|
|
Post by mugbuilder on Jan 5, 2019 23:00:47 GMT
G,Day Roger,
I'm sure that you are right and that most lubricators do deliver too much oil. I would rather this as it gives a margin of safety should the ##*@# thing give up the ghost during a heavy run. Mechanical lubricators are from my experience the items most likely to give trouble and that is why I have arrived at the dimensions quoted. I always use the Ewins type as I have found them the most reliable and have fitted them to at least30 engines,both single and twin ram types. I have found it important to make sure that the ram is just short of the clack ball when at the bottom of its stroke as any significant gap can lead to dificulty in the pump starting from dry or if it completely empties during a run. This I think occurs because as the ball is spring loaded the ram has to have enough oil in the chamber to lift the ball from it's seat and not just slightly compress the air in the chamber. I use roller clutches for the drive but this can cause trouble later on as they can wear the shaft and slip.I try to turn a shaft about a thou or so above the nominal shaft diameter and harden it. This gives a better grip for the clutches and minimises slip. However I recently heard that rubbing the shaft lenthwise with emery cloth removes the shine from it and allows a better grip.Yet to be tried but unlikely as I am working on my last engine and have finished the lubricator and taken the precaution of using two roller clutches on both sides of the shaft. It is also a good idea to use the largest diameter shaft as practical and make sure that the roller clutches are a tight fit in their housings.
Regards, Barry
|
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Jan 5, 2019 23:17:18 GMT
G,Day Roger, I'm sure that you are right and that most lubricators do deliver too much oil. I would rather this as it gives a margin of safety should the ##*@# thing give up the ghost during a heavy run. Mechanical lubricators are from my experience the items most likely to give trouble and that is why I have arrived at the dimensions quoted. I always use the Ewins type as I have found them the most reliable and have fitted them to at least30 engines,both single and twin ram types. I have found it important to make sure that the ram is just short of the clack ball when at the bottom of its stroke as any significant gap can lead to dificulty in the pump starting from dry or if it completely empties during a run. This I think occurs because as the ball is spring loaded the ram has to have enough oil in the chamber to lift the ball from it's seat and not just slightly compress the air in the chamber. I use roller clutches for the drive but this can cause trouble later on as they can wear the shaft and slip.I try to turn a shaft about a thou or so above the nominal shaft diameter and harden it. This gives a better grip for the clutches and minimises slip. However I recently heard that rubbing the shaft lenthwise with emery cloth removes the shine from it and allows a better grip.Yet to be tried but unlikely as I am working on my last engine and have finished the lubricator and taken the precaution of using two roller clutches on both sides of the shaft. It is also a good idea to use the largest diameter shaft as practical and make sure that the roller clutches are a tight fit in their housings. Regards, Barry Hi Barry, It's easy to see why these lubricators are so reliable, there's nothing much to go wrong in the pump itself. I take on board what you say about the ram staying clear of the ball at the bottom. There's no benefit in it touching that, because it will defeat the non-return action and you won't get any more delivery beyond that point. I've hardened the shaft and barely tempered it so it's very wear resistant. It's Silver Steel so I've left it at the nominal ground size as supplied. I've also added an 'O' ring seal behind the clutch to keep the oil out since it's way too thick to be suitable for lubricating the clutch if that's necessary at all. I'd rather oil it with a thinner grade which will be less prone to slipping than with thick steam oil. |
|
Gary L
Elder Statesman
Posts: 1,208
|
Post by Gary L on Jan 6, 2019 0:30:11 GMT
The conventional wisdom is that it is not possible to set a mechanical lubricator to use as little oil as does a hydrostatic one. A related issue is that for half of each revolution of the pump drive (which equates to a fair number of piston strokes) no oil is delivered at all, because most pumps are single-acting. I've only used mechanical lubrication so far, but for both reasons (not to mention inadvertently running the oil-gobbling pump reservoir dry on occasions!) I am attracted to trying hydrostatic and have fitted the necessary gear on my Paddington project. The cost of the surplus oil is scarcely an issue, but having it splattered over specs/goggles certainly is! Add coaldust and smuts to the goo and they become impossible to clean when out on the road... Gary Hi Gary, I'm not convinced by the argument about mechanical lubricators not being capable of using as little oil as hydrostatic ones. I hear what you're saying about delivery coming in waves, but i doubt very much if either system delivers oil that's in a mist. You're also ignoring the fact that the Hydrostatic systems deliver in drips that are separated by several seconds. My guess is that it dribbles into the steam chest and is thrown about and distributed in mostly oily form where it's carried around in droplets that get smeared onto the various surfaces. I can't see a short break in delivery having much effect even though the theoretical minimum delivery is different. I may be wrong, of course! Clearly it's better to have a smaller pump that's operating quicker for the reason you point out. The Jim Ewins design allows for a very small delivery for each stroke, and with a sprag clutch and adjustment on the arm, it's possible to set almost any rate of rotation. This is the main reason why I prefer this design to the LBSC one which necessitates a long stroke else the valving doesn't work. All good points. I suspect that the over-oiling that most people set their mech lubs to is partly related to the 'dead zone' when the lub will not be delivering at all. And their is no gainsaying the view that too much oil is way better than too little. But the hydrostatic type allows unlimited adjustment of delivery from the cab, as well as being prototypical, which is the clincher for me... though I've never used one before, so I reserve the right to be wrong! I'm sure your pump will be as good as it is possible to get, and won't suffer like an early one I had, where I had to prime it before every run to be sure that it would deliver at all. That is not a nice suspicion to have in your mind as you come out onto the track. Priming involved disconnecting the drive arm and waggling it to and fro until there was a change of level visible in the tank, then reconnecting the clevis after dropping the split pin in the grass at least once. Deep joy. -Gary |
|
|
|
Post by mugbuilder on Jan 6, 2019 5:58:28 GMT
Hi Gary, I'm not convinced by the argument about mechanical lubricators not being capable of using as little oil as hydrostatic ones. I hear what you're saying about delivery coming in waves, but i doubt very much if either system delivers oil that's in a mist. You're also ignoring the fact that the Hydrostatic systems deliver in drips that are separated by several seconds. My guess is that it dribbles into the steam chest and is thrown about and distributed in mostly oily form where it's carried around in droplets that get smeared onto the various surfaces. I can't see a short break in delivery having much effect even though the theoretical minimum delivery is different. I may be wrong, of course! Clearly it's better to have a smaller pump that's operating quicker for the reason you point out. The Jim Ewins design allows for a very small delivery for each stroke, and with a sprag clutch and adjustment on the arm, it's possible to set almost any rate of rotation. This is the main reason why I prefer this design to the LBSC one which necessitates a long stroke else the valving doesn't work. All good points. I suspect that the over-oiling that most people set their mech lubs to is partly related to the 'dead zone' when the lub will not be delivering at all. And their is no gainsaying the view that too much oil is way better than too little. But the hydrostatic type allows unlimited adjustment of delivery from the cab, as well as being prototypical, which is the clincher for me... though I've never used one before, so I reserve the right to be wrong! I'm sure your pump will be as good as it is possible to get, and won't suffer like an early one I had, where I had to prime it before every run to be sure that it would deliver at all. That is not a nice suspicion to have in your mind as you come out onto the track. Priming involved disconnecting the drive arm and waggling it to and fro until there was a change of level visible in the tank, then reconnecting the clevis after dropping the split pin in the grass at least once. Deep joy. -Gary I agree roger about your comment on using thinner oil. It primes the pump easier than the thick stuff. One thing that you should keep in mind if your pump revolves quickly is that there has to be time for the chamber to fill before the ram hits the first 'O' ring on the way down and there has to be a big enough gap left between the top 'O' ring and the ram at the top of it's stroke.
Barry
|
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Jan 6, 2019 9:08:57 GMT
Hi Gary, I'm not convinced by the argument about mechanical lubricators not being capable of using as little oil as hydrostatic ones. I hear what you're saying about delivery coming in waves, but i doubt very much if either system delivers oil that's in a mist. You're also ignoring the fact that the Hydrostatic systems deliver in drips that are separated by several seconds. My guess is that it dribbles into the steam chest and is thrown about and distributed in mostly oily form where it's carried around in droplets that get smeared onto the various surfaces. I can't see a short break in delivery having much effect even though the theoretical minimum delivery is different. I may be wrong, of course! Clearly it's better to have a smaller pump that's operating quicker for the reason you point out. The Jim Ewins design allows for a very small delivery for each stroke, and with a sprag clutch and adjustment on the arm, it's possible to set almost any rate of rotation. This is the main reason why I prefer this design to the LBSC one which necessitates a long stroke else the valving doesn't work. All good points. I suspect that the over-oiling that most people set their mech lubs to is partly related to the 'dead zone' when the lub will not be delivering at all. And their is no gainsaying the view that too much oil is way better than too little. But the hydrostatic type allows unlimited adjustment of delivery from the cab, as well as being prototypical, which is the clincher for me... though I've never used one before, so I reserve the right to be wrong! I'm sure your pump will be as good as it is possible to get, and won't suffer like an early one I had, where I had to prime it before every run to be sure that it would deliver at all. That is not a nice suspicion to have in your mind as you come out onto the track. Priming involved disconnecting the drive arm and waggling it to and fro until there was a change of level visible in the tank, then reconnecting the clevis after dropping the split pin in the grass at least once. Deep joy. -Gary Although Hydrostatic is in prototypical, there's no way to make it look prototypical in the cab apart from the jockey valve which is probably hard to make to scale and have it working. Maybe in 7-1/4" it's possible, but the pipes are still going to be very thin indeed. If you make that a dummy, as well as the lubricator itself, you can have something that looks prototypical, event though it isn't. The whole of the pump should be drowned in oil, so I can't see why it wouldn't prime. Did you get to the bottom of why it was so troublesome? |
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Jan 6, 2019 9:20:13 GMT
All good points. I suspect that the over-oiling that most people set their mech lubs to is partly related to the 'dead zone' when the lub will not be delivering at all. And their is no gainsaying the view that too much oil is way better than too little. But the hydrostatic type allows unlimited adjustment of delivery from the cab, as well as being prototypical, which is the clincher for me... though I've never used one before, so I reserve the right to be wrong! I'm sure your pump will be as good as it is possible to get, and won't suffer like an early one I had, where I had to prime it before every run to be sure that it would deliver at all. That is not a nice suspicion to have in your mind as you come out onto the track. Priming involved disconnecting the drive arm and waggling it to and fro until there was a change of level visible in the tank, then reconnecting the clevis after dropping the split pin in the grass at least once. Deep joy. -Gary I agree roger about your comment on using thinner oil. It primes the pump easier than the thick stuff. One thing that you should keep in mind if your pump revolves quickly is that there has to be time for the chamber to fill before the ram hits the first 'O' ring on the way down and there has to be a big enough gap left between the top 'O' ring and the ram at the top of it's stroke.
Barry
Hi Barry, I think we're talking at crossed purposes. The thinner oil would only be on the sprag clutches, the normal Steam Oil is in the reservoir. I keep the two separate with an 'O' ring on the shaft. You wouldn't choose Steam Oil to lubricate a sprag clutch. I take your point about the time it takes to fill the chamber. I've made the feed holes as large as possible, and there's a lot of travel at the top of the stroke. That's the way I've chosen to reduce the delivery per stroke since I've got one per cylinder. Of course there's suction trying to refill the chamber so the oil is eager to fill the space left by the oil delivered by the last stroke. |
|
|
|
Post by suctionhose on Jan 6, 2019 9:57:18 GMT
Hi Roger,
While we're talking cylinder lubrication I'd thought I'd chime in.
Steam Cylinder oil is 'compounded' which means it provides a 2 stage effect. What lubricates a steam cylinder is animal fat. Fat is non-soluble. It doesn't wash out with water. It adheres to surfaces. It needs to be 'established' and then 'maintained' by regular additions of cylinder oil.
The action of cylinder oil is for the compounded additives to emulsify with the water in the steam and carry the insoluble fat with it, forward to the cylinders. i.e. the intermediate medium in the steam oil serves two purposes: a) emulsification with water, and b) a carrier for the insoluble fat.
For a new engine, you should bucket steam oil in and take it easy until the fat layer is established. Afterward, a regular dose from a mech lubricator or hydrostatic lubricator is all that is required to maintain the fat layer. This is unlike any other familiar form of lubrication and is why steam cylinder oil is unique and unsuitable for other purposes.
On the odd occasions where I have travelled on the footplate, I am amazed that 'a drop a minute' can possibly lubricate a cylinder 26" dia reciprocating at 400 ft/min???
It does and that is because the oil feed is merely replenishing the fat layer that has been established. The best place to introduce cylinder oil to the steam is far back up the main steam pipe. Give it a chance to emulsify. A Detroit Lubricator begins the emulsification in the cab. I GWR Hydrostatic is similar but even better. On a larger engine than Speedy consider an atomiser to help it emulsify.
As for the roller clutch issue. Agreed, cylinder is not suitable for that purpose. Segregation is a good idea. However, the concept of roller clutches on mini loco lubricators is fraught with issues. Been there. Done that. Went back to ratchets long ago.
That said, using a larger clutch, say 3/8 dia is far more reliable than one on a 1/8" shaft. In that small size they vary in accuracy. They have a drawn cup outer race which varies from clutch to clutch. The hardened 1/8" shaft is hyper critical as is the fit of the drawn cup in the housing. Very problematic. Tried it and abandoned the idea years ago.
I have a simple construction of ratchet pawls - all simple turning - that has done me without any problems for 2 decades. (multiple engines and lubricators)
|
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Jan 6, 2019 10:50:50 GMT
Hi Roger, While we're talking cylinder lubrication I'd thought I'd chime in. Steam Cylinder oil is 'compounded' which means it provides a 2 stage effect. What lubricates a steam cylinder is animal fat. Fat is non-soluble. It doesn't wash out with water. It adheres to surfaces. It needs to be 'established' and then 'maintained' by regular additions of cylinder oil. The action of cylinder oil is for the compounded additives to emulsify with the water in the steam and carry the insoluble fat with it, forward to the cylinders. i.e. the intermediate medium in the steam oil serves two purposes: a) emulsification with water, and b) a carrier for the insoluble fat. For a new engine, you should bucket steam oil in and take it easy until the fat layer is established. Afterward, a regular dose from a mech lubricator or hydrostatic lubricator is all that is required to maintain the fat layer. This is unlike any other familiar form of lubrication and is why steam cylinder oil is unique and unsuitable for other purposes. On the odd occasions where I have travelled on the footplate, I am amazed that 'a drop a minute' can possibly lubricate a cylinder 26" dia reciprocating at 400 ft/min??? It does and that is because the oil feed is merely replenishing the fat layer that has been established. The best place to introduce cylinder oil to the steam is far back up the main steam pipe. Give it a chance to emulsify. A Detroit Lubricator begins the emulsification in the cab. I GWR Hydrostatic is similar but even better. On a larger engine than Speedy consider an atomiser to help it emulsify. As for the roller clutch issue. Agreed, cylinder is not suitable for that purpose. Segregation is a good idea. However, the concept of roller clutches on mini loco lubricators is fraught with issues. Been there. Done that. Went back to ratchets long ago. That said, using a larger clutch, say 3/8 dia is far more reliable than one on a 1/8" shaft. In that small size they vary in accuracy. They have a drawn cup outer race which varies from clutch to clutch. The hardened 1/8" shaft is hyper critical as is the fit of the drawn cup in the housing. Very problematic. Tried it and abandoned the idea years ago. I have a simple construction of ratchet pawls - all simple turning - that has done me without any problems for 2 decades. (multiple engines and lubricators) Hi Ross, Thanks for that detailed explanation, I had no idea that's how it all worked. I think part of the problem with sprag clutches is the quality of manufacture. When you buy them from Engineering suppliers, they're surprisingly expensive. I've used a hardened 4mm Silver Steel ground shaft and it all went together very easily and grips really well. I can see how a worn shaft would eventually cause problems as the size reduces. I'll make sure that gets disassembled and inspected at the end of each season to see if it's showing signs of wear. Looking at advice on lubrication, they are intended to run with an adequate supply, one recommending that the bottom third be submerged in oil and another says to use a mist. So clearly they're intended to run in oil. That makes me think that wear and troubles in our application are possibly linked to either running dry or using Steam Oil to lubricate them. I doubt very much if anyone puts a drop of lubricating oil on their sprag clutches before every run. |
|
|
|
Post by suctionhose on Jan 6, 2019 11:28:30 GMT
They do get a pummelling at the RPM we do. I'm sure you're right: better care and attention to them would get better results.
|
|
|
|
Post by delaplume on Jan 6, 2019 11:48:11 GMT
They do get a pummelling at the RPM we do. I'm sure you're right: better care and attention to them would get better results. Just out of interest sake have a look at your favorite full-size express passenger loco and calculate the Driving wheel's RPM at 60 mph.......I mention this because in one of my library videos there is a scene at Swindon showing the wheel balancer in use, and it appears to have a maximum of 70 mph with the operator setting at 60mph....... The RPM is also the "cycles per min" that anything driven by or attached to the wheels will be.... Don't want to go off-piste but I think you'll be surprised at the answer.... |
|
|
|
Post by suctionhose on Jan 6, 2019 12:12:54 GMT
OK, Alan.
6ft wheel = 3.142*6ft = 18.85ft
Revolutions per mile = 5280/18.85 = 280
60 mph = a mile a minute = 280 rpm.
Not all that fast.
A 3 1/2"g probably does 1000 rpm.
But piston speed fullsize: Stroke 30" x2 at 280 rpm = 1400 ft/min
Piston Speed 3 1/2", stroke 1.25" at 1000rpm = 208ft/min
There's the difference!
|
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Jan 6, 2019 12:39:43 GMT
They do get a pummelling at the RPM we do. I'm sure you're right: better care and attention to them would get better results. I guess this is where the ratchet and pawl arrangement is more rugged and requires little maintenance, as long as the parts are properly hardened of course. |
|
pault
Elder Statesman
Posts: 1,502
|
Post by pault on Jan 6, 2019 17:47:00 GMT
My experience of lubricator drives is the same as many other things. If they are done properly then they are successful.
I fitted clutches to the lubricator on a 7 1/4" WD 2-10-0. It failed within a few days. The clutch had chewed most of the way through the unhardened shaft. After reading the manufacturers infomation I remade the shaft to the spec ie hardness dimensions and finish. It gave many years of service and may well still be working.
I can tell similar stories of ratchet drives
|
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Jan 6, 2019 18:27:42 GMT
My experience of lubricator drives is the same as many other things. If they are done properly then they are successful. I fitted clutches to the lubricator on a 7 1/4" WD 2-10-0. It failed within a few days. The clutch had chewed most of the way through the unhardened shaft. After reading the manufacturers infomation I remade the shaft to the spec ie hardness dimensions and finish. It gave many years of service and may well still be working. I can tell similar stories of ratchet drives Hi Paul, I agree completely, and this is why I probably appear to agonise and over think what others might just make a snap decision over. Making things as accurately as possible from the most suitable material saves time in the long run. |
|
Gary L
Elder Statesman
Posts: 1,208
|
Post by Gary L on Jan 6, 2019 23:26:47 GMT
All good points. I suspect that the over-oiling that most people set their mech lubs to is partly related to the 'dead zone' when the lub will not be delivering at all. And their is no gainsaying the view that too much oil is way better than too little. But the hydrostatic type allows unlimited adjustment of delivery from the cab, as well as being prototypical, which is the clincher for me... though I've never used one before, so I reserve the right to be wrong! I'm sure your pump will be as good as it is possible to get, and won't suffer like an early one I had, where I had to prime it before every run to be sure that it would deliver at all. That is not a nice suspicion to have in your mind as you come out onto the track. Priming involved disconnecting the drive arm and waggling it to and fro until there was a change of level visible in the tank, then reconnecting the clevis after dropping the split pin in the grass at least once. Deep joy. -Gary Although Hydrostatic is in prototypical, there's no way to make it look prototypical in the cab apart from the jockey valve which is probably hard to make to scale and have it working. Maybe in 7-1/4" it's possible, but the pipes are still going to be very thin indeed. If you make that a dummy, as well as the lubricator itself, you can have something that looks prototypical, event though it isn't. The whole of the pump should be drowned in oil, so I can't see why it wouldn't prime. Did you get to the bottom of why it was so troublesome? Hi Roger It is my slack terminology. It wasn't so much 'not priming' as delivery pipes draining back into the tank, therefore taking a very long time before the slow delivery of the pump refilled the pipes, never mind actually delivering the oil to where it was needed. (The cause was probably badly-seated balls, which sounds simple to fix, but I'm not sure I ever did.) So my frantic waggling of the actuating lever was not 'priming', strictly speaking, but prefilling the system. I'm not very concerned about scale appearance in the cab, mainly because it is impossible to achieve. A true-scale water gauge couldn't work, nor could a true-scale whistle valve, and the controls have to be operated by our non-scaled fingers. Sometimes indeed, non-scale mass is somehow more true-to-life. 'Coarse-scale' gauge O trains somehow have more 'presence' than their highly accurate fine scale cousins, at least to me. In the case of a hydrostatic lubricator, no it won't look remotely like full-size, but it will work in a similar way, which is how I like it. The later contribution by suctionhose was most interesting; the 'animal fat' aspect explains why cast iron cylinders don't seem to rust in storage once they have been run in. It also suggests that the 'dead zone' of a mech lub's delivery might be less of an issue than I thought. Good luck with your lubricator, I'm following your adventures with great interest! -Gary |
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Jan 6, 2019 23:27:40 GMT
This is the main brake rod that goes right across the rear of the locomotive and supports the cab steps as well as connecting the hand brake and steam brake cylinder too. It's made from 8mm Silver Steel so it's nice and strong even though it's not that large a diameter. Here the end is being turned down to 6mm for the end bearings.  20190106_120104 by Roger Froud, on Flickr The is one of the supports that bolts onto the back of the steps. They're handed, but that just means flipping the program with an X-mirror, there's no need to program that all again.  20190106_201908 by Roger Froud, on Flickr I've partially assembled the brake system and steps so I can make sure this all goes together like the model. It's all done as close to the drawings as possible. You can now see why I made formers to get the bends on the joggled step backplate as good as possible.  20190106_231527 by Roger Froud, on Flickr A slight change of plan.... originally these weren't going to be captive on the end of the brake shaft, but feeling how flexible the bottom step is, I've changed my mind and the reduced head cap screws now locate in the back of these to secure them. Everything else is the same, I just need to tap the end of the shaft M3  20190106_231558 by Roger Froud, on Flickr |
|
|
|
Post by delaplume on Jan 7, 2019 1:07:33 GMT
Hi Roger,
I'm afraid i'm a bit of a knuckle-dragger when it comes to modern practice---------What's the suds fluid you are using ??
I'm still on the "white water" stuff..( mainly because I got a job lot for almost free !! )..
Also have you given any thought to the ash-pan, it's method of securing and ease of dropping ??
Now's the time to check those bake rods don't foul etc..
Alan
|
|
|
|
Post by Roger on Jan 7, 2019 8:20:07 GMT
Hi Roger, I'm afraid i'm a bit of a knuckle-dragger when it comes to modern practice---------What's the suds fluid you are using ?? I'm still on the "white water" stuff..( mainly because I got a job lot for almost free !! ).. Also have you given any thought to the ash-pan, it's method of securing and ease of dropping ?? Now's the time to check those bake rods don't foul etc.. Alan Hi Alan, The stuff I use is Exol Excelcut 427 which is a general purpose cutting oil. I had to modify the lathe drain to get it to return to the tank quickly enough because it pooled into a lake in the tray. It takes a bit of getting used to because it's more messy than suds to work with and you can't have splashes going everywhere in the way you can tolerate with suds. So it does get on handles and just about everywhere if you're not careful. You have to let it drain overnight before cleaning away the swarf unless you put it in a strainer. That's because it sticks to the swarf and you'll end up throwing lots of it away. Even so, the benefits outweigh these issues, I think it's far superior to suds, especially when parting off or taking deep cuts in difficult materials. I use it on everything, including Brass, and I wouldn't go back now. It also doesn't smell on your hands like suds does, and you don't have to manage the concentration of it. I haven't sorted out the ash pan release yet, but that might just be a couple of holes in the frame and a pin across one end. |
|
|
|
Post by delaplume on Jan 7, 2019 9:42:16 GMT
Thanks for the link---will try some ASAP--Cheers
Alan
|
|
|
|
Post by mr swarf on Jan 7, 2019 10:19:56 GMT
Regarding the use of a clutch for lubricator drives, don't be tempted by the ones on ebay for a pound or so. Poor quality & accuracy unless you get lucky. I find a branded one is much better quality and a better fit on silver steel. As others have suggested, its a good idea to use an O ring to prevent steam oil creeping along the shaft in to the clutch.
Paul
|
|
