Searching \ for '[EE] Sanity check about hipot testing' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=sanity+check+about
Search entire site for: 'Sanity check about hipot testing'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[EE] Sanity check about hipot testing'
2008\06\18@114136 by William Bross

picon face
First, a little background.  I have designed industrial control trinkets
for a number of industries over the past 20 years or so.  These have all
been 10-30 VDC input devices.  Some in metal enclosures, some plastic
and some potted epoxy.  These devices, depending on the industries
involved have been UL / CSA / FM approved with no problems.

I just ran my first one through ETL, the allegedly cheaper UL knockoff
lab.  Obscurely hidden in the end of the final report is a requirement
to hipot test this device with 840VAC or 1080VDC for 2 seconds.  The
product is nothing more than an electronic chart recorder with no
control capabilites whatsoever.  It just monitors thermocouples, control
currents and voltages.  My big concern is that I have never had any
requirements to hipot test any low voltage equipment - EVER.  I've done
many mains power driven devices and they usually get a hipot test.  
Common sense engineering would lead me to believe that hipot testing low
voltage DC instruments with these levels for 2 seconds would surely
damage parts of the instrument, like the 36V TVS diodes across the power
inputs.

So, did ETL make a mistake in specifying a hipot test?  Or am I missing
something in the UL-61010 requirements?

Thanks,

Bill

2008\06\18@150336 by Mike Hord

picon face
> So, did ETL make a mistake in specifying a hipot test?  Or am I missing
> something in the UL-61010 requirements?

Possibly.  OR, possibly, the requirement is there to see if the device
explodes/outgasses something toxic/bursts in to an unquenchable
flame.

If you're doing safety testing, which is usually the primary concern
of UL testing, the tests are more often about making sure the device
fails gracefully than making sure it doesn't fail.

You should DEFINITELY ask them both whether the test is truly
needed AND what the point of the test is.  If the person you ask
doesn't know, push the matter- someone has to, or you're just being
asked to destroy one of your (expensive?) devices for no good reason.

Mike H.

2008\06\18@160728 by Dwayne Reid

flavicon
face
Couple of things:

1) Why is the hipot test needed for a low-voltage device?

2) I *assume* that the hipot test is done the standard way: connect
both power input terminals together, then apply the test voltage
between those input terminals and the case / enclosure.  Output
terminals (if any) are floating.

Is that in fact what they propose to do?


Regardless, I'd suggest finding out why they think that hipot testing
of a low-voltage device is necessary.

dwayne


At 09:41 AM 6/18/2008, William Bross wrote:

>I just ran my first one through ETL, the allegedly cheaper UL knockoff
>lab.  Obscurely hidden in the end of the final report is a requirement
>to hipot test this device with 840VAC or 1080VDC for 2 seconds.


--
Dwayne Reid   <spam_OUTdwaynerTakeThisOuTspamplanet.eon.net>
Trinity Electronics Systems Ltd    Edmonton, AB, CANADA
(780) 489-3199 voice          (780) 487-6397 fax
http://www.trinity-electronics.com
Custom Electronics Design and Manufacturing

2008\06\18@161737 by William Bross

picon face
Mike Hord wrote:

>>So, did ETL make a mistake in specifying a hipot test?  Or am I missing
>>something in the UL-61010 requirements?
>>
>>You should DEFINITELY ask them both whether the test is truly
>>needed AND what the point of the test is.  If the person you ask
>>doesn't know, push the matter- someone has to, or you're just being
>>asked to destroy one of your (expensive?) devices for no good reason.
>>
>>Mike H.
>>    
>>
Thanks for the response Mike.
I have.  And the exact response I've received so far--because we said
so.  And yes, it definitely will kill low voltage devices.  And it's not
just supposed to be a sample, it's 100% of production.  This is the same
project I asked the testing engineer how to calculate DC power -- and he
didn't have a clue!  That's why I'm getting very suspicious of this
organization and I've had more than a few hackles raised over this project.

Bill

2008\06\18@183715 by Spehro Pefhany

picon face
At 11:41 AM 6/18/2008, you wrote:
{Quote hidden}

In industrial control, sensors such as thermocouples sometimes get shorted to
mains voltage heaters. That could be a potential safety issue.

Depending on the details, it might or might not be a silly requirement.

Another reasonable possibility is that it's a cut-and-paste from a
previous job that had mains power. Suggest you pick up the phone and
ask!

>Best regards,

Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..."            "The Journey is the reward"
.....speffKILLspamspam@spam@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com



2008\06\18@194650 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:41 PM, William Bross <wbrossspamKILLspamcinci.rr.com> wrote:
>  My big concern is that I have never had any
> requirements to hipot test any low voltage equipment - EVER.

This is certainly not true. I have run hi-pot tests for all kinds of
low voltage device. This depends on the specification of the
device. For example, for PLC I/Os, we need to have isolation
between the backplane and field side, so we need to do
HiPot tests between them even their power supply is normally
24V (10-30V). And if you have uninsulated
connectors exposed, you may have to do hi-pot tests as well.

> I've done
> many mains power driven devices and they usually get a hipot test.
> Common sense engineering would lead me to believe that hipot testing low
> voltage DC instruments with these levels for 2 seconds would surely
> damage parts of the instrument, like the 36V TVS diodes across the power
> inputs.

Do you have different circuits in your device which need isolation?
What is lab say about the HiPot test?

You know you can have hi-pot tests between different section of the
circuits. You may not need to do Hi-pot tests between the DC voltage
(say 24V and return).

Xiaofan

2008\06\18@213036 by Timothy J. Weber

face picon face
William Bross wrote:
> I have.  And the exact response I've received so far--because we said
> so.  And yes, it definitely will kill low voltage devices.  And it's not
> just supposed to be a sample, it's 100% of production.

Those two factors combined, if true, would seem to drive production
costs (and delivery dates) toward infinity.
--
Timothy J. Weber
http://timothyweber.org

2008\06\18@215257 by Martin K

face
flavicon
face
William Bross wrote:
> Thanks for the response Mike.
> I have.  And the exact response I've received so far--because we said
> so.  And yes, it definitely will kill low voltage devices.  And it's not
> just supposed to be a sample, it's 100% of production.  This is the same
> project I asked the testing engineer how to calculate DC power -- and he
> didn't have a clue!  That's why I'm getting very suspicious of this
> organization and I've had more than a few hackles raised over this project.
>
> Bill
>  


Talk to his manager or go elsewhere. Don't waste your time.

-
Martin

2008\06\18@221733 by Richard Prosser

picon face
William,

If the response is like "because we say" then they should be able to
refer to the reference in the spec that requires it.

In the tests we get done, every test is cross referenced to the
relevant spec paragraph(s) so we can double check the requirement &
limits etc.  If they can't or won't do this then I'd look at moving
somewhere else.

Richard P

2008/6/19 Martin K <.....martinKILLspamspam.....nnytech.net>:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\06\18@230302 by Harold Hallikainen

face
flavicon
face
I have not been overly impressed with my workings with ETL. More often
than not, they would test to the wrong standard. When there was a change
in UL508A, they kept telling us we had to retest to the new spec, but our
equipment was listed to UL508, not UL508A. The inspection guides the field
inspector had were generally the wrong ones (several years out of date),
so he'd write up a bunch of noncompliance reports. I understand they
recently charged $16k to safety test a heat sink with two solid state
relays, a couple chokes, four circuit breakers, and a terminal block. Of
course, it was six months work...

I've worked with some of their RF test engineers in their anechoic
chamber, and that seemed to go ok.

Anyway, on hipot, you are generally shorting the power input leads
together, then applying the high voltage to those shorted leads and
measuring leakage to the grounded case. So, as long as your circuit is
isolated from the case, it should not be damaged.

Good luck!

Harold


--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!

2008\06\19@014854 by Ruben Jönsson

flavicon
face
According to EN 61010, which may not be exactly as UL 61010, a hipot test
(dielectric strength) at 840VAC corresponds to 0.5mm clearance through basic
insulation. BUT the correspondeing DC value should then be 1200VDC according to
table 9 and not 1080VDC so the values may come elswere from.

The clearance depends on a lot of factors - type of insulation, pullotion
degree, category of measuring circuit, transient voltages, rated operating
altitude, working voltage, combination of voltages for different circuits,
mains voltage where the circuit is used and possibly more.

So a hipot test may not be irrelevant.

You should be able to get the paragraphs in 61010 where these requirements and
values are stated (it should be in the test report).

/Ruben

{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\06\19@023806 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 6/19/08, Harold Hallikainen <EraseMEharoldspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuThallikainen.org> wrote:
> Anyway, on hipot, you are generally shorting the power input leads
> together, then applying the high voltage to those shorted leads and
> measuring leakage to the grounded case. So, as long as your circuit is
> isolated from the case, it should not be damaged.
>

That is what I think as well.

Xiaofan

2008\06\19@035146 by Ruben Jönsson

flavicon
face
> On 6/19/08, Harold Hallikainen <haroldspamspam_OUThallikainen.org> wrote:
> > Anyway, on hipot, you are generally shorting the power input leads
> > together, then applying the high voltage to those shorted leads and
> > measuring leakage to the grounded case. So, as long as your circuit is
> > isolated from the case, it should not be damaged.
> >
>
> That is what I think as well.
>
> Xiaofan
> --

Yes, and 840VAC or 1080VDC is a relatively low voltage for these kind of tests.
Remember - this is to test insulation breakdown, not to test what voltages the
components or circuits can withstand (unless they are part of the insulation).

/Ruben

==============================
Ruben Jönsson
AB Liros Electronic
Box 9124, 200 39 Malmö, Sweden
TEL INT +46 40142078
FAX INT +46 40947388
@spam@rubenKILLspamspampp.sbbs.se
==============================

2008\06\19@054859 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 6/19/08, Ruben Jönsson <KILLspamrubenKILLspamspampp.sbbs.se> wrote:
> Yes, and 840VAC or 1080VDC is a relatively low voltage for these kind of tests.
> Remember - this is to test insulation breakdown, not to test what voltages the
> components or circuits can withstand (unless they are part of the insulation).

Actually the OP says 840VAC and 1080VDC for 2 seconds. This kind
of 2 seconds test is typically for production test only. I guess that 1080VDC
is indeed a typo and should be 1200VDC as you mentioned.

Normal UL or IEC Hi-Pot tests for insulation type tests are 1 minute.

Xiaofan

2008\06\19@102317 by William Bross

picon face
Dwayne Reid wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Hi Dwayne,

Yep, standard hipot test as you describe.  They say that if the standard
being tested against has the hipot requirement, they make production
line testing mandatory.  I've petitioned that this requirement be waived
so we'll see what happens.  I did have a fairly lengthy conversation
with one of their engineers that seemed fairly knowledgable about the
subject.  He also seemed reasonable and was open to other opinions and
interpretations of the spec.  We'll see how it goes.

Bill

2008\06\19@102815 by William Bross

picon face
Spehro Pefhany wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Spehro,
Good thought on the shorts to heaters.  Been there, done that, have some charred remains back in the dungeon!  But all that was taken into account in the initial design, which they can plainly see in the schematics and mechanical details.  Everything is isolated from everything else.

Yep, the rest is 'cut and paste' policy.  Questions asked, statements made and now waiting for a decision.

Thanks,

Bill

2008\06\19@104324 by William Bross

picon face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:

>On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 11:41 PM, William Bross <RemoveMEwbrossTakeThisOuTspamcinci.rr.com> wrote:
>  
>
>> My big concern is that I have never had any
>>requirements to hipot test any low voltage equipment - EVER.
>>    
>>
>
>This is certainly not true. I have run hi-pot tests for all kinds of
>low voltage device. This depends on the specification of the
>device. For example, for PLC I/Os, we need to have isolation
>between the backplane and field side, so we need to do
>HiPot tests between them even their power supply is normally
>24V (10-30V). And if you have uninsulated
>connectors exposed, you may have to do hi-pot tests as well.
>
>  
>
Xiaofan,
Yes, this equipment did get hipot tested in their lab and passed with
flying colors.  BTW this device is very similar to a PLC in function and
form only more job specific, so it did get all those tests.  My big
concern is wasting production resources to test every blippin' unit off
the line.

{Quote hidden}

Yes, there are multiple isolated sections and each was tested
individually with the standard hipot tests.  With up to 70 individually
isolated I/O points, a testing jig might not be economically feasible
and the probability of production messing up any one connection  could
render a section of hardware inoperable.  My point to them is they
proved the design passes the tests so why all of a sudden is production
line  testing mandatory?  We've petitioned and we're waiting for a decision.

Thanks,
Bill

2008\06\19@104952 by William Bross

picon face
Timothy J. Weber wrote:

>William Bross wrote:
>  
>
>>I have.  And the exact response I've received so far--because we said
>>so.  And yes, it definitely will kill low voltage devices.  And it's not
>>just supposed to be a sample, it's 100% of production.
>>    
>>
>
>Those two factors combined, if true, would seem to drive production
>costs (and delivery dates) toward infinity.
>  
>
Agreed.  Right now, it looks like the original engineer just 'boiler
plated' the requirements without reading out product information packet
before testing.  It explained our point of view in detail in hopes of
saving time.  We're talking and waiting for a decision.
Thanks,
Bill

2008\06\19@105608 by William Bross

picon face
Martin K wrote:

{Quote hidden}

These organizations are designed to be tough to contact anyone inside.  
Remember, their revenue stream comes 90% from beauraucratic babble and
10% from real work.  Whenever I do talk to anybody that seems
knowledgable, I go to great pains to get their direct contact info for
future reference.  We've just recently started working with ETL so I'm
still learning their rules.  Once I know their rules, I can use that
info to beat them at their own game. ;-)

Bill

2008\06\19@110505 by William Bross

picon face
Richard Prosser wrote:

>William,
>
>If the response is like "because we say" then they should be able to
>refer to the reference in the spec that requires it.
>
>In the tests we get done, every test is cross referenced to the
>relevant spec paragraph(s) so we can double check the requirement &
>limits etc.  If they can't or won't do this then I'd look at moving
>somewhere else.
>
>Richard P
>  
>
Thanks Richard.  The final report didn't have the standard section
referenced for the dielectric withstand test.  I looked it up and cited
the exact paragraphs I used as a reference for my reasoning.  I got a
total agreement from the new engineer I talked with and am now waiting
for confirmation in writing that production line testing is not needed.  
All in all, I think I just got stuck with a bum engineer the first time
around.  We'll see on future reports.

Bill

2008\06\19@111646 by William Bross

picon face
Harold Hallikainen wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Hi Harold,
I tend to agree with you that big, beauraucratic, governmental-wanna-be
agencies are not very impressive as a whole these days.  But, they've
managed to make themselves seem necessary mostly due to the total lack
of common sense in the general population.  And yes, $16K seems about
right to test a product, but I find UL more of a 6 - 8 month ordeal.  
ETL has generally been 4 - 6 weeks.  I will put in a plug for their LEX
noise testing facility though.  They are fast, efficient and
knowledgable.  They will even call in the middle of a test if they find
a problem with suggestions on how to remedy the problem.  That saves
bucks in lab time and shipping.  And yes, the test unit passed all the
hipot tests in the lab, it's just line testing every unit I've challenged.
Bill

2008\06\19@114729 by William Bross

picon face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:

>On 6/19/08, Ruben Jönsson <spamBeGonerubenspamBeGonespampp.sbbs.se> wrote:
>  
>
>>Yes, and 840VAC or 1080VDC is a relatively low voltage for these kind of tests.
>>Remember - this is to test insulation breakdown, not to test what voltages the
>>components or circuits can withstand (unless they are part of the insulation).
>>    
>>
>
>Actually the OP says 840VAC and 1080VDC for 2 seconds. This kind
>of 2 seconds test is typically for production test only. I guess that 1080VDC
>is indeed a typo and should be 1200VDC as you mentioned.
>
>Normal UL or IEC Hi-Pot tests for insulation type tests are 1 minute.
>
>Xiaofan
>
>  
>
OK, you are more correct than I am.  It's a typo. It was listed as
1180VDC.
So, 1180,1200, whatever it takes. (Sorry, the movie Mr. Mom was on last
night!)

Bill

2008\06\19@115817 by olin piclist

face picon face
William Bross wrote:
> And yes, the test unit passed all the
> hipot tests in the lab, it's just line testing every unit I've
> challenged.

So apparently this unit provides either isolation or insulation from the
input power to something else.  That sounds like a important spec that could
have bad consequences when others rely on it but it fails.  It seems to me
that a quick hi-pot test on every unit in production makes sense.  Two
minutes might be excessive, but you need some way to verify each unit is
being produced with the isolation promised.  How do you otherwise propose to
find accidental dirt or solder or whatever accross the isolation barrier?


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2008\06\19@120453 by olin piclist

face picon face
> Two minutes might be excessive, but you need some way
> to verify each unit is being produced with the isolation promised.

I just realized the OP said 2 seconds, not 2 minutes.  2 seconds sounds
quite reasonable to me for the production test.  What is the problem with
this?


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2008\06\19@141012 by William Bross

picon face
Olin Lathrop wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Good question Olin.  All completed units get at least a 72 hr. extended
temp. burn-in.  Then the bad product gets weeded out in the final test /
calibration / certification phase.  The automated tester will kick out a
unit even if it calibrates but the zero and span offsets end up outside
our calculated normal range.  Then all failures get a thorough visual
inspection and then corrective action.  That takes care of any isolated
input side problems.  The DC power input gets impedence checked and then
input current is measured.

Also, each isolated section has A/D channels monitoring VDD and
regulator output current.  Wouldn't any breach of any of the isolation
barriers throw the measured current for each section off?  But I can see
the argument to still do the testing too.  We'll wait for the ruling by
the authorities.

Bill

2008\06\19@141338 by William Bross

picon face
Olin Lathrop wrote:

>>Two minutes might be excessive, but you need some way
>>to verify each unit is being produced with the isolation promised.
>>    
>>
>
>I just realized the OP said 2 seconds, not 2 minutes.  2 seconds sounds
>quite reasonable to me for the production test.  What is the problem with
>this?
>
>
>********************************************************************
>Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
>(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
>  
>
Just two small problems from my side.  I've got half a dozen similar
products doing similar tasks, both UL / ETL approved and none have ever
had production line testing specified.  All have passed the extended lab
hipot testing though.  The second is it's a PITA to integrate hipot
testing into our automated low voltage test setup that they've been
happy with for years.

Bill

2008\06\19@154622 by olin piclist

face picon face
William Bross wrote:
> Wouldn't any breach of any of the isolation
> barriers throw the measured current for each section off?

Not necessarily.  Insulation breakdown is non-linear.  If some dirt or a
solder blob ended up partly bridging the isolation barrier, it would still
work fine at low voltage, then suddenly conduct at high voltage.  That's why
you test at higher than expected voltage.

> We'll wait for the ruling by the authorities.

It seems to me you should want to do the hi-pot test for your own purposes
anyway.  If you claim a certain level of isolation, you really should test
for it.  I don't understand the objection.  2 seconds of additional test
time seems cheap compared to just one field failure, and I don't see how
else you can guarantee the spec is met.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2008\06\19@155925 by olin piclist

face picon face
William Bross wrote:
> Just two small problems from my side.  I've got half a dozen similar
> products doing similar tasks, both UL / ETL approved and none have
> ever had production line testing specified.

That only means you got away with it, not that it was the right thing to do
or a good idea.

I guess this comes down to what exactly you specify to your customer.  If
you specify isolation, you need to be testing for it in production.  Testing
the lab sample only proves the design is correct.  It does nothing to prove
that each individual unit was manufactured correctly.

Let's say your isolation clearance is 5mm.  What if a solder blob is
covering 4.5mm of that?  You'd never know with any of your low voltage
tests, but if that unit gets used in the field to the full isolation spec,
it will likely arc over and some rather bad things could happen.

Imagine what the dead guy's grieving widow's lawyer is going to make out of
the fact you were too cheap to spend 2 seconds per unit to save her
husband's life.  You wouldn't want me on that jury.  If on the other hand it
appears you did the "reasonable and customary" thing and tested each unit,
you've got a good argument to make.  In that case I'd probably side with you
unless they can prove negligence.


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.

2008\06\19@194159 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 2:13 AM, William Bross <TakeThisOuTwbrossEraseMEspamspam_OUTcinci.rr.com> wrote:
> Just two small problems from my side.  I've got half a dozen similar
> products doing similar tasks, both UL / ETL approved and none have ever
> had production line testing specified.  All have passed the extended lab
> hipot testing though.  The second is it's a PITA to integrate hipot
> testing into our automated low voltage test setup that they've been
> happy with for years.

Last time I learned from in-house UL expert that no production testing
are required from UL (we are using UL508). But there is a requirement
for production testing form other standards like some from the European
side. 2second is thus the best option to fulfill different standards.

Last time I was doing sensors and we followed both EN50178 and
UL508 and production testing was mandatory if isolation circuits
exist in the device.

Xiaofan

2008\06\23@114939 by William Bross

picon face
Olin Lathrop wrote:

{Quote hidden}

Sorry for the belated reply.  In the meantime, I have actually talked to
a new engineer at ETL who was actually able to walk me through why they
wanted this thing production line tested. And Olin, I'm pretty much in
agreement with everything you listed here.  It's more or less a rather
common sense approach that when properly documented is pretty hard to
refute.

Thanks to everyone who had info for me or replied to this post.  Smaller
companies have their perks but one of the major downfalls is a lack of
diversity in opinions.  That's where you guys come in.  I don't ask
often but when I do I'm never disappointed with the array of answers.
Thanks,
Bill

2008\06\23@132135 by Ruben Jönsson

flavicon
face
> Sorry for the belated reply.  In the meantime, I have actually talked to
> a new engineer at ETL who was actually able to walk me through why they
> wanted this thing production line tested. And Olin, I'm pretty much in

Can you share the reason with us?

/Ruben
==============================
Ruben Jönsson
AB Liros Electronic
Box 9124, 200 39 Malmö, Sweden
TEL INT +46 40142078
FAX INT +46 40947388
RemoveMErubenspamTakeThisOuTpp.sbbs.se
==============================

2008\06\23@163141 by William Bross

picon face
Ruben Jönsson wrote:

>>Sorry for the belated reply.  In the meantime, I have actually talked to
>>a new engineer at ETL who was actually able to walk me through why they
>>wanted this thing production line tested. And Olin, I'm pretty much in
>>    
>>
>
>Can you share the reason with us?
>
>/Ruben
>==============================
>Ruben Jönsson
>AB Liros Electronic
>Box 9124, 200 39 Malmö, Sweden
>TEL INT +46 40142078
>FAX INT +46 40947388
>rubenEraseMEspam.....pp.sbbs.se
>==============================
>  
>
In a nutshell, since this device is in a two part metal case with a
ground bonding wire between the halves, it must be tested.

Bill


'[EE] Sanity check about hipot testing'
2008\07\01@085946 by alan smith
picon face
sorta late on catching up on emails...

I agree, its a quick test by the mfg line to test each unit.  If you ever look at most power supplies, even commidty PC ones, they all have a sticker
saying it passed the hipot test.  Just a cost of doing business really.

few jobs ago, I was designing and building high voltage power distribution and it was the same way, we supplied a hipot tester to the CM and they did the tests.


--- On Thu, 6/19/08, Olin Lathrop <EraseMEolin_piclistspamembedinc.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> --

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2008 , 2009 only
- Today
- New search...