FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Fusion
Strong Force vs. EM
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2 [17 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  1, 2 Next
Author Message
.
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 108

PostPosted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 8:20 pm    Post subject: Re: Strong Force vs. EM Reply with quote

'Rob Nicol' wrote, in part:
| During a nuclear reaction such as fission or fusion, the strong nuclear
| forces presides. Since this force dwarfs the electromagnetic force, the
| potential energy excess can be enormous! However, the activation energy
for
| such reactions is also comparatively huge.

Seemingly the 'cold fusion' claim is that somehow the atoms of Deturium are
induced to approach closely enough so that the residual strong force
overcomes the electromagnetic force, by means other than increasing the
kinetic energy. At least that's what I think the cold fusionists are
saying. The strong force IS stronger than the electromagnetic force, by a
factor 1/137, but only over a short distance not much more than the nuclear
radius; it does not vary as the inverse square of distance. The EM force
does vary as the inverse square of distance.

Some say the method the cold fusionists use is 'hand waving'.

Phil Weldon

"Rob Nicol" <robertgnicol@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:DOXye.7128$Ud.841866@news20.bellglobal.com...
Quote:
I'm not a physics expert. However, in this "controversy" over whether or
not Cold Fusion is legitimate there is one very important underlying
factor
which cannot be ignored. Fusion is a nuclear process; not a chemical
process.

During chemical processes the electromagnetic force reigns. Using the
simpler Bohr-Rutherford model to explain these occurances, small amounts
of
activation energy are required to break the molecular bonds of the
reactants
in order that atoms can rearrange. If the products store less chemical
potential energy than the reactants, this excess energy is released.

During a nuclear reaction such as fission or fusion, the strong nuclear
forces presides. Since this force dwarfs the electromagnetic force, the
potential energy excess can be enormous! However, the activation energy
for
such reactions is also comparatively huge.

Such energies are not readily supplied by chemical means! I should
think that these facts alone should give any individual cause to doubt any
claims of Cold Fusion.

Back to top
Fusioneer
science forum beginner


Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 49

PostPosted: Wed Jul 06, 2005 11:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Strong Force vs. EM Reply with quote

It really isn't that difficult to show that the so-called nuclear
strong force is entirely electromagnetic in nature.

buy the book at http://www.singtech.com/Unification.html

The proof is so simple that a bright high schooler can follow along
easily. Gluons, quarks and other intellectual fictions are the result
of the scientific community's inability to apply reasonable
epistemological standards to the type of knowledge generated by their
so-called 'scientific activities'. These loons were more intent on
inventing the universe than discovering it. And we have been stuck in
an intellectual backwater for four generations because they simply lack
training and discipline in logic.
Back to top
Rick Nelson
science forum addict


Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 83

PostPosted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:11 am    Post subject: Re: Strong Force vs. EM Reply with quote

I guess you don't believe in evolution either.

'Plenty Smart' ist our Fuhrer (Heil Heil) (Fart Fart),

Rick



Fusioneer wrote:
Quote:
It really isn't that difficult to show that the so-called nuclear
strong force is entirely electromagnetic in nature.

buy the book at http://www.singtech.com/Unification.html

The proof is so simple that a bright high schooler can follow along
easily. Gluons, quarks and other intellectual fictions are the result
of the scientific community's inability to apply reasonable
epistemological standards to the type of knowledge generated by their
so-called 'scientific activities'. These loons were more intent on
inventing the universe than discovering it. And we have been stuck in
an intellectual backwater for four generations because they simply lack
training and discipline in logic.
Back to top
Rick Nelson
science forum addict


Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 83

PostPosted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 12:09 am    Post subject: Re: Strong Force vs. EM Reply with quote

It depends on the Coulomb force geometry. Point particles of charge do
interact in inverse square ways.

But what if there were some crystalline material that "tunneled" point
charges into more specific collision zones? That's a Coulomb effect - a
kind of fusion catalyst.

What are we string to accomplish with fusee9n confined toroids?
Magnetic plus cCpi;0,gb effect?

A cheszeee just popped ny heart brain out and sped off on an electric
scooter. He is pfo a lbly a sergeaagent in the Upper Q ARLINGTON POLICE
IN UPPER ARLINGTON OHIO..\\\

Phil Weldon wrote:
Quote:
'Rob Nicol' wrote, in part:
| During a nuclear reaction such as fission or fusion, the strong nuclear
| forces presides. Since this force dwarfs the electromagnetic force, the
| potential energy excess can be enormous! However, the activation energy
for
| such reactions is also comparatively huge.

Seemingly the 'cold fusion' claim is that somehow the atoms of Deturium are
induced to approach closely enough so that the residual strong force
overcomes the electromagnetic force, by means other than increasing the
kinetic energy. At least that's what I think the cold fusionists are
saying. The strong force IS stronger than the electromagnetic force, by a
factor 1/137, but only over a short distance not much more than the nuclear
radius; it does not vary as the inverse square of distance. The EM force
does vary as the inverse square of distance.

Some say the method the cold fusionists use is 'hand waving'.

Phil Weldon

"Rob Nicol" <robertgnicol@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:DOXye.7128$Ud.841866@news20.bellglobal.com...

I'm not a physics expert. However, in this "controversy" over whether or
not Cold Fusion is legitimate there is one very important underlying
factor
which cannot be ignored. Fusion is a nuclear process; not a chemical
process.

During chemical processes the electromagnetic force reigns. Using the
simpler Bohr-Rutherford model to explain these occurances, small amounts
of
activation energy are required to break the molecular bonds of the
reactants
in order that atoms can rearrange. If the products store less chemical
potential energy than the reactants, this excess energy is released.

During a nuclear reaction such as fission or fusion, the strong nuclear
forces presides. Since this force dwarfs the electromagnetic force, the
potential energy excess can be enormous! However, the activation energy
for
such reactions is also comparatively huge.

Such energies are not readily supplied by chemical means! I should
think that these facts alone should give any individual cause to doubt any
claims of Cold Fusion.




Back to top
Bret Cahill
science forum Guru


Joined: 05 May 2005
Posts: 480

PostPosted: Sat Jul 09, 2005 3:22 pm    Post subject: Re: Strong Force vs. EM Reply with quote

< Fusion is a nuclear process; not a

< chemical process.

That was the first and most obvious argument against cold fusion.

A lot of humor, i. e. dumb blond jokes, etc., is based on someone
confusing two entirely different things, but for some reason cold
fusion never was very funny.

Eventually they will figure out how to relate everything but this will
only prove cold fusion is impossible.


Bret Cahill


"Bret, what are you doing posting to libertarian and cold fusion
groups? Investigating losers? Ha ha ha . . ."

-- smart aleck math guy
Back to top
Rick Nelson
science forum addict


Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 83

PostPosted: Tue Jul 12, 2005 10:25 pm    Post subject: Re: Strong Force vs. EM Reply with quote

HI BRET,

I've got the complex on complex PRIME FUNCTION. You're just an
intelligence agent trying get sex from smart jewish girls (licke ewe)..


The problem is that oil is based on ownership of land. I would guess
that solar property for energy is based on an international system of
treaties that make space democratically owned by "everyone"..


I think the Bush/Rove missions into Manned Space is about how the
Repubelickin's want to make space "privately owned"..

I would suggest that suicide bombers concentrate more heavily on
emailing moderate Republican congress peoples.. Deborah Pryce would be
a good target to ask questions of. She pretends to be Republican but
after she voted for "partial birth abortion" - her 12 year old
daughter contracted leukemiaa and died quickly.

That might say something about the power of prayer. The Religious Right
held a campaign of death prayers against Pryce. (In my mind the
Religious Right are assinine fools of eternal ignorance..)

I guess GE owns everything.. in parnership with Lockheed/Martin//bThe
USA needs to move to an open source intelligence agency design - unless
the USA wants to become the next NAZI REALITY TO KILLL A BILLION HUMANS
WHOSE INTERNAL IDIOTS THINK THROUGH PROPAGANDA ARE THREATS


EXPLODE BUSH AND CHENEY CUZ THEY"RE GAY BOYZ SUCKING Ignoring their
wives and kids.



Bret Cahill wrote:
Quote:
Fusion is a nuclear process; not a

chemical process.

That was the first and most obvious argument against cold fusion.

A lot of humor, i. e. dumb blond jokes, etc., is based on someone
confusing two entirely different things, but for some reason cold
fusion never was very funny.

Eventually they will figure out how to relate everything but this will
only prove cold fusion is impossible.


Bret Cahill


"Bret, what are you doing posting to libertarian and cold fusion
groups? Investigating losers? Ha ha ha . . ."

-- smart aleck math guy
Back to top
Bret Cahill
science forum Guru


Joined: 05 May 2005
Posts: 480

PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 3:43 am    Post subject: Re: Strong Force vs. EM Reply with quote

< I've got the complex on complex PRIME FUNCTION. You're just an

< intelligence agent trying get sex from smart jewish girls (licke
ewe)..

You can do that just by begging. You don't even need to be
intelligent.

I know -- I'm not.


Bret Cahill
Back to top
Rick Nelson
science forum addict


Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 83

PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 8:54 pm    Post subject: Re: Strong Force vs. EM Reply with quote

Hi Bret,

That's too bad - cuz I would have begged.. :(

I think you are a very intelligent "person", but "--" is a double
negative and I don't know what you're trying to communicate with a
triply negative code construction.. You write like Ari Fleischer used
to speak - I don't think Scott is up to this challenge - Rove should
demand Ari get back on the job before he goes to prison like a huge tub
of lubricating lard..

History is a spiral - and now we're back reliving Nixon's hubris.

I was going to post a breakthrough idea I had in a dream last night -
but now I've forgotten it..

Oh yeah - it was the "progressing spheres" toroidsl hsrmonics that
should be implemented as functions in a tokamak like device. The
geometries are complex and a twisted toroid might be more efficient in
implementing "spherical compression zones" within a complex swirl of
verying diameter containing field.

Thanks,

Rick

Bret Cahill wrote:
Quote:
I've got the complex on complex PRIME FUNCTION. You're just an

intelligence agent trying get sex from smart jewish girls (licke
ewe)..

You can do that just by begging. You don't even need to be
intelligent.

I know -- I'm not.


Bret Cahill
Back to top
Bret Cahill
science forum Guru


Joined: 05 May 2005
Posts: 480

PostPosted: Wed Jul 13, 2005 11:42 pm    Post subject: Re: Strong Force vs. EM Reply with quote

< I was going to post a breakthrough idea I had in a dream last night -


< but now I've forgotten it..

Cut back on REM sleep.

< Oh yeah - it was the "progressing spheres" toroidsl hsrmonics that

< should be implemented as functions in a tokamak like device.

Forgetfulness is Nature's way of telling you your ideas are worthless.


Bret Cahill
Back to top
Tom11
science forum beginner


Joined: 08 Jul 2005
Posts: 14

PostPosted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:01 pm    Post subject: Re: Strong Force vs. EM Reply with quote

Bose (Mr.Wave himself) stated in some interview or another I read that
he investigated cold fusion very carefully and that he discovered that
"some supposedly insignificant" chemical reactions were the source of
all of the excess heat.
Back to top
Rick Nelson
science forum addict


Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 83

PostPosted: Fri Jul 15, 2005 10:23 pm    Post subject: Re: Strong Force vs. EM Reply with quote

Hi Bret -

If I guess your real name do I get my baby back ribs?

The reality is that instead of "bubbles" inside a constricting toroid -
the research should be about outer toroids snaking around a collapsing
sphere.

I think my off-line communications with Platonic Rhodium have convinced
me enough to make this claim.

This is why sonoluminesense works. I think SL needs a higher symmetry
in a larger device that can only be obtained in a microgravity environment.

Thanks Bret,

Rick



Bret Cahill wrote:
Quote:
I was going to post a breakthrough idea I had in a dream last night -


but now I've forgotten it..

Cut back on REM sleep.

Oh yeah - it was the "progressing spheres" toroidsl hsrmonics that

should be implemented as functions in a tokamak like device.

Forgetfulness is Nature's way of telling you your ideas are worthless.


Bret Cahill
Back to top
Comcast
science forum beginner


Joined: 21 Sep 2005
Posts: 2

PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2005 7:24 pm    Post subject: Re: Strong Force vs. EM Reply with quote

In <DOXye.7128$Ud.841866@news20.bellglobal.com> Rob Nicol wrote:
Quote:
I'm not a physics expert. However, in this "controversy" over whether
or not Cold Fusion is legitimate there is one very important
underlying factor which cannot be ignored. Fusion is a nuclear
process; not a chemical process.

During chemical processes the electromagnetic force reigns. Using
the simpler Bohr-Rutherford model to explain these occurances, small
amounts of activation energy are required to break the molecular bonds
of the reactants in order that atoms can rearrange. If the products
store less chemical potential energy than the reactants, this excess
energy is released.

During a nuclear reaction such as fission or fusion, the strong
nuclear forces presides. Since this force dwarfs the electromagnetic
force, the potential energy excess can be enormous! However, the
activation energy for such reactions is also comparatively huge.

Such energies are not readily supplied by chemical means! I
should think that these facts alone should give any individual cause
to doubt any claims of Cold Fusion.

It can be shown... proven actually...that the so-called 'strong force'
is entirely electromagnetic in nature. Few people have the integrity
to examine this claim in detail. You really ought to learn how the
strong force concept arose and how it was an ad hoc invention to cover
up a lack of knowledge concerning how elementary charged particles
behave. Damn... get a clue... there is no strong force between tightly
bound spin up spin down pairs of electrons in Cooper Pairing in
superconduction yet the electrons are attractively interactive...so how
can it be that they are attractively interactive if Coulomb's law says
they ought to be repelling one another? The BCS theory has been
discredited so many times by so many people in so many experiments that
if you bring that up then you're just giving out an ignorant knee jerk
reaction without the slightest bit of reason behind it. The reality is
that if elementary charged particles overlap in momentum space then they
behave opposite the expectations of Coulomb's law... this isn't just a
claim...you can deduce this from known data and from Maxwell's equations
and the simplest axiom with respect to quantum motion.

Charles Cagle
Back to top
Charles Cagle
science forum beginner


Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 11

PostPosted: Fri May 26, 2006 1:18 am    Post subject: Re: Strong Force vs. EM Reply with quote

How about the so-called 'Strong Force' is really entirely electromagnetic in
nature? It isn't that difficult to prove that it is but this simplicity
forces qluons and quarks to evaporate back into the pseudoscientific mist
from which they arose.


On 7/7/05 19:09, in article 42cde0a3_3@newsfeed.slurp.net, "Rick Nelson"
<rainbow07@copper.net> wrote:

Quote:
It depends on the Coulomb force geometry. Point particles of charge do
interact in inverse square ways.

But what if there were some crystalline material that "tunneled" point
charges into more specific collision zones? That's a Coulomb effect - a
kind of fusion catalyst.

What are we string to accomplish with fusee9n confined toroids?
Magnetic plus cCpi;0,gb effect?

A cheszeee just popped ny heart brain out and sped off on an electric
scooter. He is pfo a lbly a sergeaagent in the Upper Q ARLINGTON POLICE
IN UPPER ARLINGTON OHIO..\\\

Phil Weldon wrote:
'Rob Nicol' wrote, in part:
| During a nuclear reaction such as fission or fusion, the strong nuclear
| forces presides. Since this force dwarfs the electromagnetic force, the
| potential energy excess can be enormous! However, the activation energy
for
| such reactions is also comparatively huge.

Seemingly the 'cold fusion' claim is that somehow the atoms of Deturium are
induced to approach closely enough so that the residual strong force
overcomes the electromagnetic force, by means other than increasing the
kinetic energy. At least that's what I think the cold fusionists are
saying. The strong force IS stronger than the electromagnetic force, by a
factor 1/137, but only over a short distance not much more than the nuclear
radius; it does not vary as the inverse square of distance. The EM force
does vary as the inverse square of distance.

Some say the method the cold fusionists use is 'hand waving'.

Phil Weldon

"Rob Nicol" <robertgnicol@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:DOXye.7128$Ud.841866@news20.bellglobal.com...

I'm not a physics expert. However, in this "controversy" over whether or
not Cold Fusion is legitimate there is one very important underlying
factor
which cannot be ignored. Fusion is a nuclear process; not a chemical
process.

During chemical processes the electromagnetic force reigns. Using the
simpler Bohr-Rutherford model to explain these occurances, small amounts
of
activation energy are required to break the molecular bonds of the
reactants
in order that atoms can rearrange. If the products store less chemical
potential energy than the reactants, this excess energy is released.

During a nuclear reaction such as fission or fusion, the strong nuclear
forces presides. Since this force dwarfs the electromagnetic force, the
potential energy excess can be enormous! However, the activation energy
for
such reactions is also comparatively huge.

Such energies are not readily supplied by chemical means! I should
think that these facts alone should give any individual cause to doubt any
claims of Cold Fusion.




Back to top
Charles Cagle
science forum beginner


Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 11

PostPosted: Fri May 26, 2006 1:23 am    Post subject: Re: Strong Force vs. EM Reply with quote

On 7/7/05 19:09, in article 42cde0a3_3@newsfeed.slurp.net, "Rick Nelson"
<rainbow07@copper.net> wrote:

Quote:
It depends on the Coulomb force geometry. Point particles of charge do
interact in inverse square ways.

But what if there were some crystalline material that "tunneled" point
charges into more specific collision zones? That's a Coulomb effect - a
kind of fusion catalyst.

What are we string to accomplish with fusee9n confined toroids?
Magnetic plus cCpi;0,gb effect?

A cheszeee just popped ny heart brain out and sped off on an electric
scooter. He is pfo a lbly a sergeaagent in the Upper Q ARLINGTON POLICE
IN UPPER ARLINGTON OHIO..\\\

Phil Weldon wrote:
'Rob Nicol' wrote, in part:
| During a nuclear reaction such as fission or fusion, the strong nuclear
| forces presides. Since this force dwarfs the electromagnetic force, the
| potential energy excess can be enormous! However, the activation energy
for
| such reactions is also comparatively huge.

Seemingly the 'cold fusion' claim is that somehow the atoms of Deturium are
induced to approach closely enough so that the residual strong force
overcomes the electromagnetic force, by means other than increasing the
kinetic energy. At least that's what I think the cold fusionists are
saying. The strong force IS stronger than the electromagnetic force, by a
factor 1/137, but only over a short distance not much more than the nuclear
radius; it does not vary as the inverse square of distance. The EM force
does vary as the inverse square of distance.

Some say the method the cold fusionists use is 'hand waving'.

Phil Weldon

"Rob Nicol" <robertgnicol@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:DOXye.7128$Ud.841866@news20.bellglobal.com...

I'm not a physics expert. However, in this "controversy" over whether or
not Cold Fusion is legitimate there is one very important underlying
factor
which cannot be ignored. Fusion is a nuclear process; not a chemical
process.

During chemical processes the electromagnetic force reigns. Using the
simpler Bohr-Rutherford model to explain these occurances, small amounts
of
activation energy are required to break the molecular bonds of the
reactants
in order that atoms can rearrange. If the products store less chemical

How about the so-called 'Strong Force' is really entirely electromagnetic in
nature? It isn't that difficult to prove that it is but this simplicity
forces qluons and quarks to evaporate back into the pseudoscientific mist
from which they arose.

Quote:
potential energy than the reactants, this excess energy is released.

During a nuclear reaction such as fission or fusion, the strong nuclear
forces presides. Since this force dwarfs the electromagnetic force, the
potential energy excess can be enormous! However, the activation energy
for
such reactions is also comparatively huge.

Such energies are not readily supplied by chemical means! I should
think that these facts alone should give any individual cause to doubt any
claims of Cold Fusion.






-- Peace to the followers of Jesus Christ -

For email remove the underscores in my email.

Charles Cagle
Back to top
Charles Cagle
science forum beginner


Joined: 16 Sep 2005
Posts: 11

PostPosted: Fri May 26, 2006 1:25 am    Post subject: Re: Strong Force vs. EM Reply with quote

How about the so-called 'Strong Force' is really entirely electromagnetic in
nature? It isn't that difficult to prove that it is so but this simplicity
forces qluons and quarks to evaporate back into the pseudoscientific mist
from which they arose. The intellectual inertia given these fictions will
oppose the truth.

-- Peace to the followers of Jesus Christ -

For email remove the underscores in my email.

Charles Cagle




On 7/7/05 19:09, in article 42cde0a3_3@newsfeed.slurp.net, "Rick Nelson"
<rainbow07@copper.net> wrote:

Quote:
It depends on the Coulomb force geometry. Point particles of charge do
interact in inverse square ways.

But what if there were some crystalline material that "tunneled" point
charges into more specific collision zones? That's a Coulomb effect - a
kind of fusion catalyst.

What are we string to accomplish with fusee9n confined toroids?
Magnetic plus cCpi;0,gb effect?

A cheszeee just popped ny heart brain out and sped off on an electric
scooter. He is pfo a lbly a sergeaagent in the Upper Q ARLINGTON POLICE
IN UPPER ARLINGTON OHIO..\\\

Phil Weldon wrote:
'Rob Nicol' wrote, in part:
| During a nuclear reaction such as fission or fusion, the strong nuclear
| forces presides. Since this force dwarfs the electromagnetic force, the
| potential energy excess can be enormous! However, the activation energy
for
| such reactions is also comparatively huge.

Seemingly the 'cold fusion' claim is that somehow the atoms of Deturium are
induced to approach closely enough so that the residual strong force
overcomes the electromagnetic force, by means other than increasing the
kinetic energy. At least that's what I think the cold fusionists are
saying. The strong force IS stronger than the electromagnetic force, by a
factor 1/137, but only over a short distance not much more than the nuclear
radius; it does not vary as the inverse square of distance. The EM force
does vary as the inverse square of distance.

Some say the method the cold fusionists use is 'hand waving'.

Phil Weldon

"Rob Nicol" <robertgnicol@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:DOXye.7128$Ud.841866@news20.bellglobal.com...

I'm not a physics expert. However, in this "controversy" over whether or
not Cold Fusion is legitimate there is one very important underlying
factor
which cannot be ignored. Fusion is a nuclear process; not a chemical
process.

During chemical processes the electromagnetic force reigns. Using the
simpler Bohr-Rutherford model to explain these occurances, small amounts
of
activation energy are required to break the molecular bonds of the
reactants
in order that atoms can rearrange. If the products store less chemical
potential energy than the reactants, this excess energy is released.

During a nuclear reaction such as fission or fusion, the strong nuclear
forces presides. Since this force dwarfs the electromagnetic force, the
potential energy excess can be enormous! However, the activation energy
for
such reactions is also comparatively huge.

Such energies are not readily supplied by chemical means! I should
think that these facts alone should give any individual cause to doubt any
claims of Cold Fusion.






-- Peace to the followers of Jesus Christ -

For email remove the underscores in my email.

Charles Cagle
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2 [17 Posts] Goto page:  1, 2 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Fri Aug 18, 2017 11:01 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Fusion
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts How do they know the quark's binding force is weaker at s... guskz@hotmail.com Relativity 6 Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:50 am
No new posts Aqua Regia, how strong is it? nebx123 Chem 4 Thu Jul 13, 2006 3:40 am
No new posts Floating floor efficiency vs impact force CSL Acoustics 2 Mon Jul 10, 2006 3:32 am
No new posts Matrix problem; only brute force? melanie Math 5 Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:33 pm
No new posts Anisotropy In The Gravity Force Proven. Max Keon Relativity 129 Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:26 am

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.2621s ][ Queries: 16 (0.2308s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]