/04
Posts: 1447
Loc: Hockessin, De
|
|
A solar telescope which I have built a couple uses a very narrow wavelength for either H-alpha or CaK observation. These wavelengths are sub angstroms, a OIII filter pass many nanometers so again a singlet would result in a fuzzy image. Even in sub-angstrom solar telescopes, achromats are used, not for color correction but because they are corrected for spherical abberation uses easy to manufactor spherical curves. A coma free singlet would require some aspherizing to correct the spherical abberration.
- Dave
--------------------
Homemade 'scopes 8"f/7,6" f/5", 6"f/4, 4.25" Schief. 60mm Coronagraph,60mm H-alpha system, 4.25" White-light Solar Newtonian,solar spectroscope, 4.5" f/16 Schupmann Medial refractor, 14 Stellafane awards 7 in optics
Engineering = Taking what you have and making what you need.
|
HandyAndy
sage
Reged: 01/11/08
Posts: 412
Loc: West Midlands and around
|
|
Hi,
Post in haste and repent at leisure!
Considering I am looking at the best I should have thought about abberations of the various kinds. I will have to find my book marked reference and do some research.
You mention aspheric lenses for a singlet. Opticians have been making aspheric parabolic mirrors for sometime. Could an aspheric singlet match a parabolic mirror?
I suppose it is easier to make a good spherical lens and when making compound cemented or oil immersed lenses they need to be a matching curve. Are there currently any production aspheric lens refractors?
One thought from your observation that a Paracorr needs a hyperbolic mirror is to buy the Paracorr ( maybe Flat as well), send to your mirror maker and ask him to do the final figuring by star testing the whole configuration. The result should be perfect.
I am taken by the idea of a Barlow before the flat to reduce the required size of the flat for a specific illuminated field.
In my case I have a MN78 at F8 and hope to get a 10" F8 at some point, tho a MN106 is tempting, so perhaps a 1.6x Barlow for my existing 16" before a flat to make it an F8 as far as the eyepiece is concerned. With the Paracorr I am within the 4 component limit.
I am running a Jim Hysom 70mm flat at the moment which is undersized but my friend calls it a 'planetary scope' and is impressed by seeing faint stars on the edge of the lit Moon, so a Barlow would extend the illuminated field.
I have a set of Hyperions down to 5mm and they are well suited to F8 telescopes. I stopped at 5mm due to typical UK seeing, but I have the extender rings for that rare good night.
Cheers. Andrew.
--------------------
Monarch 8x42, Zeiss 10x50 WA
10mm F2, Pentax 60mm F5
City: 7" MN78: MK4#2, 10" F6.3: MK4#1, 16" F5 ParaCorr
Country: 5" F9.5, 8" VISAC: GP2
Car: 6" F5 MPCC: SP, 5" 127mm F7.5
TV 55mm, Paragon 40mm, UO Pretoria 28mm
B&L 32 Pl, Clave's 25, 8, 6, 2x
Hyperions 5, 8, 13, 17, 24, 31
Nagler1 9mm, Meade 14mm 4000 UWA
Antares 1.6x, 0.7x, 0.5x
|
mark cowan
Vendor (Obsidian Optics)
Reged: 06/03/05
Posts: 1369
Loc: salem, OR
|
|
Quote:
One thought from your observation that a Paracorr needs a hyperbolic mirror is to buy the Paracorr ( maybe Flat as well), send to your mirror maker and ask him to do the final figuring by star testing the whole configuration. The result should be perfect.
Excellent practice, but the Paracorr is only needed at relatively low power whereas the figuring is done by reference to high power star testing. It could be done however.
Steve Kennedy works somewhat that way, he will use the customer's diagonal if desired in figuring, but he doesn't use a Paracorr in the test setup. EPs matter for aberration in star testing, and Steve told me he typically uses the same EPs for testing that the customers use (Naglers).
Quote:
In my case I have a MN78 at F8 and hope to get a 10" F8 at some point, tho a MN106 is tempting, so perhaps a 1.6x Barlow for my existing 16" before a flat to make it an F8 as far as the eyepiece is concerned. With the Paracorr I am within the 4 component limit.
This is not a system for which a Paracorr makes any sense, see TeleVue chart, it doesn't improve fields within an 8mm semifield, quite close to your spec.
Besides, did you suddenly change the way you were counting optical surfaces? The Paracorr is two cemented doublets. Nor is it completely innocuous, as mentioned, and it may degrade the center (unaberrated) field if used for the central field alone (see
this analysis), which would seem to be going in the opposite direction of your OT.
Best,
Mark
|
HandyAndy
sage
Reged: 01/11/08
Posts: 412
Loc: West Midlands and around
|
|
Hi,
I may not have been clear. I am only talking about using the Paracorr on my 16" F5. Using a 1.6x Barlow in front of the 16" F5 flat would reduce the flat size needed and result in a common F8 final focal length for my probable final set of telescopes.
I relaxed my criteria to count a lens as one component.
I suppose I should count a Paracoor as at least two but even then I would be counting each cemented doublet as one component.
I suppose at the end of the day we need to compare telescopes on the final outcome either by visual comparison or by analysis of the spot diagram, MTF and focal surface by colour.
A problem I have highlighted before is we do not have full published details of telescopes, eyepieces and correctors so it is a lottery as to whether a particular combination will be compatible. Obviously competent reviews are a great help where we do not have access prior to purchase. One way is to buy and sell Second Hand but there are the sale costs and losses when something turns out to have some issue which reduces it resale price.
Cheers. Andrew.
--------------------
Monarch 8x42, Zeiss 10x50 WA
10mm F2, Pentax 60mm F5
City: 7" MN78: MK4#2, 10" F6.3: MK4#1, 16" F5 ParaCorr
Country: 5" F9.5, 8" VISAC: GP2
Car: 6" F5 MPCC: SP, 5" 127mm F7.5
TV 55mm, Paragon 40mm, UO Pretoria 28mm
B&L 32 Pl, Clave's 25, 8, 6, 2x
Hyperions 5, 8, 13, 17, 24, 31
Nagler1 9mm, Meade 14mm 4000 UWA
Antares 1.6x, 0.7x, 0.5x
|
sixela
Postmaster
Reged: 12/23/04
Posts: 9499
Loc: Boechout, Belgium
|
|
Quote:
EPs matter for aberration in star testing,
And more so than the Paracorr, in my experience. In an f/4 or even f/4.5, the Paracorr helps by reducing SA produced by the eyepiece, and for some eyepieces the residual SA introduced by the Paracorr happens to cancel out some of what the eyepiece still produces...
Quote:
and Steve told me he typically uses the same EPs for testing that the customers use (Naglers).
Together with Radians it's a fine choice, because in my experience they generate a lot less SA in fast scopes than many more simple designs (including unbarlowed orthos and Plössls).
At f/4 and below, you have to experiment quite a bit to find combinations that don't produce more SA than the scope - in my f/4 Starblast, I really need to barlow my orthos to eliminate most of the SA.
Quote:
and it [the Paracorr] may degrade the center (unaberrated) field if used for the central field alone (see
this analysis),
"May" is the operative word if you put an eyepiece behind it. Even with a Nagler, it tends to cancel SA from the eyepiece rather than introduce it. It's *very* easy to see at anything close to f/4 even with Naglers.
As for "this analysis" (which looks only at the new focal plane behind the Paracorr, not at its effects in conjunction with eyepieces), anyone who writes this:
Quote:
But in fast telescopes the coma reduction at the edge of field of view is paid by some degradation of the spot size in the center we can easily show using a ray tracing program.
is living in a dream world - you know, the one where a spot diagram's size can tell you a "magnitude loss" (which presumes you know the point spread function) and in which you don't have to concern yourself with the wave nature of light and ways to compute a point spread function
(Even when you do compute PSFs, it's extremely easy to forget that with spherical aberration, the best focus position is not where the gemoetrical spot radius is minimised and to overestimate the impact).
In other words, I don't know where the article goes from the above to here:
Quote:
Using a Paracorr, one can estimated a loss of 0.1 magnitude in the center of field
even without looking at eyepieces, and when you do look at eyepieces it is most certainly factually incorrect for all combinations I've ever tried, including Naglers, except *perhaps* for the Radian.
Not to mention that SA doesn't cause a "magnitude loss" in any measurable way, as it spreads the incoming light and doesn't make it vanish. Yes, that can make stars disappear, but you can't model that without also modelling the human eye-brain system (and defining the test scenario very accurately).
There's an assertion, but little supporting evidence, and certainly not enough detail to know whether the math was done correctly (and the wording doesn't exactly inspire trust).
One point stands: you shouldn't be using a Paracorr when you're doing planetary webcam photography (where there is definitely no eyepiece). I'd think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who does, though.
--------------------
400mm f/4.46 David Lukehurst truss Dobsonian on Tom Osypowski equatorial platform
Orion Starblast (114mm f/4 reflector, Alt/Az)
|
sixela
Postmaster
Reged: 12/23/04
Posts: 9499
Loc: Boechout, Belgium
|
|
Quote:
Hi,
I may not have been clear. I am only talking about using the Paracorr on my 16" F5. Using a 1.6x Barlow in front of the 16" F5 flat would reduce the flat size needed and result in a common F8 final focal length for my probable final set of telescopes.
In that system, I don't think a Paracorr would make that much sense, but it depends what you want to do. A Paracorr makes sense mainly for low- to medium power views in fast scopes (if you consider usage with an eyepiece), or for wide field photography (but you wouldn't use a barlow and make the system f/8 if that was your primary goal).
Quote:
or by analysis of the spot diagram, MTF and focal surface by colour.
The main question is: the spot diagram *where*? If all you're caring about is the on-axis spot diagram and point spread function, there's no need for a Paracorr.
In an f/5 system, by the way, the Paracorr also adds much less spherical aberration than in an f/4.5, and the barlow behind an f/5 also adds its own, so you'd have to include everything and the kitchen sink in the system and simulate it to know what the combination does.
--------------------
400mm f/4.46 David Lukehurst truss Dobsonian on Tom Osypowski equatorial platform
Orion Starblast (114mm f/4 reflector, Alt/Az)
|
mark cowan
Vendor (Obsidian Optics)
Reged: 06/03/05
Posts: 1369
Loc: salem, OR
|
|
Alexis,
I only skimmed that cited "analysis" as I was mostly looking for the ParaCorr construction, which I eventually found on the TeleVue web site, and though portions of it didn't make a lot of sense I thought it might be just the translation - the "0.1 mag loss" didn't make sense to me either... I've heard conflicting opinions about the optical effects, but I'm willing to accept what you say about the combination with the EPs mentioned reducing the SA, as it fits with what I've heard and seen as well. I'm also making f/4 mirrors intended to be used with ParaCorrs for wide field and/or full time, and personally I don't have any problem with that degrading the performance. 
I should emphasize to Andrew your point about spot size in that raytracing alone doesn't deliver intensity profiles and the later is what you need to be able to predict actual performance.
Best,
Mark
|
HandyAndy
sage
Reged: 01/11/08
Posts: 412
Loc: West Midlands and around
|
|
Hi,
Thanks for the replies.
I am intending on my new 14" F4.2 imaging scope and my 16" F5 re-build as a truss to mount the secondaries or prime focus cameras on a OM2 bayonet tele-extender and have another one as the spider center so I can swap out different configurations. Also keep the optics indoors when not in use.
The conclusion seems to be to use a smaller Barlowed flat for planetary and a larger flat with Paracorr for wide field visual and no flat and a Vixen R200S Coma-corrector at prime focus.
I am a newbie at analysis so any pointers are most helpful.
Cheers. Andrew.
--------------------
Monarch 8x42, Zeiss 10x50 WA
10mm F2, Pentax 60mm F5
City: 7" MN78: MK4#2, 10" F6.3: MK4#1, 16" F5 ParaCorr
Country: 5" F9.5, 8" VISAC: GP2
Car: 6" F5 MPCC: SP, 5" 127mm F7.5
TV 55mm, Paragon 40mm, UO Pretoria 28mm
B&L 32 Pl, Clave's 25, 8, 6, 2x
Hyperions 5, 8, 13, 17, 24, 31
Nagler1 9mm, Meade 14mm 4000 UWA
Antares 1.6x, 0.7x, 0.5x
|
HandyAndy
sage
Reged: 01/11/08
Posts: 412
Loc: West Midlands and around
|
|
Hi,
Naglers and similar eyepieces seem to be a Erfle with a Barlow in front. I assume that is why they have a 2x larger field than an Ortho or Plossl for my city 2 arc min resolution criteria.
How far off a Nagler is a 2x Barlow and an Ortho or Plossl?
Cheers. Andrew.
--------------------
Monarch 8x42, Zeiss 10x50 WA
10mm F2, Pentax 60mm F5
City: 7" MN78: MK4#2, 10" F6.3: MK4#1, 16" F5 ParaCorr
Country: 5" F9.5, 8" VISAC: GP2
Car: 6" F5 MPCC: SP, 5" 127mm F7.5
TV 55mm, Paragon 40mm, UO Pretoria 28mm
B&L 32 Pl, Clave's 25, 8, 6, 2x
Hyperions 5, 8, 13, 17, 24, 31
Nagler1 9mm, Meade 14mm 4000 UWA
Antares 1.6x, 0.7x, 0.5x
|
sixela
Postmaster
Reged: 12/23/04
Posts: 9499
Loc: Boechout, Belgium
|
|
Quote:
Hi,
Naglers and similar eyepieces seem to be a Erfle with a Barlow in front.
Not technically a barlow, but more something like a Smyth lens group - it introduces aberrations that a barlow would not but these are compensated in the rest of the eyepiece.
Quote:
How far off a Nagler is a 2x Barlow and an Ortho or Plossl?
A barlowed ortho is usually not far from a Nagler, but it depends on the spacing.
The barlow introduces some SA which tends to be canceled by the residual SA (of opposite sign) in the ortho. At least that's what happens with my 2x Baader/Zeiss barlow plus 6mm or 9mm Baader orthos in an f/4 scope.
I haven't actually tried my spacer rings to see if different powers for the barlow change that...
In my Starblast, I *have* to use either a Nagler, a Radian or a barlowed eyepiece to go to high powers or the view will go soft (it does with shorter orthos and short TMB Supermonos) because of eyepiece induced SA.
I commonly star test a given eyepiece train in my Starblast before I'll look at planets with it, just to be sure.
--------------------
400mm f/4.46 David Lukehurst truss Dobsonian on Tom Osypowski equatorial platform
Orion Starblast (114mm f/4 reflector, Alt/Az)
|
Owen
sage
Reged: 06/21/07
Posts: 353
|
|
Quote:
I *have* to use either a Nagler, a Radian or a barlowed eyepiece to go to high powers or the view will go soft
This is interesting...
Could you elaborate.?
Thanks
Owen
|
|
9 registered and 6 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Don W, Joe Cipriano
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 1651
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
