Gravity Driven Mechanisms

[Guest Aemilius]

Turtle "i am bemused that you neg-repped my last post, as all-in-all i was simply correcting chewy's misunderstanding that the spring was not already in your device and doing what you intend."

 

I used the negative reputation feature for throwing in the remark about "created" energy because it's misleading and not what the discussion is about. It seemed designed more to belittle.

 

Turtle "while i have proved nothing regarding the "nature" of the device, neither have you."

 

Well at least you acknowledge that you haven't proved or disproved anything. You can keep saying that I haven't proved anything, and you can keep going on about how it's your contention that this and it's your contention that that, and notwithstanding the spring and notwithstanding the diagrams and explanations, and how I'm doing all the work.... that's not a logical argument or rebuttal. You're just talking a lot without properly addressing (or addressing at all) the analysis to point out logical flaws in either the calculations or the explanations based on them.... It's just subjective opinion.

 

Turtle "(not that it is at all clear what you mean to prove.)"

 

I just said in the last post.... "I guess the object of this all along has really been to see how much work can be done for the least amount of input (I wouldn't mind achieving self rotation though)." Is there some part of that you're unable to understand?

 

Turtle "as it is your device, the onus is on you to characterize it in terms agreeable and per se understandable to others."

 

That's right, and that's what I'm doing, characterizing it in terms agreeable and per se understandable to others by using vectors you said you understood, from post 92....

 

Turtle "....i agree and have no other problem with the drawing(s) so far."

 

....but now, instead of using the "vocabulary" we agreed was mutually understandable, you've simply returned to just objecting the same way you did before. You don't understand vectors anymore, is that it? It's about as simple as it gets, there aren't even any numbers involved. It should be a small matter for you to find fault with it.... So why haven't you? You disagree with the explanations based on the calculations? Then why don't you show how they don't fit with the analysis? What's the problem?

 

That being the case, until or unless you have something to add (as you put it) that actually addresses some flaw in the analysis I'll just consider your objections invalid based on their being nothing more than subjective opinions and continue with the analysis as planned like you suggested.

 

Emile

Edited October 28, 2012 by Aemilius

[Turtle]

Turtle "i am bemused that you neg-repped my last post, as all-in-all i was simply correcting chewy's misunderstanding that the spring was not already in your device and doing what you intend."

 

I used the negative reputation feature for throwing in the remark about "created" energy because it's misleading and not what the discussion is about. It seemed designed more to belittle.

 

i put "created" in quotes because i was quoting chewy's use of the term. again, that post was to correct chewy's misunderstanding.

 

Turtle "while i have proved nothing regarding the "nature" of the device, neither have you."

 

Well at least you acknowledge that you haven't proved or disproved anything. You can keep saying that I haven't proved anything, and you can keep going on about how it's your contention that this and it's your contention that that, and notwithstanding the spring and notwithstanding the diagrams and explanations, and how I'm doing all the work.... that's not a logical argument or rebuttal. You're just talking a lot without properly addressing (or addressing at all) the analysis to point out logical flaws in either the calculations or the explanations based on them.... It's just subjective opinion.

 

Turtle "(not that it is at all clear what you mean to prove.)"

 

I just said in the last post.... "I guess the object of this all along has really been to see how much work can be done for the least amount of input (I wouldn't mind achieving self rotation though)." Is there some part of that you're unable to understand?

 

Turtle "as it is your device, the onus is on you to characterize it in terms agreeable and per se understandable to others."

 

That's right, and that's what I'm doing, characterizing it in terms agreeable and per se understandable to others by using vectors you said you understood, from post 92....

 

Turtle "....i agree and have no other problem with the drawing(s) so far."

 

....but now, instead of using the "vocabulary" we agreed was mutually understandable, you've simply returned to just objecting the same way you did before. You don't understand vectors anymore, is that it? It's about as simple as it gets, there aren't even any numbers involved. It should be a small matter for you to find fault with it.... So why haven't you? You disagree with the explanations based on the calculations? Then why don't you show how they don't fit with the analysis? What's the problem?

 

That being the case, until or unless you have something to add (as you put it) that actually addresses some flaw in the analysis I'll just consider your objections invalid based on their being nothing more than subjective opinions and continue with the analysis as planned like you suggested.

 

Emile

 

teeheee. ;) i made agreement to a couple drawings and nothing else. as to your vector analysis, craig is your horse in that race and we can both satisfy ourselves with his view on all you have been posting in that vein if & when he gives it. i have nowhere the ability as he in such analysis and i'm always eager to read him.

 

as to gettting as much from as little as possible, i'd be interested in seeing you add a load to the device and operating it. perhaps attach a small dc motor and run its leads to a voltmeter as such an experiment?

[Guest Aemilius]

Hi Chewbalka....

 

Chewbalka "I can easily see how that will work but as you said timing will be a bit annoying...."

 

Actually I've solved that, it's coming up in the next stage of the anaysis, "Stage Four - Timing". It's a cam arrangement. It's been there from the beginning (the tall V shaped piece moving back and forth under the planet sprocket), it just hasn't been described yet.

 

Chewbalka "I am guessing you are not acknowledging the springs used to prevent emile's hand from doing the work?" and "I am not saying that its going to be simple to get the spring working properly!"

 

Let me explain.... The spring on the back dramatically reduces the input level of force needed to that of just overcoming the friction and inertia (negligible) of the mechanism. The spring functions exactly as intended and that stage of the analysis, "Stage two - Compensation", is complete.

 

Chewbalka "....energy in the device is caused by the weights acting with gravity."

 

Right!

 

Chewbalka "I was under the influence that emile was attempting to make this device capable of self functioning..."

 

What I'm aiming for is engineering a mechanism that rotates forcefully in response to an input force that is as small as possible. It's not complete yet, but if I see that the rotational force of the mechanism appears to be greater than the input force needed I will try for self rotation (why not?). Given the long history of failure trying to achieve that I'm not confident it's possible, but I have ideas for other applications too.... I'm just not there yet.

 

Emile

Edited October 28, 2012 by Aemilius

[Guest Aemilius]

Turtle "i put "created" in quotes because i was quoting chewy's use of the term. again, that post was to correct chewy's misunderstanding."

 

Sorry about that, my mistake.

[Chewbalka]

Thanks for clearing that up emile i was getting so confused by so many contradicting post lol.

 

Good luck man! Lol once again lol

[Guest Aemilius]

Turtle "teeheee. i made agreement to a couple drawings and nothing else."

 

That would've been fine, but then....

 

Turtle "as to your vector analysis, craig is your horse in that race and we can both satisfy ourselves with his view on all you have been posting in that vein if & when he gives it. i have nowhere the ability as he in such analysis...."

 

Interesting.... I can't say when it comes to any of the discussion prior to starting the vector analysis, but after starting it (and being well along in the process) I can. You wrote....

 

Turtle "the problem i have -and the others if i may speak for them- is the claim the mechanism is gravity driven."

 

Turtle "my contention is that gravity is not driving the mechanism...."

 

Turtle "....emile is driving the mechanism by moving the [imbalancing] lever."

 

Turtle "it does not matter how far or how easy he moves the lever...."

 

Turtle "the spring notwithstanding, emile is doing the work."

The above (including your objections) makes one of these true. You either....

 

A. Raised objections knowing you don't have the ability to evaluate the analysis with confidence or the wherewithal to back them up using logical argument, evidenced by your saying that "craig is your horse in that race" and that you'll defer to his superior knowledge of vectors since you "have nowhere the ability as he in such analysis" ....which makes your argument one based on subjective opinion.

 

Or....

 

B. Raised objections knowing you do have the ability to evaluate the analysis with confidence and the wherewithal to back them up using logical argument, but, finding yourself unable to find fault with it decided instead to pass the buck on to CraigD in order to avoid having to explain objections you know you can't logically back up ....which makes your argument one based on antagonistic deception.

 

Whichever it is, subjective opinion or antagonistic deception.... your argument vanishes. That's not to say you're incorrect, only that you've not shown that you are correct by successfully rebutting the vector analysis or using any kind of logical argument. In view of all that I don't think I'll be able to explain it to you either since discussion failed and you don't (as you said) have a sufficient grasp of simple non-numeric vectors that would allow for you to agree or disagree with the analysis.

 

Emile

Edited October 30, 2012 by Aemilius

[Chewbalka]

Oh emile you forgot one!

 

C:). A troll lol

[Turtle]

Turtle "i put "created" in quotes because i was quoting chewy's use of the term. again, that post was to correct chewy's misunderstanding."

 

Sorry about that, my mistake.

 

no worries; it's a small one.

 

Turtle "teeheee. i made agreement to a couple drawings and nothing else."

 

That would've been fine, but then....

...

Whichever it is, subjective opinion or antagonistic deception.... your argument vanishes. That's not to say you're incorrect, only that you've not shown that you are correct by successfully rebutting the vector analysis or using any kind of logical argument. In view of all that I don't think I'll be able to explain it to you either since discussion failed and you don't (as you said) have a sufficient grasp of simple non-numeric vectors that would allow for you to agree or disagree with the analysis.

 

Emile

 

:lol: well, since i just re-read my "arguments" in your post, obviously they have not vanished. you have simply resolved to ignore them.

 

nevertheless, you have a glaring mistake which you have also resolved to ignore. to whit, you say:

 

...

What I'm aiming for is engineering a mechanism that rotates forcefully in response to an input force that is as small as possible. It's not complete yet, but if I see that the rotational force of the mechanism appears to be greater than the input force needed I will try for self rotation (why not?). Given the long history of failure trying to achieve that I'm not confident it's possible, but I have ideas for other applications too.... I'm just not there yet.

 

Emile

 

there is a long history of failure because self-rotation is impossible; 2^nd law of thermodynamics don't ya know. i believe craig explained why. that you hold out hope still is in the least, naive.

 

as to decreasing input force while increasing output force, a simple lever can do that.(even if that lever is a crank on a rotating wheel.) lengthen the arm you bear on and you can lift a heavier load. however, the longer the lever the further you must move it to move the load the same distance and in terms of how much work you do -think calories burned- you have no gain.

 

ps you didn't comment on my suggestion you add a load to the device. any particular reason for that?

Edited October 30, 2012 by Turtle

[Guest Aemilius]

Turtle "there is a long history of failure because self-rotation is impossible; 2nd law of thermodynamics don't ya know. i believe craig explained why. that you hold out hope still is in the least, naive."

 

I never said it was possible.... what I said was "Given the long history of failure trying to achieve that I'm not confident it's possible, but I have ideas for other applications too.... I'm just not there yet." Why remind me of the second law of thermodynamics? Doesn't make sense.

 

Aside from that, since you don't directly address any aspect of the analysis in your post, I have no response.... and won't until you do.

 

Wait, there is one thing....

 

Turtle "as to decreasing input force while increasing output force, a simple lever can do that.(even if that lever is a crank on a rotating wheel.) lengthen the arm you bear on and you can lift a heavier load. however, the longer the lever the further you must move it to move the load the same distance and in terms of how much work you do -think calories burned- you have no gain."

 

Agreed.... but this isn't the same kind of arrangement. I've already shown that moving the lever back and forth doesn't move the sun sprocket in such a way as to be capable of imparting rotational motion to the planetary sprocket via the chain in the sense of "cranking" it. The mechanisim rotates in response to being imbalanced, not cranked. What your describing is a conventional lever and fulcrum arrangement.... not the same thing (even though leverage is an element).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chewbalka "Oh emile you forgot one!

 

C:). A troll lol"

 

You may be right.... Emile

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Aemilius

[Guest Aemilius]

I recieved a number of emails about my most recent exchange with Turtle, and though the majority agreed with

my response there were a few that still questioned the basis for my rejection of his argument, so I'll explain....

 

The vector analysis was started in order to remove the need for subjective opinion/interpretation or analogous

comparison from the discussion, creating a reasonably reliable "proving ground" of sorts for resolution of

disagreements about any propositions or statements made (by either side) that would allow for the analysis to

move forward.

 

For example, if one were to view the (obviously incorrect) diagramatic statement below and raise the objection....

"The direction and magnitude shown for the force A does not correspond to the well known downward force mass

exhibits under the influence of gravity.", since it's well known that mass exhibits a downward force under the

influence of gravity, I would then be in the position of having to show why the diagram is correct....

 

 

If, on the other hand, one were to view the (obviously correct) diagramatic statement below and raise the

objection.... "The direction and magnitude of the force A is not the result of the well known downward force

mass exhibits under the influence of gravity, another cause is responsible.", since it's well known that mass

exhibits a downward force under the influence of gravity, the one raising the objection would then be in the

position of having to show why the diagram is incorrect...

 

 

I think it's fair enough but I'm certainly open to any suggestions that may refine the process.

 

So.... Why do I reject Turtle's argument? When he commented recently after three stages of the analysis were

already complete, all he really did was to repeat his earlier objections....

 

Turtle "the problem i have -and the others if i may speak for them- is the claim the mechanism is gravity

driven."

 

Turtle "my contention is that gravity is not driving the mechanism...."

 

Turtle "....emile is driving the mechanism by moving the [imbalancing] lever."

 

Turtle "it does not matter how far or how easy he moves the lever...."

 

Turtle "the spring notwithstanding, emile is doing the work."

 

....without even attempting to point out one single aspect of the analysis being carried out that's flawed or

why. Vectors provide a very simple and easy to understand means of doing so.

 

Simple non-numeric vectors are perfectly appropriate for use as a "language" to describe all the various

aspects of how and why the mechanism moves (or doesn't move) the way I say it does.... so why not use them?

 

How does it make sense to just keep repeating objections and then say, when asked to explain them using what

could arguably be called one of the simpler forms of mathematics, that you're instead going to wait and see

if someone else who knows more about it will step in to guage the correctness of it? The answer is it doesn't

make sense, it's not a logical argument.... that's why I reject it.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Aemilius

[Turtle]

I recieved a number of emails about my most recent exchange with Turtle, and though the majority agreed with

my response there were a few that still questioned the basis for my rejection of his argument, so I'll explain....

...

How does it make sense to just keep repeating objections and then say, when asked to explain them using what

could arguably be called one of the simpler forms of mathematics, that you're instead going to wait and see

if someone else who knows more about it will step in to guage the correctness of it? The answer is it doesn't

make sense, it's not a logical argument.... that's why I reject it.

 

so, either you invented the business about the e-mails, or at least 1 person thinks i have made at least 1 valid argument. reason enough for me to reject your rejection. ironic that i can't defer to others, but that you can. :doh:

Edited October 31, 2012 by Turtle

[Turtle]

ps

 

for the third time i think, i ask you directly:

 

...

as to gettting as much from as little as possible, i'd be interested in seeing you add a load to the device and operating it. perhaps attach a small dc motor and run its leads to a voltmeter as such an experiment?

 

while the reading on the voltmeter would be uncalibrated [in the same way your vectors are uncalibrated and therefore "simple"], it would give some indication of the magnitude of the load relative to different speeds of operation. (by the way; i keep getting an error when trying to get to your vectors link. ??}

 

seems to me that's a logical experiment and no less a reasonable question/objection to the overall character of your mechanism. :smart:

[Guest Aemilius]

Turtle "so, either you invented the business about the e-mails, or at least 1 person thinks i have made at least 1 valid argument."

 

There were thirteen emails that specifically referred to the latest exchange between us, four of them questioned to one degree or another why I was rejecting your argument.... for your information, in debate, questioning the line of reasoning or rationale behind the rejection of an argument doesn't in any way validate the argument being rejected.

 

Turtle "ironic that i can't defer to others, but that you can"

 

Elaborating (as I did) on the line of reasoning or rationale leading to the rejection of your argument is not deferring to anothers judgement. Raising an objection to a proposition or statement though based on some possible future pronouncement of correctness (or lack of same) by another, assumed for whatever reason to be more knowledgable than the objector on the subject under consideration, is deferring to anothers judgement (as you did).

 

Turtle "as to gettting as much from as little as possible, i'd be interested in seeing you add a load to the device and operating it. perhaps attach a small dc motor and run its leads to a voltmeter as such an experiment?"

 

"STAGE SIX - FORCE" of the analysis, to be posted on the blog (and also here), should reveal with a reasonable degree of certainty what level(s) of force can be expected to arise as a result of the periodic imbalancing of the mechanism under various conditions using vectors. Since, as you've already said, you don't sufficiently understand vectors to a degree that would allow you to agree, disagree or arrive at any conclusion regarding the veracity of the analysis up to this point though, I doubt it will be of any value to you.

 

Turtle "while the reading on the voltmeter would be uncalibrated [in the same way your vectors are uncalibrated and therefore "simple"], it would give some indication of the magnitude of the load relative to different speeds of operation."

 

It's already been clearly described how the magnitude and direction of the vectors were presented.... the length of an arrow is indicative of the magnitude of a force and the arrow itself is indicaticative of the direction of a force.

 

Turtle "(by the way; i keep getting an error when trying to get to your vectors link. ??}"

 

Seems to work fine for everyone else. Why not try Google for more information?

 

Turtle "seems to me that's a logical experiment and no less a reasonable question/objection to the overall character of your mechanism."

 

Your proposed methodology may seem logical to you, but it doesn't seem logical to me and it's my investigation, so if you don't mind I'll stick with an authentic recognized form of analysis that's been shown to be effective, you remember.... vectors? Again, "STAGE SIX - FORCE" will cover that.

 

In conclusion, to date neither you nor anyone else has successfully rebutted one single aspect of the vector analysis currently being carried out. You continue to argue from a position of baseless subjective opinion or interpretation including what I'm sure you think is witty banter and cute little "emoticons", even though a simple to understand and valid authentic mode of investigative analysis is now in place for the purpose of determining the veracity of relevant propositions, statements and objections.

 

I'll simply leave it up to others following the thread to decide for themselves whether or not your posts merit serious consideration.... I'm turning you off (blocking your posts).

 

If you address some aspect of the vector analysis being carried out go ahead and send me a private message and I'll take a look at what you have to say.

 

Emile

 

Edited to remove expletives and derogatory remarks I made, I lost my temper.... sorry.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Aemilius

[Turtle]

Turtle "so, either you invented the business about the e-mails, or at least 1 person thinks i have made at least 1 valid argument."

 

There were thirteen emails that specifically referred to the latest exchange between us (**** you and your insinuations of dishonesty you little *****), ...

 

as if i wasn't writing for all the readers from the git. but anyway, when emile agreed with chewey that i was a troll, isn't that questioning my honesty in this thread? has emile decided to adopt chewey's stated modus operendi:

I like to look at this one way lol because I live with this type of thought in my mind.

 

Its simple I do not do anything to others that I would not want done to me... And If they choose to do something to me, I react with much more hate and vengeance then they could possibly understand. They then learn to leave me alone lol

...

Nothing solves problems quicker then, "the fear of death!

 

given the respondents of late [let alone altogether] the context seems apt to emile's outburst. :rant: i am dead to emile; he killed me! :rolleyes:

 

well, perhaps one of you dear tender readers *** e-mailers, or not, would care to actually post here -if you haven't already- and make some account of yourselves.

[Chewbalka]

Turtle you deserve everything that has been said to you... Your whining falls on deaf ears... Your only complaining because one more person does not want to put up with your constant belittling and lack of obedience to your forced opinions. I for one am gratefully looking forward to Emile's next stage on this project. Even if he does not succeed to 100%. Its been a wonderful read, as well as an insightful view on the mechanical mind of Emile. It would have taken me years to get something as mechanically fascinating as Emile did. One of my hobbies is mechanics but vehicle based lol so i am aware of how moving parts work. Heck i rebuild my own automatic transmissions and have no degree in mechanics i learned by asking questions from people who are not assholes such as yourself. I did not know how they worked and the people I asked did not belittle me and forcefully tell me to bring it to a shop... They owned the shop! And helped me out! Its you turtle that is the problem... I only hope that one day you could put your pride off to the side... You seem to be a rather intelligent person you could help out so many people struggling to understand things. And by helping someone out does not mean to stuff your facts down there throat, but help them find those facts on there own... No one learns properly by giving them the answers, they need to discover them on their own by being guided in the right direction. Take care turtle... Maybe one day we could all get along without these pointless arguments.

[Turtle]

for those forming and sharing arguments & opinions on my arguments *** opinions, i thought i might summarize.

 

to clarify my line of reasoning:

 

1) emile introduces the thread by givng 2 examples of what he considers to be [definitionally] "gravity driven mechanisms". the examples were a water wheel & a weight driven clock.

 

2) in both cases of these example mechanisms there is an intial input of work from an outside source that raises mass. for the clock, a person winds up the weight with a key; for the water wheel the sun

evaporates water which rises in the air as vapor & then falls as rain on high elevations and runs downhill.

 

3) in both cases, after the initial input, and starting activation, each mechaism will "run", "operate", "work", and or "function" without further input of energy to raising the active mass and that "running" of the mechanism will have at least a characteristic motion of rotation. start the clock by swinging the pendulum (or setting whatever escapement into actionwith a nudge) and it runs [rotates the hands] until the weights land on the bottom of the case as gravity draws them down. start the water wheel rotating by putting it in a downhill water-flow and it runs until no more rain falls as gravity pulls down the raised water.

 

4) emile then introduces a mechanism that he says is "gravity driven", in some [exactly?] same way or ways as the clock or the water wheel he gives as standards/premises.

 

so, watching emile in the videos "run", "operate", "work", and/or otherwise "use" or "demonstrate" the

mechanism, i see that there is no initial input of work that raises a mass as in the clock or the water wheel. that is a factual observation; not an opinion.

 

if emile [or some other active work inputer] nudges the weight arrangment of his mechaism into imbalance and then operates the lever on the mechanism "as easily as a pencil on a table", the mechanism starts & undergoes a complex motion, one characteristic of which is rotation as with the clock & waterwheel. another factual observation/characterization. so far, so good.

 

however, if emile lets go the lever or some other actor does not constantly operate the lever, the

mechanism quickly stops all motion, rotational and otherwise, quite unlike the clock or the waterwheel. while we don't see a video of emile just letting go of the lever, he says himself the mechanism comes to a stop when the operation of the lever stops.

 

so to my mind, the raised mass acting in a controlled fall & unattended over time on a mechanism is a, if not the, fundamental quality/characteristic of something "gravity driven" if weight-clocks and water wheels are exemplary of the phrase "gravity driven" . since emile's mechanism does not exhibit this characteristic, i conclude it is not "gravity driven". this is not a minor quibble or mincing of words, rather a fundamental flaw in a very premise of emile's arguments that his mechanism is "gravity driven".

 

this is not the same as saying gravity does not act on the mechanism.

 

as to the vector drawings, they have no bearing on the above argument. which is to say they do not alter any of the observed facts/characteristics of the mechanism operating in the videos or the facts of those observations as i just described them.

 

on the character of the vector drawings themselves.

 

as descriptions of discrete states of the device as constructed, i make no complaint with vectors' suitability to that task. vector away.

 

on the specific drawings though, if the length of arrows is calibrated relative to one another or some actual scale such as pounds or foot/pounds or "unit force(s)", then i would expect to see a calibrated scale on the drawings. 1" = x units for example, just as the directional part of the vector is calibrated for the force of gravity working "down".

[Chewbalka]

Turtle. I think now that I can see what you trying to say... Now that it has been layed out rather throughly. It seems to me that you are confusing gravity driven with perpetual motion. Take away the water, takes away from the waterwheels motion(which is based off of imbalancing weights), take away the wind up spring you take away from the clocks motion(also driven by a weight). Take away emiles hand, takes away from the mechanisums motion(emiles hand is the water or the weight). There are no mysterious forces acting on these devices they require energy from another source in order to create motion. Emile is not cranking the device over he is imbalancing the device just as how the water imbalances the wheel. And to say that if emile stops moving the levers stops the device from working so it is not gravity driven? Its the same as saying that if the water stops flowing, the water wheel will continue spinning? Does that make sense to you? It makes very little sense to me... I would assume the water wheel will stop turning... Why do you think if the outside sourse of imbalancing (water) on a water wheel stops, the mechanisum continues to work? It goes the same with the pendulum clock... The pendulum serves the purpose of timing the clock the weight which winds up by the spring inside the clock is what drives the engine of the clock.

 

I am not sure if you know how a pendulum clock works heres a link just in case. (Not trying to insult your intellegence) the pendulum is activated by your hand... You start this motion by swinging the pendulum.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C0118228/workclock.htm

 

My grandfather taught me how to fix these types of clocks when i was very young. Which got me on the track of visually viewing mechanisms fully functioning in my mind.

 

I am not 100% sure if i am on the same page as emile, but if i am not then i am sure emile will sort me out.

 

Ps i am not pro on vectors but i am assuming that the length of the vector arrows indicate the amount of reqiured movement to imbalance the mechanisums. If that is incorrct as well i am sure emile will sort me out again!

Edited November 1, 2012 by Chewbalka