sci.electronics.repair - 11 new messages in 7 topics - digest

sci.electronics.repair
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair?hl=en

sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/4b33f31f667954a0?hl=en
* Electromagnetic spectrum - illusion and absurdity - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/d90219824a5fe1f4?hl=en
* Mix and match speaker impedance - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/6ffe1481a747ed23?hl=en
* Alliance U100 antenna rotor - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/d0231afb599de425?hl=en
* Need help with switching power supply repair - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/efc81d21dede85df?hl=en
* Exploring rotary encoder problems - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/5b678ef9db12089e?hl=en
* hi - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/282772a2eef2b522?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT Re: CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/4b33f31f667954a0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Sep 22 2011 7:43 pm
From: "Trevor Wilson"

Arfa Daily wrote:
> "Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote in message
> news:Xns9F687DFAFBEA7jyaniklocalnetcom@216.168.3.44...
>> "Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> wrote in
>> news:3sveq.9442$BK4.3901@newsfe22.ams2:
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> BTW: The discussion also involves LEDs. IMO, CFLs are an interim
>>>> step. They have far too many drawbacks to be a long term solution.
>>>> Incandescents are, of course, no solution at all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Trevor Wilson
>>>> www.rageaudio.com.au
>>>>
>>>
>>> But actually, what exactly is the problem that we're trying to find
>>> a solution to ? I saw some figures a few weeks ago that said that if
>>> every single light bulb in the UK was changed to a CFL, the total
>>> saving in energy would amount to the output of one small power
>>> station. I suppose that you could argue that any saving is worth
>>> having, but I sometimes think that this religion of 'green' has
>>> completely overtaken common sense, and in some cases, the
>>> disadvantages of a substitute technology such as CFLs, needs to be
>>> weighed against the perceived disadvantages of what it's trying to
>>> replace. The problem with green technology is that its advocators
>>> are often zealots, who seek to portray the alternatives that they
>>> are pedaling as the only solution to a problem which often, only
>>> they see. They never tell the full story behind these technologies,
>>> being selective in the extreme. CFLs are a good example of this,
>>> where the *only* aspects that have been promoted, are the fact that
>>> they consume less energy for the same amount of light output as an
>>> 'equivalent' incandescent - and therein lies a can of worms before
>>> we start - and that they are supposedly longer lived. The huge
>>> amounts of manufacturing processes, and shipping energy for all the
>>> component parts, and all the other hidden energy inputs, are
>>> politely ignored. Not to mention the true disposal costs, if this
>>> is done properly. No one really understands the real manufacturing
>>> costs either, because governments are making sure that the true
>>> price is subsidised by collecting additional 'green' taxes via the
>>> energy companies, from the likes of you and I. If ever these
>>> subsidies are removed, CFLs will become a major expense to a
>>> household, unless they use really crappy quality Chinese imports
>>> that give poor light quality and poor starting characteristics, and
>>> are much shorter lived than people are currently being persuaded is
>>> the case. Arfa
>>>
>>>
>>
>> the manufacture of CFLs produces much more pollution than making
>> incandescent lamps. it probably outweighs any savings from the use
>> of CFLs over I-lamps.
>> you don't need -any- mercury in making I-lamps,nor do you need
>> phosphors. --
>> Jim Yanik
>
>
> Yes. This is kind of my point. And when I was saying that
> 'background' items like shipping costs are politely ignored, I was
> referring to the multiple shipping operations that are required for
> the many components in a CFL, and the many raw materials contained in
> those components, just to get all the bits and pieces from the
> individual specialist manufacturers, to the places where the lamps
> are assembled. In the case of an incandescent lamp, we are talking a
> few components, simply made from a few raw materials. With a CFL, we
> are talking semiconductors comprising silicon, dopant chemicals,
> plastic, metal. Capacitors comprising metal foil, plastic, rubber,
> maybe paper, metal leads and other chemicals in the electros. Coils
> comprising processed iron powder, copper wire, insulation, copper
> foil, epoxy adhesive, steel leadouts. Then there's the complex glass
> tube, and the chemical phosphors and mercury vapour inside it.
> Tungsten electrodes. Then the pcb material that its all mounted on.
> Lots of soldered joints. And then the plastic enclosure for the
> ballast. And then the 'normal' bits that an incandescent has anyway.
> Every single one of those components, and the manufacturing processes
> for *their* component parts, involves energy input for the process.
> They all need workers who have to be moved from their homes and back
> again each day, They have to be heated / cooled, fed and watered, and
> then lit as well. And when they've made their bits of the lamp, these
> have to be shipped on somewhere else. These are the energy costs that
> the general public are never made aware of. If they were, they might
> start to question the perceived wisdom that they've been fed, that
> these things are actually 'green'.

**Indeed. I just did a little research and found that some of these issues
HAVE been examined. The total manufacturing energy input for a typical CFL
is around 1.7kWhr. The total manufacturing energy input for a typical
incandescent is around 0.3kWhr. Considerably less. Or is it?

Let's put that into some kind of perspective:

A typical 100 Watt IC lasts for 1,000 hours (at best).
A typical 15 Watt CFL lasts for 5,000 hours (I've certainly exceeding that
figure quite comfortably).

Over 5,000 hours of use, the CFL has consumed 75kWhr + 1.7kWhr = 76.7kWhr.
IOW: The energy cost of manufacture is almost insignificant, even though is
a little higher than 5 incandescents.

Over 5,000 hours, the IC lamp has consumed 500kWhr + 1.5kWhr = 501.5kWhr.

I would argue that the energy cost of manufacture is a spurious argument.

The pollution cost is another matter entirely. During operation, coal fired
generators (like those here in Australia) emit mercury. A typical 100 Watt
lamp will cause the emission of around 10mg of mercury over it's life. 5
lamps (5,000 hours) will cause the release of 50mg or mercury. By
comparison, CFLs will cause the release of around 7.5mg of mercury + 4mg of
mercury contained within the envelope. If the lamp is disposed of correctly,
then the total mercury release will be 7.5mg. Far less than that of IC
lamps. Other nations, that employ different power generation schemes will
see different results.

And this does not take into pollution created at the point of manufacture.
That is an issue that should be dealt with locally.

>
> If people want to use CFLs in the belief - mistaken in my opinion -
> that they are in some way helping the world to use less energy, then
> that's fine.

**It's not a mistaken belief. It's a fact. CFLs use FAR less energy than
incandescents. From cradle to grave. Vastly, hugely less energy.

If it's really the case, then CFLs will win out the day
> in the end.

**By a massive margin, in fact.

But I think that it is utterly wrong that the existing
> technology has been banned completely on thin evidence and a less
> than truthful declaration of the energy required to make and dispose
> of the things, the only factor being pushed, being the lower energy
> consumption when they are in use, as though this is the be-all and
> end-all of their right to exist, and to be forced on us.

**Your opinion is duly noted. That comment is a political issue. I recall
EXACTLY the same arguments were made, here in Australia, when leaded petrol
was legislated out of existence. I susepct that, in 20 years, when we look
back at this whole discussion, it will appear to be a non-event. More
efficient lighting will be the standard, incandescents will be relegated to
specialised applications (oven lighting, etc) and the whole issue will be
viewed for what it really is - a storm in a teacup.

>
> The point that Trevor makes about aircon to mitigate the heat output
> of incandescents, holds no water here in Northern Europe. Unlike in
> Australia, it seldom becomes hot enough up here for more than a few
> days a year, that aircon is needed. And that is only in the summer,
> when it's light for 16 hours of the day anyway, so there's not much
> lighting being used. OTOH, for much of the year, it is cool or cold
> enough to require heating in houses, and in this case, the complete
> opposite of Trevor's premise, is true, in that the heat output from
> the incandescent light bulbs, serves to mitigate heat input
> requirement, from the central heating system.

**So? Northern Europe is not the whole world. Vast swathes of this planet
consume vast amounts of energy for air conditioning. Northern Europe is a
small player in that respect. Worse, CO2 emissions from Northern Europe
impact on those regions where a small amount of warming will lead to serious
problems. We only have one place that we can all live. We all need to work
together.

And, just to reinforce the point: I do not consider lighting to be a major
problem in power consumption (and, therefore, CO2 emissions). Nor do I
consider appliances that use auxiliary power to be a major issue either.

--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Sep 22 2011 8:04 pm
From: "Phil Allison"

"Trevor Wilson"

> Let's put that into some kind of perspective:

** Translation = a fictitious pack of lies.

> A typical 100 Watt IC lasts for 1,000 hours (at best).

** Might also last 25 years in a low use app.

> A typical 15 Watt CFL lasts for 5,000 hours

** No way is the light from a 15W CFL the same as a 100W lamp.

Try a 27 watt CFL.

> Over 5,000 hours of use,

** In average domestic us, the life is more lie 2000 hrs at best before the
output falls too much and it has to be replaced.

the CFL has consumed 75kWhr + 1.7kWhr = 76.7kWhr.

** CFL = 54 kWh, 100W lamp = 200 kWh.

> IOW: The energy cost of manufacture is almost insignificant, even though
> is a little higher than 5 incandescents.

** A made up number.

The real number is more like 50 times.

> **It's not a mistaken belief. It's a fact. CFLs use FAR less energy than
> incandescents. From cradle to grave. Vastly, hugely less energy.

** Bollocks.

Reducing domestic lighting consumption has NO effect on the amount of coal
being burned in power stations.

Cos the domestic lighting load is all at night time when the coal powered
generators have excess capacity - in NSW much of that excess is sent to the
Snowy to pump water up hill to help with peaks loads during the day. In that
process up to 60% of the power generated is lost in transmission lines and
pumping.

.... Phil

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Electromagnetic spectrum - illusion and absurdity
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/d90219824a5fe1f4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Sep 22 2011 8:21 pm
From: Chiron613

On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 11:00:20 -0700, Robbie Hatley wrote:

<snip>

> Find a different hobby; you suck at math, physics, and electronics. Punk
> rock, perhaps... or maybe modern art, or modern poetry.

Thank you...

So many people out there who are smarter than Einstein, Planck, and all
those other guys who bothered with mathematics.

--
I'm hungry, time to eat lunch.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Mix and match speaker impedance
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/6ffe1481a747ed23?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Sep 22 2011 9:53 pm
From: NT

On Sep 23, 1:41 am, David41616 <davenp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 22, 4:16 pm, NT <meow2...@care2.com> wrote:
>
> > You could put on each of the 3 ohm channels 2x 6 ohm LSes, plus one of
> > the tweetered 6 ohms via a capacitor. Put all 3 in parallel. It gives
> > you 3 ohms at lf, 2-6ohms at hf, which is all good. Any modern IC
> > output amp will protect itself if you max out the volume, and speaker
> > impedances are only nominal, they vary quite a long way out in
> > reality.
>
> Hi NT, thanks for that, but could I trouble you for an ASCII
> schematic? Or a pic of a sketch. I am not as smart as you think I am.
> What kind of cap, what value and voltage? If polarized, which way
> around?
>
> Thanks
>
> Dave

. -----+-----+-----+
. | | |
. LS LS LS
. | | |
. | | C
. | | |
. -----+-----+-----+

Cap value, if we wanted 2ohms at 1kHz so it doesnt affect the existing
cap noticeably, that's 80uF. 47-100uF would be fine. Less might or
might not be ok.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Sep 22 2011 10:29 pm
From: John S

On 9/22/2011 11:53 PM, NT wrote:
> On Sep 23, 1:41 am, David41616<davenp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 22, 4:16 pm, NT<meow2...@care2.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You could put on each of the 3 ohm channels 2x 6 ohm LSes, plus one of
>>> the tweetered 6 ohms via a capacitor. Put all 3 in parallel. It gives
>>> you 3 ohms at lf, 2-6ohms at hf, which is all good. Any modern IC
>>> output amp will protect itself if you max out the volume, and speaker
>>> impedances are only nominal, they vary quite a long way out in
>>> reality.
>>
>> Hi NT, thanks for that, but could I trouble you for an ASCII
>> schematic? Or a pic of a sketch. I am not as smart as you think I am.
>> What kind of cap, what value and voltage? If polarized, which way
>> around?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Dave
>
>
> . -----+-----+-----+
> . | | |
> . LS LS LS
> . | | |
> . | | C
> . | | |
> . -----+-----+-----+
>
> Cap value, if we wanted 2ohms at 1kHz so it doesnt affect the existing
> cap noticeably, that's 80uF. 47-100uF would be fine. Less might or
> might not be ok.
>
>
> NT

Apparently, you forgot that he requested the polarity, NT.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Sep 22 2011 10:58 pm
From: NT

On Sep 23, 6:29 am, John S <soph...@invalid.org> wrote:
> On 9/22/2011 11:53 PM, NT wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 23, 1:41 am, David41616<davenp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sep 22, 4:16 pm, NT<meow2...@care2.com> wrote:
>
> >>> You could put on each of the 3 ohm channels 2x 6 ohm LSes, plus one of
> >>> the tweetered 6 ohms via a capacitor. Put all 3 in parallel. It gives
> >>> you 3 ohms at lf, 2-6ohms at hf, which is all good. Any modern IC
> >>> output amp will protect itself if you max out the volume, and speaker
> >>> impedances are only nominal, they vary quite a long way out in
> >>> reality.
>
> >> Hi NT, thanks for that, but could I trouble you for an ASCII
> >> schematic? Or a pic of a sketch. I am not as smart as you think I am.
> >> What kind of cap, what value and voltage? If polarized, which way
> >> around?
>
> >> Thanks
>
> >> Dave
>
> > . -----+-----+-----+
> > . | | |
> > . LS LS LS
> > . | | |
> > . | | C
> > . | | |
> > . -----+-----+-----+
>
> > Cap value, if we wanted 2ohms at 1kHz so it doesnt affect the existing
> > cap noticeably, that's 80uF. 47-100uF would be fine. Less might or
> > might not be ok.
>
> > NT
>
> Apparently, you forgot that he requested the polarity, NT.

there is no polarity for the capacitor. Do you always think people
have forgotten something if they dont answer it?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Alliance U100 antenna rotor
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/d0231afb599de425?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Sep 22 2011 11:41 pm
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

klem kedidelhopper wrote:
>
> Michael A. Terrell wrote:
> >
> > I had to, quite a few times to replace the soft seal on rotors that
> > were 25+ years old. I would pull the rotor, replace the old screws with
> > stainless, clean and relube the bearings. If it had the open pot to
> > drive a meter for position I would clean the resistance wire & sliding
> > contact, and use GC Tunerlube on the wire. Add a new non polar
> > electrolytic to the control box & replace the old wire between them, and
> > they would run another 25 years. :)
> >
> > Some I serviced were so old that they simply had a lamp to tell you
> > that the rotor was at the end of it's rotation.
>
> When I was a teenager I found one of those old rotors on the roof of
> an apartment house near where we lived in The Bronx. A friend who was
> a Ham radio operator gave me an old control box to operate it. The
> control box put out the correct voltage to operate the motor but the
> system had no position indication. I believe they were mismatched.
> This motor had a stop switch and a small aluminum "chock" that would
> jam the motor if it tried to go further than 360 degrees. I removed
> the chock feeling that it was an unhealthy thing to do and installed
> an indicator light circuit wired to the stop switch contacts in the
> motor. The light would come on as you approached 360 degrees from
> either direction. I'm 65 years old and am still using that rotor/box
> combination. Can't say enough about Alliance equipment. Lenny

They were one of the best, along with some CDE rotor models. The
Channel Master/Radio Shack rotors were definitely lower quality. I saw
a lot that were under five years old that were just plain worn out. I
replaced a lot of AC capacitors in the CDE rotors, and worn out or
cracked ball bearings.

I had a spare U100 control box housing, and made a nice test speaker
out of it. A piece of cloth cover wire mesh for the grill over a good
quality 4" speaker, and a line transformer. A pair of DPDT switches let
me select 4/8 ohms or 25/70 volts at a half watt to service the building
wiring of school intercoms.

--
You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Need help with switching power supply repair
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/efc81d21dede85df?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 23 2011 12:09 am
From: Kripton

On 2011-09-23 02:56:37 +0200, "Arfa Daily" <arfa.daily@ntlworld.com> said:

>
>
> "sci.electronics.repair" <rnewman36@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:26b39f80-37e4-4dd2-bdae-46c118a3c01c@1g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...
>> On Sep 21, 8:08 pm, "Arfa Daily" <arfa.da...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> "senator richards" <rnewma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:dd3e3ab9-1f98-41b8-a7ec-08431af9a33d@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> > I am trying to troubleshoot a small SMPS that came from an A/V
>>> > switcher. Input is 120vac and it is supposed to output + and - 15vdc
>>> > at .8A. Currently it is outputting +17 on one output and somewhere
>>> > between +22 and +30 on the other output. My experience with SMPS has
>>> > usually been shorted rectifiers or bad output filter caps so the first
>>> > thing I did was check all the diodes and replace the output caps.
>>> > Obviously that didn't fix the problem. The high voltage is about
>>> > 170vdc. The supply to the pwm chip is fluctuating between 7-15v, so
>>> > i'm thinking this might be the problem, but maybe its something else.
>>> > In case its not obvious, i'm fairly new to tinkering with these
>>> > things. Thanks in advance for any help.
>>>
>>> > Randy
>>>
>>> The cap that filters the supply to the pwm chip on the primary side, maybe ?
>>> It's pretty common on most designs of switcher. Work on the thing on an
>>> isolation transformer if at all possible. They are potentially very very
>>> dangerous if you are not fully competent with them
>>>
>>> Arfa
>>
>> Thanks for the help. I borrowed an ESR meter and checked the cap that
>> supplies the pwm chip. The cap is a 47uf 50v and esr measures .5 which
>> appears to be about right.
>>
>> I don't have an isolation transformer but will look into getting one.
>>
>> Thanks for your help.
>>
>> -R
>
> A brand new cap might be a little better than that, but certainly right
> ball park at 0.5 ohms, and would not be an issue at that figure. About
> the only other thing that you could try, assuming that it uses a
> startup resistor from the 170v, is to disconnect the self-feed diode
> from the switching transformer. That way, you will force it to run from
> the startup supply only, just in case the self-run voltage is
> fluctuating, and interfering with your reading on the pwm chip's
> supply. Bear in mind though, that you can't run it for too long on the
> startup resistor, as it will get quite hot, being normally intended to
> supply current to the chip, only for as long as it takes the supply to
> fully start up and settle. If the voltage supply to the chip still
> jiggles around when it is only being fed by the resistor, then after
> the 47uF cap, which may yet be faulty, but not in an ESR way, the next
> prime suspect would have to be the chip itself.
>
> Arfa

I've never seen a chip 3842 dead...
but the small cap 10uF beside it has really often been solving the case !!!!!

--
----------
Kripton

the ESR Repository @ http://kripton2035.free.fr/esr-repository.html
the Geiger Repository @ http://kripton2035.free.fr/geiger-repositor.html

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 23 2011 12:17 am
From: "Phil Allison"

> I've never seen a chip 3842 dead...
> but the small cap 10uF beside it has really often been solving the case
> !!!!!

** I have seen about 5 dead ones.

And I do few SMPS repairs.

.... Phil

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Exploring rotary encoder problems
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/5b678ef9db12089e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 23 2011 12:23 am
From: "N_Cook"

Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:fv2dnXCuzdZoH-bTnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>
> N_Cook wrote:
> >
> > Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:-pednRlQ069PwubTnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
> > >
> > > N_Cook wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Why do they not use "dry lubricant" perhaps
> > > > locksmith's graphite as long as in a minute quantity.
> > >
> > >
> > > The grease is needed to prevent metal migration across the open
areas
> > > as they slide. I've seen people try to run similar items dry, or with
> > > other crappy lubricants. Graphite would need something to hold it to
> > > the board, and you would need enough that would cause leakage as the
> > > sliding contact compacted it to the surface. Good old fashioned 'GC
> > > Tunerlube' does an excellent job on sliding contacts.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.
> >
> > I can see that with multifunction DVM rotary dials where there is small
gaps
> > between tracks. But the 2 rotary encoders I looked into this week were
about
> > 1mm wide spokes tracks with the contacts at the periphery so spaces of
about
> > 5mm of insulator disc material
>
>
> Not 'between tracks', but between the pads a moving contact uses. 25
> years ago I serviced CATV converters for a living. I had to use a soft
> eraser to remove the tracking between contacts if the original lube had
> hardened, or where an outside service company had wiped away the old
> grease and used a fiberglass brush in a half assed attempt to clear away
> the smear of silver. I did well over 1000 repairs in four years with a
> return rate of a little over .2%. Over 50% of the units returned from
> the outside service company were either bad, out of the box or failed
> within a month. I was hired to create the in house service department
> because we had over 1/3 of our converters either at the outside company,
> or on a UPS truck and in transit. We added 350 new customers without
> buying any new equipment, after I had the in house repair facility set
> up. We went from the worst rated CATV company in the reigion to the
> top, in under six months.
>
>
> --
> You can't have a sense of humor, if you have no sense.

What was the spacing between pads on those CATV units? The pads or tacks in
these switches were about 5mm. As far as I can tell the problem was not
metalisation smear over the insulated gaps but a problem while in pad
contact. No visible smearing of metalisation seen on either switch. These
pads are just like spokes of a wheel and once the problem started it is much
the same around the whole disc, not specific to one or two positions

==============================================================================
TOPIC: hi
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.repair/t/282772a2eef2b522?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 23 2011 12:56 am
From: "shahzypk@hotmail.com"

Just Visite These Sites
http://fashion1298.blogspot.com

http://cricketin2011.blogspot.com

http://fashion4paki.blogspot.com

http://hollywood1233.blogspot.com

http://hotbollywoodactressesno1.blogspot.com

http://pakihealthpk.blogspot.com

http://dogbreedspk.blogspot.com

http://super1213.blogspot.com

http://fashion1299.blogspot.com

http://mehndipk12.blogspot.com

http://goldandsilverpk.blogspot.com