Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #553742
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation |
| Date | 2016-02-16 22:12 -0600 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <na0rvr$10hj$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (6 earlier) <6cd85d14-7c9d-4633-bc5a-f30322486593@googlegroups.com> <na0k1t$ct4$1@gioia.aioe.org> <dc5ba621-6439-4cdb-9346-198856dbf382@googlegroups.com> <na0nkv$rcq$1@gioia.aioe.org> <28e2af1a-a9e8-49ec-b011-2e7d9371682a@googlegroups.com> |
On 2/16/2016 9:10 PM, James McGinn wrote: > On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 6:58:46 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: >> On 2/16/2016 8:10 PM, James McGinn wrote: >>> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 5:57:24 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: >>>> On 2/16/2016 6:07 PM, James McGinn wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 3:59:29 PM UTC-8, Sergio wrote: >>>>>> On 2/16/2016 5:45 PM, James McGinn wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 at 3:38:59 PM UTC-8, reber >>>>>>> g=emc^2 wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Water is heavy >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course water is heavy. Moist air is heavier than dry >>>>>>> air. >>>>>> >>>>>> wrong, it is moist is less dense, therefore lighter than dry >>>>>> air, everybody knows that >>>>> >>>>> Look up gas laws, you idiot. And look up boiling temp/press of >>>>> H2O. >>>> >>>> does gas law apply to water vapor in air ? >> >> answer the question ! > > Be more specific. sure => "if you look up you see clouds, they are made of water, how did the water get up there ?" using your "theory" the clock is ticking.......... > > >> >>>> >>>> on the BP of water, I am sure you can find it on the internet >>>> somewhere, I do not want to take my time to learn you, as you just >>>> do not know the fundamentals, pupa. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> "Dry air is composed of mostly of heavy oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2) molecules. However in moist air, some molecules are the lighter weight water molecules (H2O), rather than heavier O2 or N2 molecules. Not at all, that is a common mistake by novices. Take some time and think about dry air is composed of mostly of heavy oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2) Molecules. However in moist air, some molecules are the lighter weight water molecules (H2O), rather than heavier O2 or N2 molecules. what is the weight of H2O ? MM of 18.0152 g/mol Weight of O2 ? MM of 31.9988 g/mol Weight of N2 ? MM of 28.01340 g/mol clearly water, H2O is light weight, everybody already knows this, and can easily verify this fact online in thousands of places. Too bad you continue to fool yourself. H2O is gaseous in the atmosphere. Consult steam tables, or any Psychrometric chart http://www.kaceenergy.com/images/fig4.gif Therefore, the *air is less dense in moist air* and this decrease in density equates to less resistance to the ball's motion through air. So, for two baseballs hit with equal force, the one in the moist air would travel much much farther than the one hit in dry air. >>>>>> if you look up you see clouds, they are made of water, how did >>>>>> the water get up there? >>>>> >> >> answer the Question ! > > I answered this question in other posts on this NG. (Hint: It has nothing to do with convection.) no, you avoided it. *Now answer the question*. Or admit your "theory" is a failure. "if you look up you see clouds, they are made of water, how did the water get up there ?" > >> >>>>> >>>>> If moist air is heavier then it couldn't be due to convection, >>>>> right. So what other process do you suggest? (BTW, this is my >>>>> area of expertise.) >>>>> >>>> >>>> you failed to answer my question. >>>> >>>> Again "if you look up you see clouds, they are made of water, how >>>> did the water get up there ?" >> >> you failed to answer my question again, this is the THIRD TIME I tell >> you to answer the simple Question. > > You should never ask a question that you are unwilling to answer yourself. > again, *answer the question*, "if you look up you see clouds, they are made of water, how did the water get up there ?" If you cannot answer it, admit your theory is failed. > >> >> you cannot. Because your thinking cannot explain Clouds, or Fog. >> >> Because you use your imagination for your "heavy moist air" and your >> "books". your theories are science fiction, your imagination. >> >> You imagination confused with reality. > > If that is what you think you should make an argument to that effect. since you say you are expert, and you say moist air is heavy, then answer the question, "if you look up you see clouds, they are made of water, how did the water get up there ?" > >> >> >> >>>> >>>> kind of simple question blows a HUGE HOLE in your "heavy moisture" >>>> idea, >>>> >>>> I am waiting for your answer. (you are trapped) >>>> >>>> >> >> I am waiting............. >> >> put up or shut up. >> >> you are so hosed ! >> >> Trapped ! >> >> >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> (crickets................................) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Water is in clumps/droplets at ambient temps. >> >> at what temp, and pressure ? >> >>>>>> >>>>>> not all temps, and at what pressure ? what density ? >>>>> >>>>> Steam tables. >>>> >>>> got any URLs ? or are you just making stuff up ? >>>> >>>> steam tables or Psychrometric chart ? >> >> no URLs ?? >> >>>> >>>> http://www.kaceenergy.com/images/fig4.gif >>>> >>>> sorry to get way ahead of you so quick, but you need to start >>>> learning now. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Only idiots believe it turns to gas below its boiling point. >>>>>> >>>>>> at what pressure ? what density ? >>>>> >>>>> Depends. There are other factors that you are ignorant of. >>>>> Crawl before you walk. First get it straight in your little mind >>>>> that convection is not the only explanation and is plainly >>>>> refuted by the ten cent observation that moist aid is heavier. >>>> >>>> no need to get angry, just answer this question, "how does the >>>> water get up into the clouds ?" >>>> >>>> I am waiting..... >>>> >>>> >>>> (crickets.......................................) >>>> >>>> >> >> still no answer ? >> >> again " how does the water get up into the clouds ? " > > What is your answer? you have no answer. your theory cannot explain clouds. It and you are bogus. since you say you are expert, and you say moist air is heavy, then answer the question, "if you look up you see clouds, they are made of water, how did the water get up there ?" > >> >> you can use google. > > I don't need google. I'm an expert on this subject. if so, prove it, answer "How does water get up to the clouds ?" using your "theories" If you can't answer such a simple question, you are no expert. > >> >>>>> >>>>> What other process do you think might be involved? >>>>> >>>>> Think real hard. >>>> >>>> flipping the question to me is childish, and diversionary. >>>> >>>> You have trapped yourself and demonstrated to all, to the world, >>>> that *you cannot explain why there are clouds*. >>> >>> Since I can't imagine >>> anything else causing H2O to get high in the atmosphere therefore >>> it's alright to pretend it's a gas when the facts clearly demonstrate >>> it is impossible. >> >> what facts ? see the cloud ? how did the water get up there ? simple >> stuff, > > Crawl before you walk. Do you accept that convection is impossible? answer my question, "How does water get up so high to form clouds ?" > >> >> again *you have no answer to why clouds exist*. you cannot explain it >> at all using your failed idea of "heavy moist air", > > I already have explained it. No convection needed. > liar. answer my question, "How does water get up so high to form clouds ?" >> >> I demote you from pupa, to .dot. >> >> .dot gets a SPANK!! SPANK !! You bad boy, you fail to study, you cannot >> answer why clouds are there. >> >> you should re think your moistness, better yet, accept the fact that >> water vapor it is too difficult for you, and change fields, try coloring >> on some paper, and show somebody. you could trace and then color a >> water molecule ! (wiki for it) > Take some time and think about dry air is composed of mostly of heavy oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2) Molecules. However in moist air, some molecules are the lighter weight water molecules (H2O), rather than heavier O2 or N2 molecules. what is the weight of H2O ? MM of 18.0152 g/mol Weight of O2 ? MM of 31.9988 g/mol Weight of N2 ? MM of 28.01340 g/mol clearly water, H2O is light weight, everybody already knows this, and can easily verify this fact online in thousands of places. Too bad you continue to fool yourself. H2O is gaseous in the atmosphere. Consult steam tables, or any Psychrometric chart http://www.kaceenergy.com/images/fig4.gif Therefore, the *air is less dense in moist air* and this decrease in density equates to less resistance to the ball's motion through air. So, for two baseballs hit with equal force, the one in the moist air would travel much much farther than the one hit in dry air.
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 10:36 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-16 10:45 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 11:50 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-16 14:28 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 13:46 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-16 17:52 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 16:00 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-16 19:31 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-16 14:54 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 15:28 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-16 20:36 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 20:58 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 23:11 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 21:27 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 08:50 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 08:57 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:10 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-16 21:36 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 22:03 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-16 22:29 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 23:19 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-17 10:24 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 10:29 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 09:03 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-17 12:46 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 10:54 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-17 13:10 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:20 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-17 19:11 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-02-17 00:40 +0000
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 18:18 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 10:49 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 12:57 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-02-16 14:59 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 15:38 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 15:45 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-16 17:59 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 16:07 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-16 19:56 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 18:10 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-16 20:58 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 19:10 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-16 22:12 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 20:57 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 23:10 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 21:26 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 08:49 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation dm <pippinese@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 07:39 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 09:50 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-17 10:34 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 09:04 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-17 12:49 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 08:45 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-17 13:14 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 15:53 -0500
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 08:55 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 08:44 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 10:50 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 09:14 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:50 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 10:46 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-17 13:07 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:15 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 13:47 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 19:08 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-17 19:52 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 22:40 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-02-18 11:35 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 10:03 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 09:56 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 10:17 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 09:58 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 12:09 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 10:40 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 14:10 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 12:41 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 16:09 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 14:13 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-18 17:55 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 00:08 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 07:46 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 12:43 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-18 20:48 -0500
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 18:10 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 18:01 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-16 20:58 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 19:11 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-16 22:12 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 21:31 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-17 10:39 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 09:10 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:12 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 09:16 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:52 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 10:47 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-17 12:57 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:09 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-02-17 13:17 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 16:24 -0500
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-02-16 13:53 -0800
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 11:43 -0600
Re: Heavy Air Theory = High Pressure Systems and lack of precipitation Solving Tornadoes <solvingtornadoes@gmail.com> - 2016-02-19 00:04 -0800
csiph-web