unfortunately solar will never be more than 5% or so of the power grid, that is because its limitations, running only when the sun shines. and cost approx 5x per killowate of foscil fuels etc... and the polution developed from cell manufacture.. Nuclear on the other hand currently provides 25% approx of the US power grid (cloe to 100% in Japan and france.. and operates includine cost of maintenance and decommissioning for much less that even foscil fues and is virtually non poluting... compared to colal for instance which produced 375,000 TONS of high level radio actives per year into the air.... most of the nuclear fuel is *reprocessed.. (as the ffench have developed) and the remaining waste (high level radio actives that decay to the levels of naturally occuring uranium in the ground in 200 years) can be contained in molten glass, poured into thick wall stainless steel cyclinders and kept until its safe... (I worked on those projects at the US Dept of engery sites in Hanford washington 14 reactors, and 15,000 or so employees (one is escorede into the hot zones by guards carrying usi sub machine guns, an interesting place) and at the Spring valley NY Vitrification pilot project)
The new breed (for 20 years) of nuclear powerr reactors are safe... safer and less poluting than an other heavy power source except hydro electric. (the problems at chernobly were at the old style non fail save carbon core reactors...not used in the US, or that matter in Russia etc any longer.)
Lack of a full on move to nuclear means the US is sendin 700 billion dollars a year to our friends in the middle east...money we can no longer afford... and will see our gas prices over 5 dollars again shortly.. as the rest of fhe world is already moving fast to nuclear, leaving us at a severe diasvantage.
now, regarding the non issue of contamination... as sone undoubtedly occurs... about 0.00000000001% of what all of the worlds coal pants put out in high level radio active waste, .. it spreads world wide regardless of the nations using it...so we get it regardless... and at that a minute fraction of what we get from sun in Gamma rays etc in a single micro second....
thats just how it is.
Now.... who is spreading the word that nuclear is dangerous? well, those who wish to sell oil or have heavy holdings in the US coal industry...one hell of a nasty pollutant... no way do these wish to see nucear in the US....King coal rules, Al Gore and his family before him are some of largest stock holders in coal companies.... and please notice he does not mention nuclear at all as an option in his movie... clean nuclear an issue the coal industry, putting out hundreds of thousands of tons of high level radio actives a year does not want to discuss.
(with coal there is uranium and other radio actives in the ore, that cannot be removed, thats how it is introduced).
****
Natural gas, while it is still CO2 producing is plentiful in North America, and our vehcile feel can be easily converted to natural gas... distribution is already in place... many US govt cares and trucks and busses are currently running on natural gas. Honda makes a natural gas vehicle for 5 years or so also. it produces no radio active polution.
*** Regarding global warming... CO2 in the atmospere is shown to be about. 01% of the cause if you do the researrch... thats the history of it.
regarding Al gores demonstration of global warming cycles, showing ice cores with increased CO2? he presented it backwards...and did not show the the heavy global warming in the mid last century 1400's though 1700's approx.. and the global cooling as the world increased its its CO2 emmisons from then till now... why did he omit that in his hocky stick curve shown with him on the cherry picker at as the chart for global warming went wild....
A tiny minority of mechanical engineers and scientists in the energy fields agree that golobal warming is man made.... the many scientists that agree, are in education, the liberal ares etc.few are scientifically educated, a hand full or so. the rest know its bogus.
so why have some nations joined the cry of cutting CO2 emmissions? and declared it as a poisonous gas? ... CO2 know is the the product of breathing, and is a good sized part of the natural atmosphere... so why are these nations supporting the reduction of CO2 emmissions (about .1% man made btw, the rest is from us and the animals...and btw is limitlessly less harmful to global warming than *methane...which is something like 25 times more of a global warming gas...(emmitted by the millkions of tons a year from decaying vegitable matter in the oceans and forests and cow flatulence ... including ants... which are a big part of the total methane emmissions).
*** The powers that be wish to do several things via this stand against nuclear in the US.... primarily sell oil, gas and coal....a multi trillion dollar part of the world economy...producing a billion times more CO2 than than any other source...and not elimated more than 10% or so by solar, wind and tidal
Whatt do I support, all of those... but including nuclear which eliminates all CO2 emmissions, that is less than 1% of Al Gores claim... his claims by the way declared bogus by England which as declared that before al gores movie can be shown to school children they most be shown the evidence refuting it, and the false claims made in the film...by Al Gore the coal man.
> unfortunately solar will never be more than 5% or so of the power > grid, that is because its limitations, running only when the sun > shines. and cost approx 5x per killowate
Well.... never is a very long time. I think in the future we will harvest all our energy from a star. The question is can we make it to that stage before killing ourselves?
> > unfortunately solar will never be more than 5% or so of the power > > grid, that is because its limitations, running only when the sun > > shines. and cost approx 5x per killowate
> Well.... never is a very long time. > I think in the future we will harvest all our energy from a star. The > question is can we make it to that stage > before killing ourselves?
> shortT
For the longest time, we were taught that the earth will be around as long as the sun is around, and that will be for five billion years, provided we don't kill ourselves in the process.
Wrong.
According to Scientific American, we are due for a massive change in the earth's magnetic field. SA pointed to a region in the South Atlantic where magnetic compasses do not work as the first stage of a magnetic field collapse leading to a pole reversal (north mag pole becomes south mag pole, etc.).
SA presented geologic evidence of many pole changes over the past 100,000 years. The best estimate for a magnetic field collapse and subsequent pole shift is every 3500 years and we are overdue, according to SA.
Remember that crazy movie, "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" where the Van Allen Belt caught fire? The V-A-B is held in place by the earth's magnetic field. Just keep that in mind. But that's the bad news. The good news is that there is no correlation between the magnetic field collapse and any known catastrophe.
> For the longest time, we were taught that the earth will be around as > long as the sun is around, and that will be for five billion years, > provided we don't kill ourselves in the process.
> Wrong.
> According to Scientific American, we are due for a massive change in > the earth's magnetic field. SA pointed to a region in the South > Atlantic where magnetic compasses do not work as the first stage of a > magnetic field collapse leading to a pole reversal (north mag pole > becomes south mag pole, etc.).
> SA presented geologic evidence of many pole changes over the past > 100,000 years. The best estimate for a magnetic field collapse and > subsequent pole shift is every 3500 years and we are overdue, > according to SA.
> Remember that crazy movie, "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" where the > Van Allen Belt caught fire? The V-A-B is held in place by the earth's > magnetic field. Just keep that in mind. But that's the bad news. > The good news is that there is no correlation between the magnetic > field collapse and any known catastrophe.
Just one more thing to worry about.. Lets see.. This 'Things to worry about' list is starting to get kinda long..
I need to trim it down to 'Things I Really Give a SHIT about' <lol> Unfortunately 'That list' is pretty short right now.
> > unfortunately solar will never be more than 5% or so of the power > > grid, that is because its limitations, running only when the sun > > shines. and cost approx 5x per killowate
> Well.... never is a very long time. > I think in the future we will harvest all our energy from a star. The > question is can we make it to that stage > before killing ourselves?
> shortT
a friend of mine, Dr Keith Henson is working on deep space mirrors that can focus a hot beam to a ground target at very high termperatures to generate steam and drive steam turbines.. lots of issues with controlling mirrors that large,, (thin mylar films miles across
that would work but it will be a while
meantime nuclear is here now, and the cheapest cleanest form of energy except hydro electric in the world. hydro is about tapped out
among the more viable alternatives is tidal and wave energy... but still just a trace of what the nation needs now and into the future
solar cells produce power but is difuse not cost effective.... parabolic solar reflectors in the desert though are already proven and in use in israel and the western US desert ( forgot details) thats viable...produces high pressure steam to drive turbines but still cannot compete for cost and raw power with nuclear, coal or oil... coal the dirtiest, nuclear the cleanist.
listening to the coal lobby is not the path to enlightenment... al gore and family have been heavy into coal for half a century
in this mess its liberal arts majors led by the coal lobby pushing the bad science... thats a majority.... engineers and physicists are less than a 1 percent minority.... virtually all of us know better,
> > unfortunately solar will never be more than 5% or so of the power > > grid, that is because its limitations, running only when the sun > > shines. and cost approx 5x per killowate
> Well.... never is a very long time. > I think in the future we will harvest all our energy from a star. The > question is can we make it to that stage > before killing ourselves?
> shortT
For the longest time, we were taught that the earth will be around as long as the sun is around, and that will be for five billion years, provided we don't kill ourselves in the process.
Wrong.
According to Scientific American, we are due for a massive change in the earth's magnetic field. SA pointed to a region in the South Atlantic where magnetic compasses do not work as the first stage of a magnetic field collapse leading to a pole reversal (north mag pole becomes south mag pole, etc.).
SA presented geologic evidence of many pole changes over the past 100,000 years. The best estimate for a magnetic field collapse and subsequent pole shift is every 3500 years and we are overdue, according to SA.
Remember that crazy movie, "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" where the Van Allen Belt caught fire? The V-A-B is held in place by the earth's magnetic field. Just keep that in mind. But that's the bad news. The good news is that there is no correlation between the magnetic field collapse and any known catastrophe.
Mylar space mirrors look neat. Just hope they have good aim. I would hate to miss the power plant and hit the house next door. You suppose you could also use the space mirror to barbeque chicken?
Kind of like that James Bond movie and the xerex?
Vito
"phil scott" <p...@philscott.net> wrote in message
> > unfortunately solar will never be more than 5% or so of the power > > grid, that is because its limitations, running only when the sun > > shines. and cost approx 5x per killowate
> Well.... never is a very long time. > I think in the future we will harvest all our energy from a star. The > question is can we make it to that stage > before killing ourselves?
> shortT
a friend of mine, Dr Keith Henson is working on deep space mirrors that can focus a hot beam to a ground target at very high termperatures to generate steam and drive steam turbines.. lots of issues with controlling mirrors that large,, (thin mylar films miles across
that would work but it will be a while
meantime nuclear is here now, and the cheapest cleanest form of energy except hydro electric in the world. hydro is about tapped out
among the more viable alternatives is tidal and wave energy... but still just a trace of what the nation needs now and into the future
solar cells produce power but is difuse not cost effective.... parabolic solar reflectors in the desert though are already proven and in use in israel and the western US desert ( forgot details) thats viable...produces high pressure steam to drive turbines but still cannot compete for cost and raw power with nuclear, coal or oil... coal the dirtiest, nuclear the cleanist.
listening to the coal lobby is not the path to enlightenment... al gore and family have been heavy into coal for half a century
in this mess its liberal arts majors led by the coal lobby pushing the bad science... thats a majority.... engineers and physicists are less than a 1 percent minority.... virtually all of us know better,
> Mylar space mirrors look neat. Just hope they have good aim. I would hate > to miss the power plant and hit the house next door. You suppose you could > also use the space mirror to barbeque chicken?
> Kind of like that James Bond movie and the xerex?
> Vito
> "phil scott" <p...@philscott.net> wrote in message
> > > unfortunately solar will never be more than 5% or so of the power > > > grid, that is because its limitations, running only when the sun > > > shines. and cost approx 5x per killowate
> > Well.... never is a very long time. > > I think in the future we will harvest all our energy from a star. The > > question is can we make it to that stage > > before killing ourselves?
> > shortT
> a friend of mine, Dr Keith Henson is working on deep space mirrors > that can focus a hot beam to a ground target at very high > termperatures to generate steam and drive steam turbines.. lots of > issues with controlling mirrors that large,, (thin mylar films miles > across
> that would work but it will be a while
> meantime nuclear is here now, and the cheapest cleanest form of energy > except hydro electric in the world. hydro is about tapped out
> among the more viable alternatives is tidal and wave energy... but > still just a trace of what the nation needs now and into the future
> solar cells produce power but is difuse not cost effective.... > parabolic solar reflectors in the desert though are already proven and > in use in israel and the western US desert ( forgot details) thats > viable...produces high pressure steam to drive turbines but still > cannot compete for cost and raw power with nuclear, coal or oil... > coal the dirtiest, nuclear the cleanist.
> listening to the coal lobby is not the path to enlightenment... al > gore and family have been heavy into coal for half a century
> in this mess its liberal arts majors led by the coal lobby pushing the > bad science... thats a majority.... engineers and physicists are less > than a 1 percent minority.... virtually all of us know better,
> Phil scott- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
the space mirror approach has that and many other issues.. primarily holding a very smooth parabolic shape using such light materials... its a very tall order... many other ways also but then you lose the cost effectiveness.
nuclear however is developed, cheap and very very safe... 100,000 times less toxic than coal burning for instance.
> > > unfortunately solar will never be more than 5% or so of the power > > > grid, that is because its limitations, running only when the sun > > > shines. and cost approx 5x per killowate
> > Well.... never is a very long time. > > I think in the future we will harvest all our energy from a star. The > > question is can we make it to that stage > > before killing ourselves?
> > shortT
> a friend of mine, Dr Keith Henson is working on deep space mirrors > that can focus a hot beam to a ground target at very high > termperatures to generate steam and drive steam turbines.. lots of > issues with controlling mirrors that large,, (thin mylar films miles > across
> that would work but it will be a while
> meantime nuclear is here now, and the cheapest cleanest form of energy > except hydro electric in the world. hydro is about tapped out
> among the more viable alternatives is tidal and wave energy... but > still just a trace of what the nation needs now and into the future
> solar cells produce power but is difuse not cost effective.... > parabolic solar reflectors in the desert though are already proven and > in use in israel and the western US desert ( forgot details) thats > viable...produces high pressure steam to drive turbines but still > cannot compete for cost and raw power with nuclear, coal or oil... > coal the dirtiest, nuclear the cleanist.
> listening to the coal lobby is not the path to enlightenment... al > gore and family have been heavy into coal for half a century
> in this mess its liberal arts majors led by the coal lobby pushing the > bad science... thats a majority.... engineers and physicists are less > than a 1 percent minority.... virtually all of us know better,
> Phil scott
Years ago I worked with a person who put together a little bottle that can be used to boil water using the sun. The bottle was to be used in places in Africa where water had to be boiled to be made safe to drink. The bottle was actually a box with copper tubing inside and the side that faced the sun was made out of glass. The inside was painted black. It took about 20 minutes of sunlight to bring the water close to the boiling point of water. It was easy and cheap to build. The only problem was getting the right paint. Does not compare to what Dr Keith Henson is doing but nevertheless interesting.
I remember years ago when the styrofoam lobby (self proclaimed environmentalist ) pressured Mc. Donald's and others to replace paper with styrofoam. They claimed that killing trees for paper was bad for the environment. I guess none of them bothered to became familiar with how styrofoam is made and how long it takes to break down. Needless to say it was not long before Mc. Donald's went back to paper. I wonder how much damage to the enviroment these "environmentalist" actually caused?
> > > unfortunately solar will never be more than 5% or so of the power > > > grid, that is because its limitations, running only when the sun > > > shines. and cost approx 5x per killowate
> > Well.... never is a very long time. > > I think in the future we will harvest all our energy from a star. The > > question is can we make it to that stage > > before killing ourselves?
> > shortT
> For the longest time, we were taught that the earth will be around as > long as the sun is around, and that will be for five billion years, > provided we don't kill ourselves in the process.
> Wrong.
> According to Scientific American, we are due for a massive change in > the earth's magnetic field. SA pointed to a region in the South > Atlantic where magnetic compasses do not work as the first stage of a > magnetic field collapse leading to apolereversal (north magpole > becomes south magpole, etc.).
> SA presented geologic evidence of manypolechanges over the past > 100,000 years. The best estimate for a magnetic field collapse and > subsequentpoleshift is every 3500 years and we are overdue, > according to SA.
> Remember that crazy movie, "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" where the > Van Allen Belt caught fire? The V-A-B is held in place by the earth's > magnetic field. Just keep that in mind. But that's the bad news. > The good news is that there is no correlation between the magnetic > field collapse and any known catastrophe.
> > > > unfortunately solar will never be more than 5% or so of the power > > > > grid, that is because its limitations, running only when the sun > > > > shines. and cost approx 5x per killowate
> > > Well.... never is a very long time. > > > I think in the future we will harvest all our energy from a star. The > > > question is can we make it to that stage > > > before killing ourselves?
> > > shortT
> > a friend of mine, Dr Keith Henson is working on deep space mirrors > > that can focus a hot beam to a ground target at very high > > termperatures to generate steam and drive steam turbines.. lots of > > issues with controlling mirrors that large,, (thin mylar films miles > > across
> > that would work but it will be a while
> > meantime nuclear is here now, and the cheapest cleanest form of energy > > except hydro electric in the world. hydro is about tapped out
> > among the more viable alternatives is tidal and wave energy... but > > still just a trace of what the nation needs now and into the future
> > solar cells produce power but is difuse not cost effective.... > > parabolic solar reflectors in the desert though are already proven and > > in use in israel and the western US desert ( forgot details) thats > > viable...produces high pressure steam to drive turbines but still > > cannot compete for cost and raw power with nuclear, coal or oil... > > coal the dirtiest, nuclear the cleanist.
> > listening to the coal lobby is not the path to enlightenment... al > > gore and family have been heavy into coal for half a century
> > in this mess its liberal arts majors led by the coal lobby pushing the > > bad science... thats a majority.... engineers and physicists are less > > than a 1 percent minority.... virtually all of us know better,
> > Phil scott
> Years ago I worked with a person who put together a little bottle that > can be used to boil water > using the sun. The bottle was to be used in places in Africa where > water > had to be boiled to be made safe to drink. The bottle was actually a > box with copper tubing inside and the side that > faced the sun was made out of glass. The inside was painted black. It > took about 20 minutes of sunlight > to bring the water close to the boiling point of water. It was easy > and cheap to build. The only problem was getting > the right paint. Does not compare to what Dr Keith Henson is doing > but nevertheless interesting.
> I remember years ago when the styrofoam lobby (self proclaimed > environmentalist ) pressured Mc. Donald's > and others to replace paper with styrofoam. They claimed that killing > trees for paper was bad for the environment. > I guess none of them bothered to became familiar with how styrofoam is > made and how long it takes to break down. > Needless to say it was not long before Mc. Donald's went back to > paper. I wonder how much damage to the enviroment > these "environmentalist" actually caused?
> shortT- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
one of the issues non engineers make is seeing a valid example of solar use, for instance that solar sterized water rig.. a good idea, and probably one of the most cost effective gismo's to come along... countless lives saved for a buck fifty..... so since it works there, some tend to assume that you could then heat NYC in the winter with the approach... its a mass flow issue... the approach is not scalable to heat a city etc... but those who dont do math very often think it will.... same with solar cells...workable on small scales, but not large scale... parabolic solar collectors focused on central water tubes, can produce a lot of steam cost effectively. etc. Enough to power a city? No. because its not 24/7... so the investmnet pay back slows that development... should we go in that direction for some of our power? sure. 'some' is the key word.
Do the greenies do a lot of damage ...yes they do... total fraud in many cases... MTBE the fuel additive now withdrawn has poisoned ground water coast to coast and did little clean the air.. and a lot to cause cancer... methanol, works to get a cleaner burn, but produces less fuel mileage, net cost a looser.
attorneys in calif that can get just ONE judge to agree that some bogus issue needs to go to court...gets that attorney a 300 dollar an hour meal ticked for a decade or more fighting the cause in court at tax payer expense.. thats about 98% of the current Sierra Club activity.
> > > > unfortunately solar will never be more than 5% or so of the power > > > > grid, that is because its limitations, running only when the sun > > > > shines. and cost approx 5x per killowate
> > > Well.... never is a very long time. > > > I think in the future we will harvest all our energy from a star. The > > > question is can we make it to that stage > > > before killing ourselves?
> > > shortT
> > For the longest time, we were taught that the earth will be around as > > long as the sun is around, and that will be for five billion years, > > provided we don't kill ourselves in the process.
> > Wrong.
> > According to Scientific American, we are due for a massive change in > > the earth's magnetic field. SA pointed to a region in the South > > Atlantic where magnetic compasses do not work as the first stage of a > > magnetic field collapse leading to apolereversal (north magpole > > becomes south magpole, etc.).
> > SA presented geologic evidence of manypolechanges over the past > > 100,000 years. The best estimate for a magnetic field collapse and > > subsequentpoleshift is every 3500 years and we are overdue, > > according to SA.
> > Remember that crazy movie, "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" where the > > Van Allen Belt caught fire? The V-A-B is held in place by the earth's > > magnetic field. Just keep that in mind. But that's the bad news. > > The good news is that there is no correlation between the magnetic > > field collapse and any known catastrophe.
So Richard's premise is that global warming and the imminent collapse of the earth's magnetic field are related. Richard contends that a pole reversal could come about within the next five years at which time a global cooling will occur.
It's hard to buy into that because we have had many waves of global warming and cooling without evidence of mag pole reversals.
> > > > > unfortunately solar will never be more than 5% or so of the power > > > > > grid, that is because its limitations, running only when the sun > > > > > shines. and cost approx 5x per killowate
> > > > Well.... never is a very long time. > > > > I think in the future we will harvest all our energy from a star. The > > > > question is can we make it to that stage > > > > before killing ourselves?
> > > > shortT
> > > a friend of mine, Dr Keith Henson is working on deep space mirrors > > > that can focus a hot beam to a ground target at very high > > > termperatures to generate steam and drive steam turbines.. lots of > > > issues with controlling mirrors that large,, (thin mylar films miles > > > across
> > > that would work but it will be a while
> > > meantime nuclear is here now, and the cheapest cleanest form of energy > > > except hydro electric in the world. hydro is about tapped out
> > > among the more viable alternatives is tidal and wave energy... but > > > still just a trace of what the nation needs now and into the future
> > > solar cells produce power but is difuse not cost effective.... > > > parabolic solar reflectors in the desert though are already proven and > > > in use in israel and the western US desert ( forgot details) thats > > > viable...produces high pressure steam to drive turbines but still > > > cannot compete for cost and raw power with nuclear, coal or oil... > > > coal the dirtiest, nuclear the cleanist.
> > > listening to the coal lobby is not the path to enlightenment... al > > > gore and family have been heavy into coal for half a century
> > > in this mess its liberal arts majors led by the coal lobby pushing the > > > bad science... thats a majority.... engineers and physicists are less > > > than a 1 percent minority.... virtually all of us know better,
> > > Phil scott
> > Years ago I worked with a person who put together a little bottle that > > can be used to boil water > > using the sun. The bottle was to be used in places in Africa where > > water > > had to be boiled to be made safe to drink. The bottle was actually a > > box with copper tubing inside and the side that > > faced the sun was made out of glass. The inside was painted black. It > > took about 20 minutes of sunlight > > to bring the water close to the boiling point of water. It was easy > > and cheap to build. The only problem was getting > > the right paint. Does not compare to what Dr Keith Henson is doing > > but nevertheless interesting.
> > I remember years ago when the styrofoam lobby (self proclaimed > > environmentalist ) pressured Mc. Donald's > > and others to replace paper with styrofoam. They claimed that killing > > trees for paper was bad for the environment. > > I guess none of them bothered to became familiar with how styrofoam is > > made and how long it takes to break down. > > Needless to say it was not long before Mc. Donald's went back to > > paper. I wonder how much damage to the enviroment > > these "environmentalist" actually caused?
> > shortT- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> one of the issues non engineers make is seeing a valid example of > solar use, for instance that > solar sterized water rig.. a good idea, and probably one of the most > cost effective gismo's to come > along... countless lives saved for a buck fifty..... so since it works > there, some tend to assume that you > could then heat NYC in the winter with the approach... its a mass > flow issue... the approach is not > scalable to heat a city etc... but those who dont do math very often > think it will.... same with solar cells...workable > on small scales, but not large scale... parabolic solar collectors > focused on central water tubes, can produce > a lot of steam cost effectively. etc. Enough to power a city? > No. because its not 24/7... so the investmnet pay > back slows that development... should we go in that direction for some > of our power? sure. 'some' is the key word.
> Do the greenies do a lot of damage ...yes they do... total fraud in > many cases... MTBE the fuel additive now withdrawn > has poisoned ground water coast to coast and did little clean the > air.. and a lot to cause cancer... methanol, works to get > a cleaner burn, but produces less fuel mileage, net cost a looser.
> attorneys in calif that can get just ONE judge to agree that some > bogus issue needs to go to court...gets that attorney a 300 dollar an > hour meal ticked for a decade or more fighting the cause in court at > tax payer expense.. thats about 98% of the current Sierra Club > activity.
> Phil scott
Although I do agree with you wholeheartedly I am hoping that solar will be feasible in the near future. The reason being is that the efficiency of solar cells is increasing year to year but the power consumption of major appliances, computers etc. is falling year to year . Add to that the advances in batteries and we could have the perfect mix.
|
