Jump to content
Science Forums

# Nikola Tesla Vs. The Second Law Of Thermodynamics

## Recommended Posts

• Replies 91
• Created
• Last Reply

#### Popular Posts

Carnot efficiency is the maximum theoretical efficiency of a heat engine operating between ANY two temperatures.  That would be for a "perfect" engine without any loses to friction, heat leakage,bad s

I ordered this digital thermometer a few days ago. It comes with four probes for taking simultaneous readings. It doesn't record data to the cloud or have software to build charts and plug into the co

I said "If", hypothetically.   Just supposing that the engine could utilize that additional 7 joules otherwise rejected to the sink. That would only bring the temperature back down to equilibrium with

#### Posted Images

Thanks.

I think I see above in your post, some use of the heat engine efficiency equation.

I'm not sure, well, maybe I should rephrase that, I am sure I don't really follow or understand much of anything you've presented about black holes.

But I do have a word or two to say about the heat engine efficiency equation itself.

Carnot's original conception of heat and mathematical computations were based on the "heat is a fluid" model, which we now know was all completely wrong, but in that model, the material the engine is made of has no bearing on efficiency.

For example, Carnot would likely have argued that my replacing steel bolts with less heat conductive nylon bolts was a waste of time and would have no effect or make no difference in engine efficiency, the logic behind that being, the efficiency depends only on the fall of caloric. It makes no difference whatsoever if the paddle wheel is made out of metal or wood or plastic, and indeed, the efficiency formula takes absolutely nothing into account that any competent mechanic would immediately recognize as impacting engine efficiency. Compression ratio, ignition timing, piston and cylinder geometry, airodynamic flow, dead air space, etc.

In other words, the efficiency formula is simplistic nonsense that has no relationship to any real engine or engine efficiency.

Any of my model engines, that I've been modifying to increase efficiency should, common sense would seem to tell me, have a certain capability for transforming heat into work that is fairly stable and related in some way to the engine itself, not the state of the fuel (heat).

For example, changing out the steel bolts for plastic should reflect, or be reflected in efficiency calculations, but with or without high heat transmitting bolts either engine is efficient or not, based only on the temperature difference and if the temperature difference changes drastically, the efficiency of my model engine changes drastically, the same engine with the same parts put together in the same way is either efficient or not based on a single factor over which an actual engineer has no control, as if how an engine is built makes no difference.

IMO temperature difference relates to the quality and availability of fuel (heat) not efficiency, or how well that fuel is actually utilized.

How much heat is available is one thing, how well it is utilized is a completely different issue and Carnot's efficiency is really a measure of availability not efficiency. IMO, this is because the whole thing was formulated on the basis of a misconception regarding what heat actually is in the first place.

If heat was actually caloric, or a fluid, like water, then all that really would matter is the "height" it fell from. But heat is not caloric and that is not the case at all. There are innumerable factors that influence actual engine efficiency.

Of course, it helps to have fuel too, but that really has nothing to do with the efficiency of the engine itself given the availability of fuel.

The so-called "efficiency" equation, based on temperature difference, is only a measure of how much heat is actually available in potential. But it doesn't really even measure that, because it does not take into account quantity or volume.

Like, how much heat is in a teaspoon of water compared with the heat that could be derived from the Atlantic ocean. At what speed and in what volume can the heat source be circulated through the engines heat exchangers?

Now we are going to take this simplistic nonsense equation and apply it to black holes?

I don;t agree that the Carnot efficiency equation is nonsense.

However, I don't see why we should be talking about black holes at all in this thread.

If you feel your thread is being hijacked, report the posts you don't feel belong here and I will get them moved to the right thread.

I won't do anything unless you want me to.

##### Share on other sites

I don;t agree that the Carnot efficiency equation is nonsense.

However, I don't see why we should be talking about black holes at all in this thread.

If you feel your thread is being hijacked, report the posts you don't feel belong here and I will get them moved to the right thread.

I won't do anything unless you want me to.

I don't mind any input, regardless of how tenuous the connection to the subject may be. Actually, I believe Carnot, or some one of those early writers on the subject of heat engines, thought that a "Self-acting" heat engine might go out of control and "destroy" all of the heat in the universe.

Can you elaborate on the subject; in what way the Carnot efficiency equation is not complete nonsense, at least as it has been applied to heat engine efficiency. Or at least as it is commonly interpreted.

Take this video, for example, which is only representative of dozens of similar videos and university level courses I've looked at on the subject:

https://youtu.be/I4_AfJo17qQ

In this video, (and innumerable others using the same formula) it is calculated that a heat engine with a Carnot efficiency of 35% which for arguments sake; takes in 1000 joules of heat per cycle, must reject 650 joules (100% - 35% = 65% 0f 1000 = 650joules) to the sink, or "cold reservoir".

Applying that to my model engine operating between recently boiled water (just under 212F) and the ambient room temperature at 85F (on a hot summer day) the greatest possible efficiency is supposed to be about 19% (18.9%).

So if the engine takes in 100 joules, 81.1 joules per revolution of the engine (or more) MUST BE rejected to the sink. In other words, the bulk of the heat passes right through the engine to the "cold reservoir".

Experimentally, I have here completely covered the ambient side of the heat engine (or sink) with 1/2 inch Styrofoam insulation.

According to, what shall we call it? Carnot's theory, Without unrestricted flow of "waste heart" to the cold sink, the build up of heat caused by insulating the engine, SHOULD reduce the temperature differential, causing the engine to slow down and probably stop altogether, as this would be equivalent to blocking the outlet of a turbine. Without the 80% plus "flow through" of heat, it is, according to the equation, or how it is usually interpreted, impossible for the engine to run.

In my test,however, the RPM of the engine actually increased considerably, by about 25RPM after adding the insulation. It is audibly banging away, running much stronger than it did without any insulation.

I've repeated this experiment several times with a couple different engines, always with the same results.

Normally these engines running on a finite heat source, like a cup of coffee or hot water, can only be made to run faster or stronger by COOLING the sink with an ice cube.

It stands to reason then that the insulation is preventing heat infiltration to the so-called "sink", backwards from the ambient environment, which is allowing the engine to cool itself internally through adiabatic expansion.

https://youtu.be/Iq6snxiXbGg

According to every lesson or course I've ever studied on Carnot efficiency, this result is supposed to be "IMPOSSIBLE".

The Carnot efficiency equation apparently has no correspondence with reality whatsoever. At least not how it is seemingly, universally interpreted.

##### Share on other sites

This equation, or how it is interpreted, it is told, is supposed to be a law of nature that absolutely cannot be violated. No engine can ever be more efficient than a Carnot engine.

I've started some videos towards their end, to show what I'm talking about. This is the third part of a three part video. He says, if someone says they have created an engine that exceeds this Carnot limitation, "You know that they are lying!"

https://youtu.be/LUoUb4hGMH8?t=624

"You can be absolutely certain that engine is not real"

https://youtu.be/_n3Z_YBzvDQ?t=218

etc.

So the result of posting a video of a model engine, apparently not rejecting the proper amount of heat to the sink is, I have my discussion thread locked and I get banned from the forum.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/should-ice-take-longer-to-melt-when-used-to-run-a-heat-engine.991714/post-6372948

Such is the extent to which Carnot's theorem is considered inviolable.

I suppose, I must actually have a battery and motor hidden under all that insulation. There is no other explanation!

Edited by TomBooth
##### Share on other sites

We could add this one:

https://youtu.be/Qdb2hpgeu8Y?t=267

If we make things easy and just say (as in the video) 20% efficiency works out to 20,000 joules of heat then we know that the engine requires 100,000 joules to operate because 80,000 joules (at 20% efficiency) are "left over" to be discharged to the sink.

I could really spend all day going through videos and giving examples.

I think these people are all completely insane.

If a heat engine is sitting at thermal equilibrium with the environment and we add 10 joules of heat to upset that equilibrium, an engine that uses those ten joules, bringing the engine back to equilibrium with the environment would be, or is 100% efficient. Is it not? It used all the heat didn't it? But we are still at around 300K.

So where does this idea come from that in order for a heat engine to be 100% efficient it has to be able to extract all the friggin' heat there is, down to absolute zero???? Nobody added all the heat there is down to absolute zero. Ten joules were added. If ten are used, that brings the temperature of the engine back to equilibrium with the environment. But for a completely efficient engine we need to bring the temperature down to 0K? How many joules does that represent?

Edited by TomBooth
##### Share on other sites

I don't mind any input, regardless of how tenuous the connection to the subject may be. Actually, I believe Carnot, or some one of those early writers on the subject of heat engines, thought that a "Self-acting" heat engine might go out of control and "destroy" all of the heat in the universe.

Can you elaborate on the subject; in what way the Carnot efficiency equation is not complete nonsense, at least as it has been applied to heat engine efficiency. Or at least as it is commonly interpreted.

Take this video, for example, which is only representative of dozens of similar videos and university level courses I've looked at on the subject:

https://youtu.be/I4_AfJo17qQ

In this video, (and innumerable others using the same formula) it is calculated that a heat engine with a Carnot efficiency of 35% which for arguments sake; takes in 1000 joules of heat per cycle, must reject 650 joules (100% - 35% = 65% 0f 1000 = 650joules) to the sink, or "cold reservoir".

Applying that to my model engine operating between recently boiled water (just under 212F) and the ambient room temperature at 85F (on a hot summer day) the greatest possible efficiency is supposed to be about 19% (18.9%).

So if the engine takes in 100 joules, 81.1 joules per revolution of the engine (or more) MUST BE rejected to the sink. In other words, the bulk of the heat passes right through the engine to the "cold reservoir".

Experimentally, I have here completely covered the ambient side of the heat engine (or sink) with 1/2 inch Styrofoam insulation.

According to, what shall we call it? Carnot's theory, Without unrestricted flow of "waste heart" to the cold sink, the build up of heat caused by insulating the engine, SHOULD reduce the temperature differential, causing the engine to slow down and probably stop altogether, as this would be equivalent to blocking the outlet of a turbine. Without the 80% plus "flow through" of heat, it is, according to the equation, or how it is usually interpreted, impossible for the engine to run.

In my test,however, the RPM of the engine actually increased considerably, by about 25RPM after adding the insulation. It is audibly banging away, running much stronger than it did without any insulation.

I've repeated this experiment several times with a couple different engines, always with the same results.

Normally these engines running on a finite heat source, like a cup of coffee or hot water, can only be made to run faster or stronger by COOLING the sink with an ice cube.

It stands to reason then that the insulation is preventing heat infiltration to the so-called "sink", backwards from the ambient environment, which is allowing the engine to cool itself internally through adiabatic expansion.

https://youtu.be/Iq6snxiXbGg

According to every lesson or course I've ever studied on Carnot efficiency, this result is supposed to be "IMPOSSIBLE".

The Carnot efficiency equation apparently has no correspondence with reality whatsoever. At least not how it is seemingly, universally interpreted.

Without some actual numbers it is difficult to determine what is happening. Is it possible that adding insulation is allowing the sink to be cooler than ambient? Can you take some temperature readings of the ambient, the sink and the Thot, with and without the insulation?

##### Share on other sites

If a heat engine is sitting at thermal equilibrium with the environment and we add 10 joules of heat to upset that equilibrium, an engine that uses those ten joules, bringing the engine back to equilibrium with the environment would be, or is 100% efficient. Is it not? It used all the heat didn't it? But we are still at around 300K.

No, it isn’t 100% efficient because not all of that 10 joules will be doing work to spin the engine.

For example, if that engine is 30% efficient, only 3 joules is doing work to spin the engine and 7 joules is going to the sink without doing any work.

So where does this idea come from that in order for a heat engine to be 100% efficient it has to be able to extract all the friggin' heat there is, down to absolute zero????

It comes from the math.

$Efficiency\quad =\quad 1\quad -\quad \frac { { T }_{ C } }{ { T }_{ H } } \quad X\quad 100$%

Regardless of what Thot may be, if Tcold is anything above 0 K, 100% efficiency is impossible because the engine is always going to supply some heat to the cold sink. IOW, not all of the applied heat is available to do work. This is actually a good sanity check.

Nobody added all the heat there is down to absolute zero. Ten joules were added. If ten are used, that brings the temperature of the engine back to equilibrium with the environment. But for a completely efficient engine we need to bring the temperature down to 0K? How many joules does that represent?

I think you are looking at this wrong. You cannot “bring the temperature down to 0K” if you are working into an ambient sink of 300K. All you can do is increase the hot side by adding heat, as you just did by adding 10 joules, or you can cool the cold side, but to do that you need to do some work. Even then, you can never get the cold side down to 0 K.

It seems to me you are banging your head against a wall for no reason. Why should it matter to you if your engine can never be 100% efficient? Just try to make the most efficient engine that you can and be happy.

Speaking of that, what is the highest efficiency you think you have achieved, and how did you measure it?

##### Share on other sites

Duplicate post deleted.

Edited by TomBooth
##### Share on other sites

Without some actual numbers it is difficult to determine what is happening. Is it possible that adding insulation is allowing the sink to be cooler than ambient? Can you take some temperature readings of the ambient, the sink and the Thot, with and without the insulation?

I ordered this digital thermometer a few days ago. It comes with four probes for taking simultaneous readings. It doesn't record data to the cloud or have software to build charts and plug into the computer like the \$300 units, but appears to be a quality tool.

"The K-type Thermocouple Thermometer - TC41 displays three different measuring units ˚C,˚F and K (Kelvin) with a temperature range of - 200°C ~ 1372°C (-328°F ~ 2501°F), perfect for measuring home appliance temperatures whilst maintaining high accuracy measurements for lab or industrial uses."

https://perfectprime.com/products/tc9815?_pos=1&_sid=f155af95c&_ss=r

##### Share on other sites

No, it isn’t 100% efficient because not all of that 10 joules will be doing work to spin the engine.

For example, if that engine is 30% efficient, only 3 joules is doing work to spin the engine and 7 joules is going to the sink without doing any work.

I said "If", hypothetically.

Just supposing that the engine could utilize that additional 7 joules otherwise rejected to the sink. That would only bring the temperature back down to equilibrium with the environment, not absolute zero.

It comes from the math.

Efficiency=1TCTHX100

%

Regardless of what Thot may be, if Tcold is anything above 0 K, 100% efficiency is impossible because the engine is always going to supply some heat to the cold sink. IOW, not all of the applied heat is available to do work. This is actually a good sanity check.

In common sense plain words, how do you define "100% efficiency"? or "applied heat"? and what does either of those terms, in common sense every day language have to do with "absolute zero" or 0 Kelvin?

Heat is transfer of energy. If the engine is at thermal equilibrium with the environment, then there is no transfer of energy. Applied "heat" then, is whatever energy is used to bring the temperature of the engine some degree above the ambient baseline. If that added heat is, for the sake of argument, entirely converted to work, or the mechanical motion of the engine, then there is a return in temperature back down to the ambient baseline, whatever it may have been.

In theory, any "heat" or kinetic energy that exists, or existed below that ambient baseline is "unavailable to do work", but that "heat" was never added, never "applied". As it exists in equilibrium, it cannot even be defined as "HEAT" at all. At equilibrium it cannot be transferred.

I agree that that equation determines the percentage of kinetic energy "available to do work". It is just the difference between the ambient baseline and the added energy above that baseline. The energy added between Tc (ambient) and Th. (on an absolute temperature scale). But availability is not efficiency.

Speaking of that, what is the highest efficiency you think you have achieved, and how did you measure it?

Before adding the insulation, just feeling the top of the running engine, it felt relatively cool. Considering the engine was running on top of scalding hot water straight out of the tea kettle, poured into a vacuum flask, the top of the engine felt as if it were room temperature, possibly it felt slightly cooler than room temperature. If that was true, then either no heat transfer was taking place or heat was flowing from the ambient into the engine.

Call that whatever you want, but it did not seem to correspond to the mathematical "Carnot efficiency" which says that more than 80% of the applied heat should be passing through to the sink. If that were the case the engine certainly should have felt hot to the touch. VERY HOT to the touch, don't you think????

If 80% of the applied heat was passing THROUGH to the sink, then insulating the sink, should trap that heat inside the engine, raising the temperature of the sink and destroying the temperature difference.

Insulating the sink should cause the engine to slow down and stop or not operate at all. It cannot operate without a temperature difference.

But on the contrary, insulating the sink INCREASED the RPM considerably. This would seem to indicate that the engine is actually refrigerating the cold side or "sink" heat exchanger rather than dumping waste heat into it.

##### Share on other sites

Before adding the insulation, just feeling the top of the running engine, it felt relatively cool. Considering the engine was running on top of scalding hot water straight out of the tea kettle, poured into a vacuum flask, the top of the engine felt as if it were room temperature, possibly it felt slightly cooler than room temperature. If that was true, then either no heat transfer was taking place or heat was flowing from the ambient into the engine.

Call that whatever you want, but it did not seem to correspond to the mathematical "Carnot efficiency" which says that more than 80% of the applied heat should be passing through to the sink. If that were the case the engine certainly should have felt hot to the touch. VERY HOT to the touch, don't you think????

That isn’t a good indication. If the ambient T is 300 K, that is just 80 F. Your body T is about 98.6 F so the heat sink will feel cool to the touch.

If 80% of the applied heat was passing THROUGH to the sink, then insulating the sink, should trap that heat inside the engine, raising the temperature of the sink and destroying the temperature difference.

Insulating the sink should cause the engine to slow down and stop or not operate at all. It cannot operate without a temperature difference.

That would only be true If the top of the engine was the only way for heat to escape to the ambient sink.

What about that flywheel spinning through the ambient air? I am guessing with the insulation in place it would become the primary path for heat to be transferred to the air. In fact, that may even be a more efficient path than the top of the engine.

But on the contrary, insulating the sink INCREASED the RPM considerably. This would seem to indicate that the engine is actually refrigerating the cold side or "sink" heat exchanger rather than dumping waste heat into it.

That probably means the heat transfer via the flywheel is more efficient than from the top of the engine. For sure, whatever is happening is in accordance with physical laws and no violation is taking place. You just need to do some more detective work to pin it down. Maybe try insulating the flywheel from the drive shaft or use a plastic or wood drive shaft that is non-conductive to heat. This is at least getting interesting!

##### Share on other sites
It seems to me you are banging your head against a wall for no reason. Why should it matter to you if your engine can never be 100% efficient? Just try to make the most efficient engine that you can and be happy.

This thread is "Nikola Tesla Vs. The Second Law Of Thermodynamics"

Have you read Tesla's article?:

http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1900-06-00.htm

Under the heading: "A DEPARTURE FROM KNOWN METHODS—POSSIBILITY OF A "SELF-ACTING" ENGINE..."

Tesla wrote:

"Heat, though following certain general laws of mechanics, like a fluid, is not such; it is energy which may be converted into other forms of energy as it passes from a high to a low level....    "If the process of heat transformation were absolutely perfect, no heat at all would arrive at the low level, since all of it would be converted into other forms of energy.... " We would thus produce, by expending initially a certain amount of work to create a sink for the heat or, respectively, the water to flow in, a condition enabling us to get any amount of energy without further effort.  This would be an ideal way of obtaining motive power."

Is this a real possibility or not?

Tesla wrote this article in 1900. I have not seen any evidence that anyone has ever taken any time in the past century or more to put Tesla's proposition to the test in any way. Because of "The second law of thermodynamics" and the assertion about "Carnot efficiency" and the dictum that "No engine can be more efficient than a Carnot engine", it seems nobody has ever taken Tesla's idea seriously at all. It is just considered ridiculous on its face. "Everybody knows" that such a "perpetual motion machine" is impossible. "Everybody knows" that no engine can be 100% efficient. There is no point in spending any time whatsoever on this completely absurd idea. Right?

But has anyone ever done any simple experiment to see exactly how much heat goes through a Stirling Heat engine? Could Tesla have been right? Theory aside, what does the actual experimental data show?

So far, my experiments indicate that for a small model LTD (Low temperature differential) model Stirling engine, manufactured in Singapore and available from https://www.stirlinghobbyshop.com, no heat whatsoever is passing through to the sink, in fact, it appears that these engines are ALREADY capable of the kind of "perfect" efficiency Tesla was talking about.

So, if we take such an engine and run it on ice. Then the engine would be ACTUALLY operating on Ambient heat and simultaneously using that heat energy to refrigerate the ice. Would this be a realization of Tesla's "Self Acting Engine"?

So far, in all my experiments, the evidence seems to support Tesla's proposition. I'm not saying that this proves anything with absolute certainty at this point. I have more experimenting to do, but so far the evidence seems rather compelling to me.

##### Share on other sites
That isn’t a good indication. If the ambient T is 300 K, that is just 80 F. Your body T is about 98.6 F so the heat sink will feel cool to the touch.

If boiling water is being applied at 212F and 80% of that is going straight to the sink, then it seems to me the sink should be closer to 212 than to ambient, which was 85 F at the time.

That would only be true If the top of the engine was the only way for heat to escape to the ambient sink.

What about that flywheel spinning through the ambient air? I am guessing with the insulation in place it would become the primary path for heat to be transferred to the air. In fact, that may even be a more efficient path than the top of the engine.

The flywheel in on top of a plexiglass pedestal. Plexiglass is an extremely poor conductor of heat.

That probably means the heat transfer via the flywheel is more efficient than from the top of the engine. For sure, whatever is happening is in accordance with physical laws and no violation is taking place. You just need to do some more detective work to pin it down. Maybe try insulating the flywheel from the drive shaft or use a plastic or wood drive shaft that is non-conductive to heat. This is at least getting interesting!

The drive shaft?

OK, well, that is connected to the graphite piston. How good of a heat conductor is graphite? I think the idea that all that "waste heat" is traveling through the piston and up the connecting rod to the flywheel is a stretch of the imagination, but I can construct a wooden or plexiglass connecting rod, (I think) to rule that out.

##### Share on other sites

Graphite is actually a very good conductor of heat.

I might also be able to make a piston from plexiglass or maybe fiberglass, either of which have practically no heat conductivity. Teflon maybe. I think I may be able to get some Teflon slug of some sort I could turn down on the lathe.

Teflon is also rather self lubricating or low friction which is good.

Edited by TomBooth
##### Share on other sites

This discussion suggests Teflon may not work well, as it swells with frictional heat.

https://www.homemodelenginemachinist.com/threads/teflon-as-a-piston.30440/

Glass, according to this forum, is almost as good as graphite: "A polished glass piston works almost as well as graphite." and glass has a very low heat conductivity.

I have some glass test tubes that, well, probably won't fit. But a glass piston might be the way to go.

Edited by TomBooth
##### Share on other sites

Epoxy filler might be better, for practical reasons, it's easy to form or set in a mold, right inside the cylinder for a perfect fit. I also know model builders have had success using it to form pistons.

Conductivity is 0.5 or so compared to 168 for graphite.

That aluminum heat exchanger (top plate) is about 230 compared with graphite 168.

Compared with the 5 inch diameter aluminum top of the engine, the 1/4 inch diameter piston, attached to a thin rod, is probably carrying a negligible amount of heat by comparison. But I think it's worth trying to eliminate anyway, so we shall see

Edited by TomBooth
##### Share on other sites

If boiling water is being applied at 212F and 80% of that is going straight to the sink, then it seems to me the sink should be closer to 212 than to ambient, which was 85 F at the time.

Not if it is efficiently dissipating the heat to the greater ambient surroundings. If the sink gets as hot as the source, the machine will not work. Hopefully with that thermometer you now have, you can take some T data and clear up some of these questions.

The flywheel in on top of a plexiglass pedestal. Plexiglass is an extremely poor conductor of heat.

Sorry, I should have noticed the plexiglass pedestal, but somehow missed it. It would help to have the device sitting in front of me.

The drive shaft?

OK, well, that is connected to the graphite piston. How good of a heat conductor is graphite? I think the idea that all that "waste heat" is traveling through the piston and up the connecting rod to the flywheel is a stretch of the imagination, but I can construct a wooden or plexiglass connecting rod, (I think) to rule that out.

Yes, it is a stretch but I have seen some odd things in my time as a marine engineer. It would be useful to eliminate that as a possibility if it can be done without completely re-designing the machine. I was thinking maybe a heat insulator could be inserted somewhere between where the linkage connects to the flywheel. It may not be necessary to change the piston or the connecting rod.

All I can do is throw out some ideas and it is difficult to be specific without having the engine sitting right in front of me. Then again, it is a lot easier to sit here and say "try this and try that" than it is to actually do the work!

I have a question for you. I noticed you gave the flywheel a spin to get the engine started. Is that always necessary, or will it get going by itself if you just wait long enough? Does it behave the same with and without the insulation you installed?

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×

×

• #### Activity

• Leaderboard
×
• Create New...