FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Human Power?





speeDemon
These days we really need to stress on non-conventional sources or energy. I was just thinking(as stupid as it may sound), why can't we(humans) use our own power to make energy(or rather convert it).

What I mean is, that in most cases, Tidal energy, Hydel energy, Wind energy, Geothermal energy, finally we end up moving a turbine.. right?, so why can't we do the same by our own power.. I'm pretty sure there is a good reason why we can't Razz

Why not just make a big turbine and employ people, and even open the gates to the comon folk, as a 'way to contribute to nature', and then make them move the turbines,

The best part is(the way I see it) once a turbine gets some momentum, the number of people required to move it will be less, so initially a large number of people may be needed in one turbine, but later on the number may be decreased. I'm not talking about literally running around with the ah.. whatever they're called.. flaps if you will, but still there can be some way..

I'm just asking if it is possible, the problems relating to making the turbine, finding a suitable place getting employees et cetera will come in later..

Just a stupid thought that came to my mind while looking at a 6th grade student turn a rod(on a motor) and convert mechanical energy into electrical energy..
watersoul
Excellent thoughts speedemon, always wondered myself how much energy could be produced by the 90,000+ convicted prisoners serving time in UK jails. Good excercise for them and helps pay for their crimes. Never looked into if this would be thousands of micro-generator's on static bicycle type machines, or hundreds of machines turning bigger generators. I'd definitely vote for research funding into it though.

*edit*

Did a few searches and This Company has a bicycle powered product they claim the following about:
Quote:
How much power can a cyclist expect to produce with the Bike Power Generator?

The average person can expect to produce in the range of 150 watts sustainably, charging variably at between 10A - 16A. The Bike Power Generator has been designed with a generator capable of handling 20A of current. When used to charge a 12 Volt battery, this produces a maximum PEAK power output of around 275 Watts (13.6 V x 20A = 272W) or just over a third of one horsepower (One horsepower is equal to 746 Watts).One can expect the peak output only in very short bursts.


If each rider produced just 50 watts and we took the 90,000 prisoners into three 8 hour shifts per day, even with 10 minute breaks on the hour, they could deliver 1.5 megawatts for 20 hours each day. (30,000 x 50 = 1,500,000 watts) - How sustainable that would be though, and what it would work out in value of electricity/costs of maintaining the cycles etc, I've no idea at all, might try read a bit more about studies into it Smile
Bikerman
Electricity costs around 7-15p per kilowatt/hour.
150 watts sustainably is 0.15 kilowatts which means 6.66 hours of cycling per 10p electricity generated (without including the costs of the bike and any gear necessary to feed the current back into the grid).
err..no.
ocalhoun
Couldn't we devise a more efficient way to transform the chemical energy in food (or other bio-material) into electricity?

Have bacteria digest it into usable fuel, or just burn it and use the heat to boil water for a steam turbine...

It would be entertaining to put prisoners to work generating power though... However, I agree with Bikerman that this wouldn't be particularly helpful economically.
You could make it cheaper by working them more intensively for short bursts, followed by rest periods, that way several inmates could share one bike. But, then you also have to take into account not only the generator/bikes, but also the back-end of any power station, with electricity storage, DC->AC conversion, synchronization with the grid, transmission, et cetera. All of that equipment will be expensive as well.

A simpler solution would be to have them power their own lights, A/C, and any other electrical appliance they use. That would reduce a prison's demand on the grid, and prisoners would be motivated to keep it going (or they lose comforts). Also, that would reduce the extra equipment needed, since you could convert much of the end-use items to DC.
Bikerman
Still a nono.
Firstly there would be positive carbon use - the materials would have a carbon footprint that you would probably never cover.
Secondly the generating equipment will have a finite life - unlikely to ever actuall reach pay-back.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
Still a nono.
Firstly there would be positive carbon use - the materials would have a carbon footprint that you would probably never cover.

Meh. Less carbon use than a coal-fired power plant, as that plant must build the equipment and burn fuel.
Quote:

Secondly the generating equipment will have a finite life - unlikely to ever actuall reach pay-back.

Again, less than a normal power plant though. Both need to purchase the equipment, but the prison doesn't need to purchase fuel. (or turbines)
(Yes, the prisoners will eat more, but they need to be exercised anyway, why waste the energy?)
Heck, they can even rehabilitate some inmates by teaching them how to maintain power-generating equipment.
Bikerman
ocalhoun wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Still a nono.
Firstly there would be positive carbon use - the materials would have a carbon footprint that you would probably never cover.

Meh. Less carbon use than a coal-fired power plant, as that plant must build the equipment and burn fuel.

huh? The choice is between continuing to use electricity from the grid with no extra capacity needed or buy a load of new bikes and new equipment. The first has no extra carbon implication above the current carbon footprint of the electricity they use - which will be tiny indeed.
You are assuming that new capacity needs to be built and further assuming that the carbon per unit of electricity for a power station is greater than that for a load of bikes and assorted other kit. I very much doubt that. If more than a few quids worth of power is used in making the bikes and the rest of the kit then you don't even need to factor in the other carbon negatives...
watersoul
Bikerman wrote:
Electricity costs around 7-15p per kilowatt/hour.
150 watts sustainably is 0.15 kilowatts which means 6.66 hours of cycling per 10p electricity generated (without including the costs of the bike and any gear necessary to feed the current back into the grid).
err..no.


Have to agree there, after making my post I checked the unit cost of the elecricity on my bill, added it up, then thought...err..no
Who knows though if tech improves maybe similar ideas like these will become possibilities one day?
Good topic either way Smile
deanhills
I still like speeDemon's idea. I was thinking about all those guys who go to the gymnasium to work out all the time, why not have a community type turbine that is human driven, and may provide some energy for the electricity and lights needed to maintain the place it is housed in. And let that be a work-out place of sorts. Probably would be fun as well. Or maybe little fun turbines at schools. There is so much energy possible that we can use more economically. Great topic speeDemon!
Blaster
hmm the world seems to like to work out. Lets go back to the cartoons because they are not far off. When we have someone running on a treadmill can't we use that to power something? Maybe not 1 person but think about if the whole country did. Same with when people are on the bikes and other exercise equipment. Its not a bad idea at all in my opinion.
Bikerman
Start with the goals.
If the goal is to generate power efficiently then the answer to this - and pretty much any other scheme I can think of at this scale - is no. Human-made electricity is always going to be very limited in quantity, sporadic and unreliable.
If the aim is to keep fit then why not..you may as well generate some power whilst doing it.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:

You are assuming that new capacity needs to be built

But it is not possible for power demands to rise above their current level?
*edit*
Added pretty graph:

Quote:
and further assuming that the carbon per unit of electricity for a power station is greater than that for a load of bikes and assorted other kit.

Why, yes I am... at least in the case of power stations that burn carbon-based fuel.
Both the power station and the prison must build their equipment. The power station will likely have economy of scale in building equipment, but this shouldn't be an overwhelming advantage, and I'd guess that it would be more than offset if the power plant is burning carbon-based fuel.
Quote:
I very much doubt that. If more than a few quids worth of power is used in making the bikes and the rest of the kit then you don't even need to factor in the other carbon negatives...

And how many quids of power would be required to build a conventional power plant?

And yes, I'm assuming that sometimes new power plants are built.
Presumably, demand sometimes grows beyond current capacity, and also some plants surely grow old and become decommissioned, to be replaced by shiny new plants.
...Which is why I insist on comparing building the prison-plant to building a conventional plant.
(Rather than comparing building the prison-plant to operating an existing conventional plant.)
To be absolutely sure, of course, it would take an in-depth analysis of the costs of operating each and the costs of building each (both environmental and financial, each relative to amount of power produced, of course).
Personally, I suspect the traditional plant would be cheaper-per-watt to build, but more expensive-per-watt to operate... Vice-versa for the prison-plant.
watersoul
ocalhoun wrote:

Personally, I suspect the traditional plant would be cheaper-per-watt to build, but more expensive-per-watt to operate... Vice-versa for the prison-plant.


I like that idea as well, and the prison plant could even have a separate mech/tech section of prisoner workers maintaining the equipment - again, minimal labour costs when all set up, and teaching them skills for when they've served their time.

...or even on an individual scale, a prisoner has to peddle his machine for x many hours per day if he/she wants electricity to power their TV/radio etc. There's got to be some bigger imaginable potential for "human power" though, if it was given the best efforts in engineering the most efficient generating systems.
ocalhoun
watersoul wrote:
if it was given the best efforts in engineering the most efficient generating systems.

... Would also require a great deal of social engineering.
You may have to pay people for working the machines in the plant, rather than expecting them to pay for the privilege, as in a gym.

*edit*

Fatties should be the ones targeted for power generation- a win/win for society! ^.^
Bikerman
I think you are not just wrong, I think you are orders of magnitude out.
The trouble is that, as usual, I'll have to get the figures to show it and I haven't got the time right now. I'll try to remember to come back to this later...
Until I do, consider this. My task is simple. I just have to take a reasonable timescale - say 50-100 years - and show that the amount of power generated in that time would be cheaper if they had bought it from the grid. This nonsense about building new powerstations is fantasy. The amount that (be generous) 10,000 prisoners could generate on bikes is completely insignificant. I'll then cross reference that against the power output of a plant and (though this is entirely unfair for reasons I'll explain in a minute) I'll even assume that new plant is needed and work out whatever fraction of a power-plant would be.

It is unfair, of course, because that is double-loading. New generating capacity is built by the supplier from the profits they make on existing and future supply. By asking the prisoners to cover their fraction of any new build costs you are essentially double-charging them. Their current electricity costs include the profit to the supplier which should be used for the job, and if the supplier puts up the base cost per unit to cover the new build then they would have to pay that as well...bad economics.

PPS if you seriously think a power plant is more expensive per head (or generating unit if you prefer) to run than a prison , stand by for a shock.
watersoul
Bikerman wrote:
I think you are not just wrong, I think you are orders of magnitude out.
The trouble is that, as usual, I'll have to get the figures to show it and I haven't got the time right now. I'll try to remember to come back to this later...
Until I do, consider this. My task is simple. I just have to take a reasonable timescale - say 50-100 years - and show that the amount of power generated in that time would be cheaper if they had bought it from the grid. This nonsense about building new powerstations is fantasy. The amount that (be generous) 10,000 prisoners could generate on bikes is completely insignificant. I'll then cross reference that against the power output of a plant and (though this is entirely unfair for reasons I'll explain in a minute) I'll even assume that new plant is needed and work out whatever fraction of a power-plant would be.

It is unfair, of course, because that is double-loading. New generating capacity is built by the supplier from the profits they make on existing and future supply. By asking the prisoners to cover their fraction of any new build costs you are essentially double-charging them. Their current electricity costs include the profit to the supplier which should be used for the job, and if the supplier puts up the base cost per unit to cover the new build then they would have to pay that as well...bad economics.

PPS if you seriously think a power plant is more expensive per head (or generating unit if you prefer) to run than a prison , stand by for a shock.


I look forward to your next contribution to the Applied Energy Journal or something then, and I'll continue to love the reality that there are still scientists out there searching for possibilities without giving up their research just because current tech isn't able to operate at efficient levels to provide the answers now. I'm also glad that research in most fields seems to consider wider options in any possible solution, such as changing voltage/ampage/wattage in the whole supply line for whatever needs we have at the user level - change a variable somewhere and it can change the input needed in many ways. Thoughts can be wider and more imaginative than the closed box of simply how much energy is produced, it also depends on how that energy is used.

...as ocalhoun said, it also involves social engineering as well, but when all factors are taken into account the answers aren't always as black and white as a close-minded scientist might see if they choose to take current societal norm's as a constant. Wink
Bikerman
LOL....I would resent that if I had the energy. I am willing to consider any proposal, no matter how bizarre sounding. The fact that I am normally the one who pours cold water on such, or at least injects a dose of reality, is nothing I am sorry for - someone has to do it.
The thing about supporting a plan is that in science you only get one chance. if you put your reputation behind a turkey they you have no reputation to risk again. That doesn't apply to me, since I have no scientific reputation to start with, but that is why scientists are, quite correctly, wary of speculating - especially outside their own field of expertise.

Changing the voltage or amperage will not help. Every-time you change or convert you loose energy - basic thermodynamics (there is no such thing as 100% efficiency). There are many bullshitters who would happily spin you a line about lowering the baseline voltage and ramping up the current, but I try to avoid bull where I can.

OK, here's some back of the envelope stuff.

Assume a mega-prison with 10,000 prisoners. Further assume that we can get all of them riding for 2 hours a day so that a hall with 1000 bikes is generating power for 20 hours in every 24.
The cost per bike in the advert is around $750, but let's be generous and halve it.
So our initial outlay is 1000 bikes at $375 per piece = $370,000.

Now, our prisoners can be expected to generate 150 watts per bike, so for 20 hours and 1000 bikes that gives us 3 megawatts. Note that I am assuming no power loss, no conversion loss, no transmission or storage loss. In other words this is the upper limiting case, not what would really happen.

OK, 1 kilowatt is around 10p, so 3 megawatts comes in at 0.1*3000 = £300 (assuming no bulk discounts and assuming the prison pays domestic consumer rates - which they don't). So we are generating about 1 bike's worth of electricity per day. Be generous and call it a whole bike.

So in 1000 days we have paid for the bikes. Now, at the end of 3 years being ridden more or less continuously, I would think that the bikes would be more or less scrap. I'm assuming that there has been no maintenance or replacement parts (again stupidly unrealistic, but this is to establish the outer limit). So what we get is break-even. We just about manage to pay for the bikes. That's it.

Now, in the real world you would have to probably halve or even quarter my figures to account for breakages, lost time, power losses, prisoners playing the system and so on. So as a scheme for prisons, I say it won't work.
watersoul
Bikerman wrote:

Now, in the real world you would have to probably halve or even quarter my figures to account for breakages, lost time, power losses, prisoners playing the system and so on. So as a scheme for prisons, I say it won't work.


Good answer, and based on current tech & energy prices I'll agree with whats written on the back of your envelope! Wink
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
Start with the goals.
If the goal is to generate power efficiently then the answer to this - and pretty much any other scheme I can think of at this scale - is no. Human-made electricity is always going to be very limited in quantity, sporadic and unreliable.
If the aim is to keep fit then why not..you may as well generate some power whilst doing it.
That sounds like a boring goal to me. Why not make the goal "fun" instead? Why make it into something of "work" and something that needs to be calculated to death? Once it gets analyzed, quantified and made into a "brainchild" that serves the scientist's ego more than the community that is supposed to be involved, who will still be interested to participate in the project?
speeDemon
No offense, but I don't see why you guys are so obsessed(correct me if I'm using a wrong word) with bikes. The energy that we as humans possess can be converted according to our needs by various means, riding a bike just brings in a lot of problems.
I'm not saying that I have an incredible idea, but the thoughts here seem pretty limited, and I'm just trying to change that.
deanhills
speeDemon wrote:
No offense, but I don't see why you guys are so obsessed(correct me if I'm using a wrong word) with bikes. The energy that we as humans possess can be converted according to our needs by various means, riding a bike just brings in a lot of problems.
I'm not saying that I have an incredible idea, but the thoughts here seem pretty limited, and I'm just trying to change that.
OK, so how do you propose the people move the turbine in your example? Perhaps you need to give us more details so that we can move in your direction.
speeDemon
deanhills wrote:
speeDemon wrote:
No offense, but I don't see why you guys are so obsessed(correct me if I'm using a wrong word) with bikes. The energy that we as humans possess can be converted according to our needs by various means, riding a bike just brings in a lot of problems.
I'm not saying that I have an incredible idea, but the thoughts here seem pretty limited, and I'm just trying to change that.
OK, so how do you propose the people move the turbine in your example? Perhaps you need to give us more details so that we can move in your direction.

As I said before, I dont have any incredible idea.. I just made that last post to make you guys realize that there are more ways to make it possible, I haven't thought of one as of now, but If I do I will be sure to post it here. I will think about some other ways, and that's what I'm telling the other members to do as well.

Also, There might be many more options if we start thinking about many people working together on one unit, in the sense that if more people can work on a single "energy producing unit" as an alternative to the 'one person' usable bike, then we may be able to get more efficient energy conversion
watersoul
speeDemon wrote:
deanhills wrote:
speeDemon wrote:
No offense, but I don't see why you guys are so obsessed(correct me if I'm using a wrong word) with bikes. The energy that we as humans possess can be converted according to our needs by various means, riding a bike just brings in a lot of problems.
I'm not saying that I have an incredible idea, but the thoughts here seem pretty limited, and I'm just trying to change that.
OK, so how do you propose the people move the turbine in your example? Perhaps you need to give us more details so that we can move in your direction.

As I said before, I dont have any incredible idea.. I just made that last post to make you guys realize that there are more ways to make it possible, I haven't thought of one as of now, but If I do I will be sure to post it here. I will think about some other ways, and that's what I'm telling the other members to do as well.

Also, There might be many more options if we start thinking about many people working together on one unit, in the sense that if more people can work on a single "energy producing unit" as an alternative to the 'one person' usable bike, then we may be able to get more efficient energy conversion


I only thought of cycling for this kind of reason:

Power generated during exercise
Quote:
What you are doing makes a difference

On firm, flat, ground, a 70 kg person requires about 100 watts to walk at 5 km/h.

If that same person applies 100 watts of effort on a bicycle, they can average 25 km/h.

So that says a bike is about 5 times as efficient. Or, put another way, the energy efficiency of biking is 5 times that of walking.

I like the rowing machine for cardio over winter when I can’t go and run in sunshine. How efficient is the rowing machine? To create 100 watts of power on the machine requires that I move at 2 min 30 secs per 500m. Quick calculation says this is 12 km/hr. So efficiency of this machine is in-between walking and cycling.

What’s not efficient? Swimming. To move at the same speed as walking, swimming requires about 4.5 times the power output.


There are probably lots of ways we can produce energy from our motion, but the above seem the most common types to me. Maybe perhaps a huge "human-wheel" in the style of a water wheel instead of stairs to go down in a shopping mall?! Bit crazy maybe, and safety issues of course, but an alternative to cycling! Laughing
Bikerman
Well, there are some basic limits you can apply.
A human being can produce about half a horsepower for a limited period (a few minutes). Nothing can increase that (short of selective breeding for really big buggers).
timothymartin
For example, that is how the pyramids were built. But then it was also a slavery issue. If you could some how make it competitive then it could work.
Bikerman
What could work? Why would people deliberately choose to do things manually when there are better ways?

The notion of recovering energy from human motion is, frankly, a non-starter. The maximum you could recover would be a small amount and inevitably that has to be 'paid back' - there is no such thing as free energy. In the case of humans the 'pay-back' is calories which have to be replaced with food. It is an extremely inefficient method of powering anything - the carbon and energy costs of creating the food will be WAY above the energy recovered by any conceivable scheme.
c'tair
^ What do you think about technologies to convert kinetic and heat energies into electricity?

I've read an article some time ago that some lab is working to make clothing to convert a part of the kinetic energy of our bodies as well as some heat energy into electricity to power some small handheld devices like phones, PDAs, ebook readers etc.

I was thinking how small do these 'generators' have to be to both be worn comfortably as well to not impede our transportation because sure, we could get pendulums and what not to charge by walking or running, but it'll make walking and running that much harder for us, making us burn more calories and... you posted the rest in your post.
Bikerman
There are a number of methods of converting movement into electricity but any such system won't be anywhere near charging phones or similar. You've now internalised the real problem though - you never increase energy by changing from one form to another, you always lose. Start with very small amouts and you end up with nothing worthwhile...
Arty
There is, however, a way to convert the energy of people walking on surfaces into electricity. They use mats on the floor that absorbs the walking energy or something. It's still in development though, but they are planning to use these in big cities.
deanhills
watersoul wrote:
There are probably lots of ways we can produce energy from our motion, but the above seem the most common types to me. Maybe perhaps a huge "human-wheel" in the style of a water wheel instead of stairs to go down in a shopping mall?! Bit crazy maybe, and safety issues of course, but an alternative to cycling! Laughing
Right, I was thinking about that when I saw The Good, the Bad and the Ugly movie yesterday again, the little boy on his donkey driving the water turbine. I'm no engineer but would be interesting if we could power our water pumps ourselves?
Bikerman
Arty wrote:
There is, however, a way to convert the energy of people walking on surfaces into electricity. They use mats on the floor that absorbs the walking energy or something. It's still in development though, but they are planning to use these in big cities.

Yes, I can see how that might work. The problem would mainly be engineering rather than basic science. Manufacturing a surface strong enough and yet sensitive enough to transmit the force of the footfall would be the major challenge I suspect. I presume some sort of crystal layer - which produces voltage when deformed (same principle used in a pizo-crystal firelighter) - would be one option.
ocalhoun
... Well, we could reduce costs by building tandem-bikes, two people on one dual bike frame, both spinning the same (larger) generator... Or even groups of up to eight (or more) could be used on a single generator without any over-complicated mechanisms, like so:
Code:

p-p--|--p-p
     G
p-p--|--p-p
__________________________
p        Prisoner
-        Bike frame and chain drive
|        Axle
G        Generator

That should reduce the costs of building and maintaining the bikes considerably.


(Of course, I'd probably be opposed to the whole proposition anyway, as it would give the government incentive to arrest more people if the prisoner population was running low.)
Bikerman
Problems just multiple. Type people on a tandem generate about 1.5 the power of 2 separate bikes - there are all sorts of extra inefficiencies.
Spinning larger generators would introduce some efficiency increase over spinning more small ones, but that would introduce a logistics problem. With single bikes the minimum unit of generation is 1 prisoner. This would raise it to 4 or more meaning there would always be some unused capacity. That isn't so important (3-7 units in 10,000 is OK) but it would also introduce a source of conflict. I predict that it would quickly degenerate into :
'Come on you lazy git, I've been peddling your share for ages'
'Oh yea? You couldn't peddle your way out of the room'
'You wot! .....'
and so on.

Of course you may also develop some nice teamwork with some of the cons, but I would tend to think that the punch-ups would outnumber the peace...
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:
I predict that it would quickly degenerate into :
'Come on you lazy git, I've been peddling your share for ages'
'Oh yea? You couldn't peddle your way out of the room'
'You wot! .....'
and so on.

Well, in addition to the 8-man bikes, have a few extras:
-four man
-two man
-one man

One of each of those would allow you to utilize any number of odd-man-out workers less than eight.
(Yay, binary is fun AND practical!)
ankitdatashn
speeDemon wrote:
These days we really need to stress on non-conventional sources or enery. I was just thinking(as stupid as it may sound), why can't we(humans) use our own power to make energy(or rather convert it).

............


Ohh my my, now I guess thoughts get into human mind by any supernatural phenomenon, is it? Because a week ago i.e. around 6th October when you posted your message I got an idea somewhat similar. And I think it is a very nice and innovative thought, I think big fishes should fund this idea that is having great potential.

What I personally thought was something like this: there is public transportation system, lets take a bus as an example. On that bus people get in at the stops, now this bus would not be a usual bus but a bus that has cycles attached on it that generate power. Now if we take as example 100 watts that can be produced by each person cycling, and the bus has a capacity of 50 people than 50*100=5000 watts can be produced by the people who are cycling, not too high but if combined with other backup energy sources would be enough to drive the bus, and to get a consistent output by a full bus we can have the bus running only between fixed destinations with no stops.

And One more thing that would be required is, lazy people not allowed in the bus!! Wink
Bikerman
Since people seem determined to push mad ideas then I may as well join in.
Here, for example, is a patent (granted) for a useful addition to any camper-van

1 hosepower...

And there is no reason to stop at land-vehicles. This french patent (granted) extends the idea to amphibious vehicles:


It more exercise is the aim, then we could simply adopt British patent WO9701384 and issue an imaginary dog lead to all adults:
speeDemon
Bikerman wrote:
Since people seem determined to push mad ideas then I may as well join in.
Here, for example, is a patent (granted) for a useful addition to any camper-van

1 hosepower...

And there is no reason to stop at land-vehicles. This french patent (granted) extends the idea to amphibious vehicles:


It more exercise is the aim, then we could simply adopt British patent WO9701384 and issue an imaginary dog lead to all adults:

Well, that made me laugh that's for sure!
iman
Yes, we do need it, but somehow I'm thinking that the oil companies conspire to slow down the research on green energy.
ocalhoun
Bikerman wrote:

And there is no reason to stop at land-vehicles. This french patent (granted) extends the idea to amphibious vehicles:


That might actually work well...
Only, instead of a boat prow on the front, just put a couple floats on the side of the horse's harness, then the boat-like carriage can be the same size as a normal one, just more buoyant.
...The horse might have trouble turning the whole thing while swimming... Add a rudder.
Related topics
asian human rights
Power
When last did God talk to you and how did He? (Christians)
Power Shut Off After Woman Owes a Penny
Is Nuclear Power the future?
what magic/super powers would you like to have
Are you a Good Human Being???
php array() problem
FACTS ABOUT HUMAN HEARTS...
Human energy?
Israeli Soldiers 'used child human shield'
Metaphysics: Studying the Human Potential
Human is great.
Human Powered Flapping Wings
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.