Philips and Sylvania F32T8 having different power usage

Discussion in 'Lighting' started by ITSME.ULTIMATE, Jan 30, 2006.

  1. Maybe the lamp specialists here could comment on my observation.

    From a small number of samples, I noticed the F32T8 Philips lamps have a
    higher arc voltage than electrically equivalent Sylvania lamps.

    Just among the lamps I have around here, Philips lamps always cause a
    higher power draw (implying higher arc voltage considering the ballast
    is more or less a constant current source)

    On a Sylvania/Motorola rapid start ballast a pair of Sylvania F32T8 32W
    makes the input power be around 60W.
    Under the same conditions, a pair of Philips Alto F32T8 makes the input
    power around 64W, which I think is a fairly substantial difference when
    they're using F32T8 (30W) lamps to save power.

    Ballast: QTP/2X32T8RSND120V
    Lamp type 1: Philips F32T8/TL841 (green endcaps)
    type 2: Sylvania FO32/841/ECO (Sylvania equivalent of
    environmentally friendly series)

    Ambient: 20C ish, explosed lamp luminiaire
    voltage: ~122v. Ballast is of auto-regulating type that maintains
    constant output.



    Neither is of krypton filled "ES" type.

    Different ballast/lamp makes a difference, but there's a trend of
    Philips lamps having a higher arc voltage than comparable Sylvania lamps
    from my experience.

    Is it just me or can you guys reproduce this trend too? What might cause
    them to have a different arc voltage?
    ITSME.ULTIMATE, Jan 30, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 20:35:40 -0800, ITSME.ULTIMATE
    <> wrote:

    >Maybe the lamp specialists here could comment on my observation.
    >
    >From a small number of samples, I noticed the F32T8 Philips lamps have a
    >higher arc voltage than electrically equivalent Sylvania lamps.
    >
    >Just among the lamps I have around here, Philips lamps always cause a
    >higher power draw (implying higher arc voltage considering the ballast
    >is more or less a constant current source)
    >
    >On a Sylvania/Motorola rapid start ballast a pair of Sylvania F32T8 32W
    >makes the input power be around 60W.
    >Under the same conditions, a pair of Philips Alto F32T8 makes the input
    >power around 64W, which I think is a fairly substantial difference when
    >they're using F32T8 (30W) lamps to save power.
    >
    >Ballast: QTP/2X32T8RSND120V
    >Lamp type 1: Philips F32T8/TL841 (green endcaps)
    > type 2: Sylvania FO32/841/ECO (Sylvania equivalent of
    >environmentally friendly series)
    >
    >Ambient: 20C ish, explosed lamp luminiaire
    >voltage: ~122v. Ballast is of auto-regulating type that maintains
    >constant output.
    >
    >
    >
    >Neither is of krypton filled "ES" type.
    >
    >Different ballast/lamp makes a difference, but there's a trend of
    >Philips lamps having a higher arc voltage than comparable Sylvania lamps
    >from my experience.
    >
    >Is it just me or can you guys reproduce this trend too? What might cause
    >them to have a different arc voltage?


    This is very strange. Both are rated for 32 watts, and the
    rated power for both should be confirmed on the same
    reference ballast. My experience is that there is usually
    very little power variation between lamps when properly
    measured.

    Both are rated for either rapid start or instant start. The
    Philips lamp is rated for 2950 initial lumens but the
    Sylvania web site is not cooperating (or they will not let
    me in because I don't remember my registration info right
    now) so I can't get a comparative figure.

    However, the only thing that should matter is that both of
    these 4-foot T8 lamps are rated for the same power on the
    same reference ballast.

    Considering the fact that the lamps have the same diameter
    and length and both should use only argon and mercury, the
    only factors that can change the voltage are the argon
    pressure and the mercury vapor pressure. You can't change
    the argon pressure but perhaps the factory messed up. Are
    you sure that both lamps are fully warmed up? How long did
    they burn before you made the voltage measurement?

    Perhaps Jeff has an answer to this.

    --
    Vic Roberts
    http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
    To reply via e-mail:
    replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
    or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

    This information is provided for educational purposes only.
    It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
    site without written permission.
    Victor Roberts, Jan 30, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <>, xxx@lighting-
    research.com says...
    > On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 20:35:40 -0800, ITSME.ULTIMATE
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >Maybe the lamp specialists here could comment on my observation.
    > >
    > >From a small number of samples, I noticed the F32T8 Philips lamps have a
    > >higher arc voltage than electrically equivalent Sylvania lamps.
    > >
    > >Just among the lamps I have around here, Philips lamps always cause a
    > >higher power draw (implying higher arc voltage considering the ballast
    > >is more or less a constant current source)
    > >
    > >On a Sylvania/Motorola rapid start ballast a pair of Sylvania F32T8 32W
    > >makes the input power be around 60W.
    > >Under the same conditions, a pair of Philips Alto F32T8 makes the input
    > >power around 64W, which I think is a fairly substantial difference when
    > >they're using F32T8 (30W) lamps to save power.
    > >
    > >Ballast: QTP/2X32T8RSND120V
    > >Lamp type 1: Philips F32T8/TL841 (green endcaps)
    > > type 2: Sylvania FO32/841/ECO (Sylvania equivalent of
    > >environmentally friendly series)
    > >
    > >Ambient: 20C ish, explosed lamp luminiaire
    > >voltage: ~122v. Ballast is of auto-regulating type that maintains
    > >constant output.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >Neither is of krypton filled "ES" type.
    > >
    > >Different ballast/lamp makes a difference, but there's a trend of
    > >Philips lamps having a higher arc voltage than comparable Sylvania lamps
    > >from my experience.
    > >
    > >Is it just me or can you guys reproduce this trend too? What might cause
    > >them to have a different arc voltage?

    >
    > This is very strange. Both are rated for 32 watts, and the
    > rated power for both should be confirmed on the same
    > reference ballast. My experience is that there is usually
    > very little power variation between lamps when properly
    > measured.
    >
    > Both are rated for either rapid start or instant start. The
    > Philips lamp is rated for 2950 initial lumens but the
    > Sylvania web site is not cooperating (or they will not let
    > me in because I don't remember my registration info right
    > now) so I can't get a comparative figure.
    >
    > However, the only thing that should matter is that both of
    > these 4-foot T8 lamps are rated for the same power on the
    > same reference ballast.
    >
    > Considering the fact that the lamps have the same diameter
    > and length and both should use only argon and mercury, the
    > only factors that can change the voltage are the argon
    > pressure and the mercury vapor pressure. You can't change
    > the argon pressure but perhaps the factory messed up. Are
    > you sure that both lamps are fully warmed up? How long did
    > they burn before you made the voltage measurement?
    >
    > Perhaps Jeff has an answer to this.


    My testing procedures aren't standardized, but I believe it reflects on
    more of real world conditions.

    Each set of lamps were warmed up for approximately 20 minutes. The
    lamps are not new. They all have about a thousand hours of use. Line
    voltage variation is a possibility, but as I said earlier, the ballast
    is a regulating constant power using a boost conveter topology. I have
    verified that varying the input voltage from 115 to 125 changes the
    voltage and current inversely proportionately, but input power remained
    the same(which I think is nice).

    It would interseting if someone else here could compare Philips and
    Sylvania lamps the same way I did and post the result.
    ITSME.ULTIMATE, Jan 30, 2006
    #3
  4. I was going to ask if this was done under reference ballast conditions,
    but this latest post shows that the test was not. I wonder how muchg of
    this difference was natural variation?

    Jeff Waymouth

    ITSME.ULTIMATE wrote:

    > In article <>, xxx@lighting-
    > research.com says...
    >
    >>On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 20:35:40 -0800, ITSME.ULTIMATE
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Maybe the lamp specialists here could comment on my observation.
    >>>

    >>
    >>>From a small number of samples, I noticed the F32T8 Philips lamps have a

    >>
    >>>higher arc voltage than electrically equivalent Sylvania lamps.
    >>>
    >>>Just among the lamps I have around here, Philips lamps always cause a
    >>>higher power draw (implying higher arc voltage considering the ballast
    >>>is more or less a constant current source)
    >>>
    >>>On a Sylvania/Motorola rapid start ballast a pair of Sylvania F32T8 32W
    >>>makes the input power be around 60W.
    >>>Under the same conditions, a pair of Philips Alto F32T8 makes the input
    >>>power around 64W, which I think is a fairly substantial difference when
    >>>they're using F32T8 (30W) lamps to save power.
    >>>
    >>>Ballast: QTP/2X32T8RSND120V
    >>>Lamp type 1: Philips F32T8/TL841 (green endcaps)
    >>> type 2: Sylvania FO32/841/ECO (Sylvania equivalent of
    >>>environmentally friendly series)
    >>>
    >>>Ambient: 20C ish, explosed lamp luminiaire
    >>>voltage: ~122v. Ballast is of auto-regulating type that maintains
    >>>constant output.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Neither is of krypton filled "ES" type.
    >>>
    >>>Different ballast/lamp makes a difference, but there's a trend of
    >>>Philips lamps having a higher arc voltage than comparable Sylvania lamps

    >>
    >>>from my experience.

    >>
    >>>Is it just me or can you guys reproduce this trend too? What might cause
    >>>them to have a different arc voltage?

    >>
    >>This is very strange. Both are rated for 32 watts, and the
    >>rated power for both should be confirmed on the same
    >>reference ballast. My experience is that there is usually
    >>very little power variation between lamps when properly
    >>measured.
    >>
    >>Both are rated for either rapid start or instant start. The
    >>Philips lamp is rated for 2950 initial lumens but the
    >>Sylvania web site is not cooperating (or they will not let
    >>me in because I don't remember my registration info right
    >>now) so I can't get a comparative figure.
    >>
    >>However, the only thing that should matter is that both of
    >>these 4-foot T8 lamps are rated for the same power on the
    >>same reference ballast.
    >>
    >>Considering the fact that the lamps have the same diameter
    >>and length and both should use only argon and mercury, the
    >>only factors that can change the voltage are the argon
    >>pressure and the mercury vapor pressure. You can't change
    >>the argon pressure but perhaps the factory messed up. Are
    >>you sure that both lamps are fully warmed up? How long did
    >>they burn before you made the voltage measurement?
    >>
    >>Perhaps Jeff has an answer to this.

    >
    >
    > My testing procedures aren't standardized, but I believe it reflects on
    > more of real world conditions.
    >
    > Each set of lamps were warmed up for approximately 20 minutes. The
    > lamps are not new. They all have about a thousand hours of use. Line
    > voltage variation is a possibility, but as I said earlier, the ballast
    > is a regulating constant power using a boost conveter topology. I have
    > verified that varying the input voltage from 115 to 125 changes the
    > voltage and current inversely proportionately, but input power remained
    > the same(which I think is nice).
    >
    > It would interseting if someone else here could compare Philips and
    > Sylvania lamps the same way I did and post the result.
    >
    >
    >
    Jeff Waymouth, Jan 30, 2006
    #4
  5. In article <>, jfwaymouth3
    @comcast.net says...
    > I was going to ask if this was done under reference ballast conditions,
    > but this latest post shows that the test was not. I wonder how muchg of
    > this difference was natural variation?
    >
    > Jeff Waymouth


    There is a repeatable increase in system wattage of 5% or so when
    Philips lamps are swapped in place of Sylvania lamps.

    The testing is under a real world condition. The measurement instrument
    might not be that accurate, but what counts is that going back 'n forth,
    the Philips lamps consistently cause the system to draw more power.
    ITSME.ULTIMATE, Jan 30, 2006
    #5
  6. On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 06:56:37 -0500, Jeff Waymouth
    <> wrote:

    >I was going to ask if this was done under reference ballast conditions,
    >but this latest post shows that the test was not. I wonder how muchg of
    >this difference was natural variation?


    Jeff - I added the reference ballast to this discussion in
    the context of the fact that both lamp types should draw 32
    watts when measured on the same reference ballast in an
    ambient of 25 C. That seems to imply that the two different
    brands have the same electrical impedance (at least at 25
    C). And so they should.

    When placed on any other ballast that is not the specified
    reference ballast, they should each draw the same amount of
    power, though that power may no longer be 32 watts, since
    they have the same impedance - at least at 25 C.

    Is it possible that some design feature, perhaps related to
    the low Hg content, causes these two different brands to
    have different impedances when they are operate in free air
    that is not at 25 C?

    The OP needs to use a voltmeter to insure that the line
    voltage is the same when testing each lamp type. Also, I
    assume he used the same ballast, not just the same type of
    ballast to confirm the power difference. And, the ballast
    temperature must be the same for the two tests since the
    ballast performance is a function of the ballast
    temperature. After doing the above he should try to run at
    least one comparison test with the lamps in still air at 25
    C to see if the ballast input power is closer between the
    two types.

    --
    Vic Roberts
    http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
    To reply via e-mail:
    replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
    or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

    This information is provided for educational purposes only.
    It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
    site without written permission.
    Victor Roberts, Jan 30, 2006
    #6
  7. Vic,

    To your quetion as to whethe low mercury dosing could cause different
    impedence, the short, honest, answer is "I don't know". I'll do some
    checking around

    Jeff Waymouth

    Victor Roberts wrote:
    > On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 06:56:37 -0500, Jeff Waymouth
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I was going to ask if this was done under reference ballast conditions,
    >>but this latest post shows that the test was not. I wonder how muchg of
    >>this difference was natural variation?

    >
    >
    > Jeff - I added the reference ballast to this discussion in
    > the context of the fact that both lamp types should draw 32
    > watts when measured on the same reference ballast in an
    > ambient of 25 C. That seems to imply that the two different
    > brands have the same electrical impedance (at least at 25
    > C). And so they should.
    >
    > When placed on any other ballast that is not the specified
    > reference ballast, they should each draw the same amount of
    > power, though that power may no longer be 32 watts, since
    > they have the same impedance - at least at 25 C.
    >
    > Is it possible that some design feature, perhaps related to
    > the low Hg content, causes these two different brands to
    > have different impedances when they are operate in free air
    > that is not at 25 C?
    >
    > The OP needs to use a voltmeter to insure that the line
    > voltage is the same when testing each lamp type. Also, I
    > assume he used the same ballast, not just the same type of
    > ballast to confirm the power difference. And, the ballast
    > temperature must be the same for the two tests since the
    > ballast performance is a function of the ballast
    > temperature. After doing the above he should try to run at
    > least one comparison test with the lamps in still air at 25
    > C to see if the ballast input power is closer between the
    > two types.
    >
    Jeff Waymouth, Jan 31, 2006
    #7
  8. On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 06:47:50 -0500, Jeff Waymouth
    <> wrote:

    >Vic,
    >
    >To your quetion as to whethe low mercury dosing could cause different
    >impedence, the short, honest, answer is "I don't know". I'll do some
    >checking around


    Well, not the low dose itself since we both know that it
    takes less than 0.1 mg of Hg to run the lamp at any point in
    time. However, perhaps a particular low dose technology is
    trapping almost all of the Hg until the lamps are fully
    warmed up - though I think this is unlikely. The OP would
    not be seeing such a consistent power difference if the
    problem was something as variable as Hg trapping.

    Is it possible that Philips is selling non-compliant lamps?
    I wonder if these lamps use electrode shields. If my memory
    is correct, the shields raise the cathode fall a bit and
    could be responsible for the higher power via a higher arc
    voltage. But then the lamps would not meet ANSI specs and I
    don't think that Philips would not do that.

    We have Sylvania people and ex-GE people here but no one
    from Philips as far as I know. We need to recruit some more
    people :) I also know we have at least one current GE
    Lighting staff member who lurks but does not post.

    --
    Vic Roberts
    http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
    To reply via e-mail:
    replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
    or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

    This information is provided for educational purposes only.
    It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
    site without written permission.
    Victor Roberts, Jan 31, 2006
    #8
  9. On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 04:51:24 -0800, ITSME.ULTIMATE
    <> wrote:

    >In article <>, jfwaymouth3
    >@comcast.net says...
    >> I was going to ask if this was done under reference ballast conditions,
    >> but this latest post shows that the test was not. I wonder how muchg of
    >> this difference was natural variation?
    >>
    >> Jeff Waymouth

    >
    >There is a repeatable increase in system wattage of 5% or so when
    >Philips lamps are swapped in place of Sylvania lamps.
    >
    >The testing is under a real world condition. The measurement instrument
    >might not be that accurate, but what counts is that going back 'n forth,
    >the Philips lamps consistently cause the system to draw more power.


    I'm a bit confused. If you want to understand if the power
    draw is different for the two brands you have to move a bit
    away from "real world." It would be nice but not necessary
    to use a reference ballast. However, you do have to insure
    that the line voltage, ambient temperature and air velocity
    are the same when testing the two lamp types. Also, you MUST
    use the same ballast, not just the same ballast type. (This
    is because you are not using a reference ballast.) I believe
    you are using the same ballast and are probably testing the
    lamps in such short time scale that the line voltage and air
    temperature are probably constant, but I just wanted to
    check.

    --
    Vic Roberts
    http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
    To reply via e-mail:
    replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
    or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

    This information is provided for educational purposes only.
    It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
    site without written permission.
    Victor Roberts, Feb 1, 2006
    #9
  10. On Wed, 01 Feb 2006 06:49:15 -0500, Jeff Waymouth
    <> wrote:

    >Philips T8 lamps do use cathode guards


    That should raise the voltage a bit. Also, I believe that
    ANSI lighting conventions allow the reported power to be
    rounded to the nearest watt for external publication, so two
    lamps with the same power rating could differ by almost one
    watt. I'll have to check the ANSI and IESNA rules for
    reporting measured lamp power, if they even exist :)

    --
    Vic Roberts
    http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
    To reply via e-mail:
    replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
    or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

    This information is provided for educational purposes only.
    It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
    site without written permission.
    Victor Roberts, Feb 1, 2006
    #10
  11. In article <>, xxx@lighting-
    research.com says...
    > On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 04:51:24 -0800, ITSME.ULTIMATE
    > <> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <>, jfwaymouth3
    > >@comcast.net says...
    > >> I was going to ask if this was done under reference ballast conditions,
    > >> but this latest post shows that the test was not. I wonder how muchg of
    > >> this difference was natural variation?
    > >>
    > >> Jeff Waymouth

    > >
    > >There is a repeatable increase in system wattage of 5% or so when
    > >Philips lamps are swapped in place of Sylvania lamps.
    > >
    > >The testing is under a real world condition. The measurement instrument
    > >might not be that accurate, but what counts is that going back 'n forth,
    > >the Philips lamps consistently cause the system to draw more power.

    >
    > I'm a bit confused. If you want to understand if the power
    > draw is different for the two brands you have to move a bit
    > away from "real world." It would be nice but not necessary
    > to use a reference ballast. However, you do have to insure
    > that the line voltage, ambient temperature and air velocity
    > are the same when testing the two lamp types. Also, you MUST
    > use the same ballast, not just the same ballast type. (This
    > is because you are not using a reference ballast.) I believe
    > you are using the same ballast and are probably testing the
    > lamps in such short time scale that the line voltage and air
    > temperature are probably constant, but I just wanted to
    > check.


    What good does it do for power bill reduction if it used more power in
    real world application despite the same lab result?

    The testing was done in an ordinary room, around 70F and the line
    voltage wasn't exactly 120V, but it does not vary much overtime. Further
    more, the model of ballast I used for this testing is regulated and does
    not produce a change in input power from 114 to 126 volt.

    The testing was done using the same ballast, as in the same ballast, not
    just the same model, in the same fixture.

    Both types of lamps were allowed to warm up for approx 15 min.

    By the way, Philips lamps do have cathode guards and it looks like
    they're the only one to use them.
    http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/us/ecatalog/fluor/pdf/p-5415.pdf
    ITSME.ULTIMATE, Feb 28, 2006
    #11
  12. On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 19:24:42 -0800, ITSME.ULTIMATE
    <> wrote:

    >In article <>, xxx@lighting-
    >research.com says...
    >> On Mon, 30 Jan 2006 04:51:24 -0800, ITSME.ULTIMATE
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >In article <>, jfwaymouth3
    >> >@comcast.net says...
    >> >> I was going to ask if this was done under reference ballast conditions,
    >> >> but this latest post shows that the test was not. I wonder how muchg of
    >> >> this difference was natural variation?
    >> >>
    >> >> Jeff Waymouth
    >> >
    >> >There is a repeatable increase in system wattage of 5% or so when
    >> >Philips lamps are swapped in place of Sylvania lamps.
    >> >
    >> >The testing is under a real world condition. The measurement instrument
    >> >might not be that accurate, but what counts is that going back 'n forth,
    >> >the Philips lamps consistently cause the system to draw more power.

    >>
    >> I'm a bit confused. If you want to understand if the power
    >> draw is different for the two brands you have to move a bit
    >> away from "real world." It would be nice but not necessary
    >> to use a reference ballast. However, you do have to insure
    >> that the line voltage, ambient temperature and air velocity
    >> are the same when testing the two lamp types. Also, you MUST
    >> use the same ballast, not just the same ballast type. (This
    >> is because you are not using a reference ballast.) I believe
    >> you are using the same ballast and are probably testing the
    >> lamps in such short time scale that the line voltage and air
    >> temperature are probably constant, but I just wanted to
    >> check.

    >
    >What good does it do for power bill reduction if it used more power in
    >real world application despite the same lab result?


    If you are trying to find out if A uses more power than B it
    is necessary to make sure that every variable other than A
    and B are constant when you switch from one to the other. If
    you do not do this, then you will never know if the
    different power draw is due to a difference between A and B
    or some other variable that changed during the swap. That
    is the reason that performance testing of all types of
    devices is done under controlled conditions - what some
    would call laboratory conditions.

    >The testing was done in an ordinary room, around 70F and the line
    >voltage wasn't exactly 120V, but it does not vary much overtime. Further
    >more, the model of ballast I used for this testing is regulated and does
    >not produce a change in input power from 114 to 126 volt.
    >
    >The testing was done using the same ballast, as in the same ballast, not
    >just the same model, in the same fixture.
    >
    >Both types of lamps were allowed to warm up for approx 15 min.


    It does seem like the other obvious variables were pretty
    well controlled.

    >By the way, Philips lamps do have cathode guards and it looks like
    >they're the only one to use them.
    >http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/us/ecatalog/fluor/pdf/p-5415.pdf


    Well, that might be the reason why the Philips lamps draw
    more power, but their print and on-line catalogs say they
    draw the normal amount of power - so we really don't have a
    solution.

    --
    Vic Roberts
    http://www.RobertsResearchInc.com
    To reply via e-mail:
    replace xxx with vdr in the Reply to: address
    or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

    This information is provided for educational purposes only.
    It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web
    site without written permission.
    Victor Roberts, Feb 28, 2006
    #12
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. John Doe
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    476
    Nobody
    Nov 1, 2007
  2. Bob

    G15T8 on a F32T8 Ballast

    Bob, Oct 24, 2005, in forum: Lighting
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    664
    Jeff Waymouth
    Oct 26, 2005
  3. TKM
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    2,636
    Don Klipstein
    May 10, 2010
  4. krishna_gopal_2
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    418
    KrisBlueNZ
    May 14, 2013
  5. roineust
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    183
    roineust
    Dec 27, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page