Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Thursday 30th October 2014
quotequote all
TransverseTight said:
He's not just talking residential. It's a way for big factories to reduce bills. No specific mention of using them for supply side though... ie bufferuing wind output, it on the demand side they appear to be focused.
Have they modelled the revised demand patterns that demand managed electricity generation would work to?

More to the point, have they guessed it right?

On top of that have they worked out where the energy based taxation will be distributed when taxes from the fossil product side fade away?

I wouldn't rely too much on your predicted super cheap to fuel and super fast electric car TT. Restricting the power in favour of range or to reduce size and weight will be part of the mainstream movement should the political will and enormous tax driven subsidies pay off. And a few million cars (or properties with storage facilities) being charged every night will soon eliminate the low demand period overnight prices. Moreover there will still be huge investment required for new or replacement plant of one sort or another. Someone will have to fund it once "carbon" based theft tax has been mainly eradicated.

Politics, of course, not science will be the greater influence.

Blib

43,789 posts

196 months

Thursday 30th October 2014
quotequote all
TransverseTight said:
mybrainhurts said:
Be unstruck...

http://www.forumforthefuture.org/greenfutures/arti...

Easy to find really. Did a search for "Forum for the Future energy stoarage unit"

She might be geting a bit ahead of herself and the market though. As in they are still at the could, maybe, possibly stage.
SHe was not getting ahead of herself. She was not telling the truth.

NoNeed

15,137 posts

199 months

Thursday 30th October 2014
quotequote all
TransverseTight said:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

You can see what's wrong can't you?


Science is not about getting the results you want but getting the results that are right.

turbobloke

103,737 posts

259 months

Thursday 30th October 2014
quotequote all
NoNeed said:
Science is not about getting the results you want but getting the results that are right.
yes

The-Models-Are-Right-The-Data-Is-Wrong.

Side-splittingly unfunny and total nonscience.

As I and others have pointed out on many occasions, the junkscience of AGW shows it's supposed to appear first and foremost in the lower troposphere, not around airport tarmac or city centre car parks or trash burners or aircon outlets.

There are always error bars with any measures, but the satellite temperature record hasn't been raped and tortured like the corrupted and now useless gridded surface datasets. There is absolutely no manmadeup warming anywhere in sight, no visible causal human signal in any global data and that's true even after the surface data has been molested to the point of fabrication.

TransverseTight

753 posts

144 months

Thursday 30th October 2014
quotequote all
NoNeed said:
TransverseTight said:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

You can see what's wrong can't you?


Science is not about getting the results you want but getting the results that are right.
That says to me, don't use irony or sarcasm in written communications, as the voice inflection used in the spoken word is lost. I guess he should have added a ;-) at the end to make it clear he was playing with words.

Edit to add.. you are doing exactly tho opposite of what I Was trying to do... focusing on one sentence, making your own meaning from it, and ignoring all the context I just provided saying the point of his mail is to say "We need more data if we want better models".

Never mind, you see what you want to believe.

Edited by TransverseTight on Thursday 30th October 09:51

NoNeed

15,137 posts

199 months

Thursday 30th October 2014
quotequote all
TransverseTight said:
That says to me, don't use irony or sarcasm in written communications, as the voice inflection used in the spoken word is lost. I guess he should have added a ;-) at the end to make it clear he was playing with words.

Edit to add.. you are doing exactly tho opposite of what I Was trying to do... focusing on one sentence, making your own meaning from it, and ignoring all the context I just provided saying the point of his mail is to say "We need more data if we want better models".

Never mind, you see what you want to believe.

Edited by TransverseTight on Thursday 30th October 09:51
I would suggest that that one particular sentence makes any scientific claim in the rest of the email look doctored or false whetger is it or not.

But it does hilight beautifully why we are in the mess we are in, i.e. losing milliins of jobs to those in the east where energy is cheaper all so a few idiots can protect or expand their budgets based on lies not science, but as that suut the lentil knitters the rest of us are forced to go along with it.



P.S it is not what I believe that matters it is what the science can show me. Belief is for people of faith and has no place in a scientific arena.


You are forced to believe quite simply because you have no proof.

TransverseTight

753 posts

144 months

Thursday 30th October 2014
quotequote all
LongQ said:
Have they modelled the revised demand patterns that demand managed electricity generation would work to?

More to the point, have they guessed it right?

On top of that have they worked out where the energy based taxation will be distributed when taxes from the fossil product side fade away?

I wouldn't rely too much on your predicted super cheap to fuel and super fast electric car TT. Restricting the power in favour of range or to reduce size and weight will be part of the mainstream movement should the political will and enormous tax driven subsidies pay off. And a few million cars (or properties with storage facilities) being charged every night will soon eliminate the low demand period overnight prices. Moreover there will still be huge investment required for new or replacement plant of one sort or another. Someone will have to fund it once "carbon" based theft tax has been mainly eradicated.

Politics, of course, not science will be the greater influence.
Erm, if they shift the daytime demand so theres no off peak left (which is about 30% of the daytime load that needs to be moved) then the new off peak price would be more than current E7 but less than current peak and the overall price should come down due to better efficiency of plants. My rates are currently 8p off peak/17p peak at home. So it goes up from 1p/mile to 2p/mile compared to tax free unleaded/diesel at 4-5p. Still less than half. And I don't think we'll ever see tax free diesel and unleaded so real rate is 10p+ depending on what size engine you run.

Restricting power doesn't make the same sense in an EV. There's no parasitic loss of compressing air from having a big displacement engine. I've seen people doing experiments to see if hard acceleration reduced range and it hardly makes a difference. The slight increase in energy use is because you get to you max speed sooner, so hit the air resistance, but then you arrive earlier and don't spend as much time "under the graph". Try driving a V8 across a city in rush hour and see what flooring it from the lights everytime does to your consumption and tank range. I'm not sure about Tesla - but some electric motors get better efficiency when under full load at low rpm it's as they speed up they lose efficiency. Partly why Telsas AWD increases range a bit... unloading 1 big motor and splitting over 2 means they can shift the load back and forth to whichever is best suited to the current speed. Everything you know about ICE cars efficiency is nolonger relevant.

I'm looking forward to the first threads on PH where people are going, "so I got this old Model S, with the 460hp motor, its out of warranty now, and I've been looking at this aftermarket inverter kit that turns it into a P... do you think it's worth paying the extra £300 for the OFC windings or are the standard winding good enough?" Reminds me of top end audio conversations smile

A good quote from a Saudi Oil minister in that Video presentation above...
The stone age didn't end because of a lack of stone.
The oil age won't end because of a lack of oil.

If something is just simply better, it will win over the market. Not yet... but only about 1 decade left. Early adopters who can afford it are getting it. Just go read the Telsa Motors Club Threads. People coming from all sorts of background. People who never spent more than $20,000 on a car before thru to people who are "downgrading" from Astons, Big Mercs, M3s and the like.

If you haven't driven one yet... get online and book a test drive down at West Drayton. There's no law saying you have to be seriously considering buying. What you'll probably find is that suddenly you get it. And looking at fast ICE based cars no longer impresses you as much. You think. pah.. whatever. And then spend all your time thinking how can I get £67,000 together? OR better still £85,000.

PRTVR

7,072 posts

220 months

Thursday 30th October 2014
quotequote all
TransverseTight said:
If something is just simply better, it will win over the market. Not yet... but only about 1 decade left. Early adopters who can afford it are getting it. Just go read the Telsa Motors Club Threads. People coming from all sorts of background. People who never spent more than $20,000 on a car before thru to people who are "downgrading" from Astons, Big Mercs, M3s and the like.

If you haven't driven one yet... get online and book a test drive down at West Drayton. There's no law saying you have to be seriously considering buying. What you'll probably find is that suddenly you get it. And looking at fast ICE based cars no longer impresses you as much. You think. pah.. whatever. And then spend all your time thinking how can I get £67,000 together? OR better still £85,000.
So a lot of people have more money than sense, what's new, just remind us what happens if you let the battery go flat in a Tesla ?
Next I would like to drive to Monaco to see the GP, oh sorry you can only travel 250 miles or maybe less if its cold, the only way I can see EV working is as a second car, the cost to replace the battery will exclude it from a great proportion of the population, it is what it is, a rich persons toy, a step up from the Prius.

TransverseTight

753 posts

144 months

Thursday 30th October 2014
quotequote all
Guam said:
Cool, here wea rae again arguing the minutiae when the core question still can not be answered. Where is the Statistically significant evidence of Warming in the last 18 years, where is the Corresponding evidence showing its linkage to co 2 (trend divergence problem), where is the linkage to human induced warming via co2 emissions? given the overall co2 temp linkage is pretty much a busted flush due to the trend divergence.

Can someone explain how the tiny proportion of the background co2 produced by humanity, is responsible for a problem that real world obs do not indicate exists, is 5% of fk all something , or is it still a percentage of fk all? If the answer is that it is truly something, then please someone demonstrate with numbers and st where it is?

Arguing the political case, for a cause that has gone awol seems rather idiotic do we not think?
Exactly - I'm stopping debatine CO2 again because it isn't worth my time or yours. Lets just stick to how cool energy tech is better than reciprocating combustion engines.

Asking about the last 18 years misses the previous 100 by the way and show you spend too much time focusing and what the oil industry want you to focus on. Your mind has been stolen. ;-) IF you look at a graph of temperature over the past half century.. it's been going up, about every 10 years there's a cooling period. I'd expect us to have have some cooling now. It hasn't happened. Why? No models, scientists or bloggers needed to tell me something is different this time.

chris watton

22,477 posts

259 months

Thursday 30th October 2014
quotequote all
TransverseTight said:
Exactly - I'm stopping debatine CO2 again because it isn't worth my time or yours. Lets just stick to how cool energy tech is better than reciprocating combustion engines.
Yep - current energy tech is so cool that there's every chance of energy rationing and poor and vulnerable going cold, perhaps even dying from cold-related illnesses due to fuel poverty.

And alternative forms of conventional power are so great, they need diesel generators to pretend they're doing a good job!

You seriously need to take a reality check.

turbobloke

103,737 posts

259 months

Thursday 30th October 2014
quotequote all
chris watton said:
TransverseTight said:
Exactly - I'm stopping debatine CO2 again because it isn't worth my time or yours. Lets just stick to how cool energy tech is better than reciprocating combustion engines.
Yep - current energy tech is so cool that there's every chance of energy rationing and poor and vulnerable going cold, perhaps even dying from cold-related illnesses due to fuel poverty.

And alternative forms of conventional power are so great, they need diesel generators to pretend they're doing a good job!

You seriously need to take a reality check.
yes

Electric vehicles - what's the point? Originally it may have seemed like a good idea, as recharging could use wind from the beating wings of angels and fairies. That was back when politicians were dreaming of covering the land as well as coastal waters with windymills, as it happens their targets were and are completely unachievable and the massive subsidies, as you point out, indirectly kill thousands of vulnerable people each winter.

Quiet singleton traffic is inherently dangerous, and due to the lack of angels and fairies just when we need them, these electric vehicles merely transfer their emissions to traditional power generation sites mostly nukes or fossil burners, which in turn transfer energy inefficiently back along the grid. Back in the day I seem to remember s2art and myself - I think it was s2art - looking at the efficiency of this chain compared to the most efficient petrol and diesel vehicles and the fossils either won or there was nothing in it. Given the fairytales around carbon dioxide are as bad as anything about fairies, the entire electrical vehicle thing is pointless. It can be done, but so can sticking your hand in a flame.

Talking of separating the tax gas thing, is it reasonable to do so...this was posted on PH from an analysis in The Times Online back in 2009.

"Under the EU emissions trading system electric cars were likely to result in higher overall CO2 emissions"

laugh

nuts

banghead

bodhi

10,331 posts

228 months

Thursday 30th October 2014
quotequote all
PRTVR said:
So a lot of people have more money than sense, what's new, just remind us what happens if you let the battery go flat in a Tesla ?
Next I would like to drive to Monaco to see the GP, oh sorry you can only travel 250 miles or maybe less if its cold, the only way I can see EV working is as a second car, the cost to replace the battery will exclude it from a great proportion of the population, it is what it is, a rich persons toy, a step up from the Prius.
Whilst driving down to Monaco you should stop off for a lap of the Nurburgring in a Tesla - shame you won't manage more than about 3 minutes before it overheats and goes into limp home mode.

PRTVR

7,072 posts

220 months

Thursday 30th October 2014
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
chris watton said:
TransverseTight said:
Exactly - I'm stopping debatine CO2 again because it isn't worth my time or yours. Lets just stick to how cool energy tech is better than reciprocating combustion engines.
Yep - current energy tech is so cool that there's every chance of energy rationing and poor and vulnerable going cold, perhaps even dying from cold-related illnesses due to fuel poverty.

And alternative forms of conventional power are so great, they need diesel generators to pretend they're doing a good job!

You seriously need to take a reality check.
yes

Electric vehicles - what's the point? Originally it may have seemed like a good idea, as recharging could use wind from the beating wings of angels and fairies. That was back when politicians were dreaming of covering the land as well as coastal waters with windymills, as it happens their targets were and are completely unachievable and the massive subsidies, as you point out, indirectly kill thousands of vulnerable people each winter.

Quiet singleton traffic is inherently dangerous, and due to the lack of angels and fairies just when we need them, these electric vehicles merely transfer their emissions to traditional power generation sites mostly nukes or fossil burners, which in turn transfer energy inefficiently back along the grid. Back in the day I seem to remember s2art and myself - I think it was s2art - looking at the efficiency of this chain compared to the most efficient petrol and diesel vehicles and the fossils either won or there was nothing in it. Given the fairytales around carbon dioxide are as bad as anything about fairies, the entire electrical vehicle thing is pointless. It can be done, but so can sticking your hand in a flame.

Talking of separating the tax gas thing, is it reasonable to do so...this was posted on PH from an analysis in The Times Online back in 2009.

"Under the EU emissions trading system electric cars were likely to result in higher overall CO2 emissions"

laugh

nuts

banghead
Along with no answer to the massive amount of tax that is presently collected from that nasty petrol and diesel, that would be lost if we all went EV.

turbobloke

103,737 posts

259 months

Thursday 30th October 2014
quotequote all
PRTVR said:
Along with no answer to the massive amount of tax that is presently collected from that nasty petrol and diesel, that would be lost if we all went EV.
Good point. Is it not already the case that all sorts of exemptions are being wound back, e.g. the tax disc we no longer need and the con(gestion) charge trick, just like subsidies from solar etc? Think so but as I have no wish to own an electric or hybrid vehicle nor to pay the London socialist tax on private transport, it's not my everyday topic of conversation.

This was on file, from a post I offered in one the previous animated discussions on PH concerning electric cars, this time in 2011.

The average coupled steam turbines fed by burning fossil fuel in a power station have an efficiency of just over 40%. Transmission losses in the grid due to resistance and other losses are about 10% so say 90% efficient, and then there are step-up-step-down transformers each about 95% efficient. End-user charging on top has an efficiency of about 95%. Take electric car efficiency as about 85%, the electric motor itself can be 90% efficient at peak but falls to 70% or below at low speed and there are other losses. This puts the overall effiency from power station fuel burning to end user electric car operation as

40% x 90% x 95% x 95% x 95% x 85% ~ 25%

Numbers vary from source to source but the overall postition won't be too different from this, which represents an overall efficiecy of about 25% - using the very best modern 'H-System' power generators with 60% efficiency not that this applies widely takes the final figure up to just below 40% which is less than the best oil burners. A modern efficient petrol engined car can achieve 30% (more typically 25%) and the best diesels about 42% efficiency. Diesel wins and it's a tie with petrol.

If there's an "energetic" person on PH who can update these figures, that would be nice, it may have improved slightly in three years, but the tax gas basis was and still is completely non-existent.

PRTVR

7,072 posts

220 months

Thursday 30th October 2014
quotequote all
bodhi said:
PRTVR said:
So a lot of people have more money than sense, what's new, just remind us what happens if you let the battery go flat in a Tesla ?
Next I would like to drive to Monaco to see the GP, oh sorry you can only travel 250 miles or maybe less if its cold, the only way I can see EV working is as a second car, the cost to replace the battery will exclude it from a great proportion of the population, it is what it is, a rich persons toy, a step up from the Prius.
Whilst driving down to Monaco you should stop off for a lap of the Nurburgring in a Tesla - shame you won't manage more than about 3 minutes before it overheats and goes into limp home mode.
Can you imagine taking it anywhere, the stress of worrying if you were going to run the battery down too far, then getting hit with a bill for $40,000 for a new battery,
With the way things cost in the UK against the US that would be £40,000. Yep EV would take the joy out of driving.

jet_noise

5,630 posts

181 months

Thursday 30th October 2014
quotequote all
tb,

the phrase for which to search is "well to wheel". I've got it in mind, although have no links, that electric cars do show an energy saving, even with present technology. Whether they are "practical" today or ever will be so is another discussion smile

regards,
Jet

wc98

10,334 posts

139 months

Thursday 30th October 2014
quotequote all
TransverseTight said:
Exactly - I'm stopping debatine CO2 again because it isn't worth my time or yours. Lets just stick to how cool energy tech is better than reciprocating combustion engines.

Asking about the last 18 years misses the previous 100 by the way and show you spend too much time focusing and what the oil industry want you to focus on. Your mind has been stolen. ;-) IF you look at a graph of temperature over the past half century.. it's been going up, about every 10 years there's a cooling period. I'd expect us to have have some cooling now. It hasn't happened. Why? No models, scientists or bloggers needed to tell me something is different this time.
good,you have obviously been greenwashed beyond redemption,your recent posts resemble some sort of chanting mantra.
as for no cold periods,when virtually every government funded weather/climate agency in the developed world gets a large part of that funding to monitor the effects of mmgw ,it is hardly surprising the small drops in average temp expected over a certain period are smeared away using dubious mathematical techniques.

the one thing we rarely see is an unadulterated physical measurement series,and why would we,when so many jobs depend on thermageddon.the people who are doing some digging into measured temperatures are coming up with cooling trends in many places around the world ,maybe you should go and have a look at what they doing for yourself,instead of believing the rubbish you are being spoon fed at the moment.

one question,do you work for tesla ?

Jinx

11,344 posts

259 months

Thursday 30th October 2014
quotequote all
TransverseTight said:
Lots....
The confirmation bias is strong in this one.
Climate scientists have a major problem with the energy balance equation - by treating the earth as a black body they are unable to account for the changes to the energy balance by changes to the received energy spectrum. By assuming a black body they are able to assume only TSI will have relevance and therefore are able to discount the suns influence (as TSI has not varied by enough or at the right times to correlate with temperatures) . This is the basis of the poor science and these assumptions will never give the right answers.
It is a travesty that the hubris of climate "scientists" are causing so much pain and misery to the world - this was normally the role for politicians.

chris watton

22,477 posts

259 months

Thursday 30th October 2014
quotequote all
PRTVR said:
turbobloke said:
chris watton said:
TransverseTight said:
Exactly - I'm stopping debatine CO2 again because it isn't worth my time or yours. Lets just stick to how cool energy tech is better than reciprocating combustion engines.
Yep - current energy tech is so cool that there's every chance of energy rationing and poor and vulnerable going cold, perhaps even dying from cold-related illnesses due to fuel poverty.

And alternative forms of conventional power are so great, they need diesel generators to pretend they're doing a good job!

You seriously need to take a reality check.
yes

Electric vehicles - what's the point? Originally it may have seemed like a good idea, as recharging could use wind from the beating wings of angels and fairies. That was back when politicians were dreaming of covering the land as well as coastal waters with windymills, as it happens their targets were and are completely unachievable and the massive subsidies, as you point out, indirectly kill thousands of vulnerable people each winter.

Quiet singleton traffic is inherently dangerous, and due to the lack of angels and fairies just when we need them, these electric vehicles merely transfer their emissions to traditional power generation sites mostly nukes or fossil burners, which in turn transfer energy inefficiently back along the grid. Back in the day I seem to remember s2art and myself - I think it was s2art - looking at the efficiency of this chain compared to the most efficient petrol and diesel vehicles and the fossils either won or there was nothing in it. Given the fairytales around carbon dioxide are as bad as anything about fairies, the entire electrical vehicle thing is pointless. It can be done, but so can sticking your hand in a flame.

Talking of separating the tax gas thing, is it reasonable to do so...this was posted on PH from an analysis in The Times Online back in 2009.

"Under the EU emissions trading system electric cars were likely to result in higher overall CO2 emissions"

laugh

nuts

banghead
Along with no answer to the massive amount of tax that is presently collected from that nasty petrol and diesel, that would be lost if we all went EV.
yes

Another thing - imagine if we were now living in this EV car utopia TT waxes lyrical about - If we're that close to an energy deficit now, surely if over 60 million EV's were to be plugged into the grid overnight, there would cause problems, wouldn't it? Imagine all of those dirty diesel generators working overtime, to replenish the charge in the batteries!

Idiocracy personified.


Edited by chris watton on Thursday 30th October 13:56

turbobloke

103,737 posts

259 months

Thursday 30th October 2014
quotequote all
jet_noise said:
tb,

the phrase for which to search is "well to wheel". I've got it in mind, although have no links, that electric cars do show an energy saving, even with present technology. Whether they are "practical" today or ever will be so is another discussion smile

regards,
Jet
Yes indeed you make a valid point, and I recall being directed to at least two reports on that theme, back in the 2009-2011 PH era of electric car debates. There was also mention of Well to Tank and then Tank to Wheel which seems to be how some analysts do it. What I also recall is an overpowering emphasis on GHG emissions reductions, as though that was important and means something, which it doesn't. Armed with that information I hardened my appropriately sceptical scientific eye and took a closer look at the rest. It made a fine art of obfuscation, the idea of 'showing your working' was out of the window and comparisons were presented graphically as one fait accompli after another. Also, in the reports I recall the authors didn't consider the energy (or the emissions) involved in building facilities and the vehicles themselves, transportation to dealerships, movement of vehicles through the marketplace (multiple ownership transactions), different useage patterns nor did they account for the vehicle end of life aspects.

If you ever find a very detailed report W2W, even within the scope of such a document, please do post a link.

What was also looked at, even further back in those heady pre-crunch days of 2006 also known on PH as 'the days of nonegreen' was something more fundamental still which covered the omissions of W2W: namely the 'Dust to Dust' or D2D approach and in particular the report from CNW Marketing Research. At the time, green zealots were desperate to counter the damaging effect this report was having, and simply asserted falsehoods about what the report did or did not contain and what it did or did not consider. This included posts on PH. At the time I had just read the report, all 130+ pages of it, and as it was clear that the zealots had not (they were simply regurgitating something from an advocacy blog where once again the report must have gone unread) it was a fairly easy task to offer corrections. The CNWM report concluded that in a D2D analysis, for hybrid vehicles at that time, conventional cars won the debate.

From an article at the time:

Article said:
To make it easy for the consumer to understand, CNWMR developed an energy cost per mile driven figure. While some of the vehicles referred to aren't sold in the UK or Europe, the overall thrust of the research makes sense.

Topping the league with the most "energy expensive" vehicle from 2005 is the Maybach at $11.58 per mile, VW Phaeton at $11.213 and Rolls-Royce Phantom at $10.660 while the thriftiest is the Scion xB at the bottom of the scale, at $0.48 a mile, ahead of the Ford Escort at $0.568 and Jeep Wrangler at $0.604. However, the research brings into question the whole concept of hybrids as "energy-saving", at least for the planet as a whole.

The industry average of 312 vehicles was $2.281, yet all the hybrids cost more than this. Compact family hybrids like the Toyota Prius ($3.249) and Honda Civic hybrid ($3.238), cost more than a full size SUV Land Rover Discovery ($2.525) or Lincoln Navigator ($2.617). By comparison, America’s best selling car, the mid-size Toyota Camry, cost $1.954 and the similar Nissan Altima only $1.381. Hybrids on the other hand cost more over their lifetime due to the extra complexity and production and recycling costs: the Hybrid Honda Accord has an energy cost per mile of $3.29 while the regular version’s is $2.18. A regular Honda Civic costs $2.420
Prius 0 Disco 1

Back in 2006 Zod said:
Drivers of hybrids are typical of the prevailing intellectual laziness and dishonesty in this country...
If anyone knows of an update to the CNWMR report that covers modern hybrids and electric cars, feel free to post a link, TIA.

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED