# Highest efficiency passive cooled "Big Reactor"?

## Recommended Posts

This is a challenge to anyone who wants to submit a design.  It's just for fun and to find designs that are highly efficient for the power they produce.

I want to know how efficient you can make your passively cooled reactors.  Trying to find the most efficient design.  Size doesn't really matter here.  Just that the reactor its self is passively cooled and does NOT use turbines to generate power.  Turbines are a completely different bucket of apples.

First of all, looking for anything you can make that is extremely efficient.  Using a simple equation we can calculate a score for your reactor.

(reactor's average output once it has stabilized) divided by (the number of mb/tick of yellorium used by your reactor at the given power output) = efficiency score.

For me:

My highest efficiency reactor is a big one.  It's a 9x9x9 cube with a 7x7x7 inside volume holding 20 fuel rod columns.  It has an efficiency score of 112.7  It outputs around 19,050RF/tick and uses about 0.169mb/tick of fuel. (19,050/169=112.7)  It's coolant is Gelid Cryothium.  Running the control rods at 80%  It's capable of safely outputting far more then the 19K it currently outputs.

The fuel columns are in a design as follows:

C=coolant

F=Fuel rod

N=reactor frame

NNNNNNNNN

NCCCCCCCN

NCCFFFCCN

NCFFFFFCN

NCFFCFFCN

NCFFFFFCN

NCCFFFCCN

NCCCCCCCN

NNNNNNNNN

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second, a small reactor.  one you could make early on.

for me:

a small 5x5x3 reactor with a 3x3x1 volume for the fuel rods and coolant.  It holds 5 fuel rods in a + shape.  It's efficiency score is only 56.125  It outputs 898RF/tick and uses 0.016mb/tick of fuel.  (898/16=56.125)  It's coolant is resonant ender.  Running the control rods at 60%  The output can be more then doubled if you run it hot(just over 900) but it's efficiency goes way down.  This design can even be run with water coolant, for lower output, if you keep the control rods inserted around 60%.

The fuel columns are in a design as follows:

C=coolant

F=Fuel rod

N=reactor frame

NNNNN

NCFCN

NFFFN

NCFCN

NNNNN

Edited by jakalth
##### Share on other sites

By Big Reactors' efficiency standard (in the GUI of the reactor) I am at 507%.

By the standard that you're presenting, I am at 96.13 (32,300 RF/t @ .336 mB/t) 32300 / 336 = 96.13.

This is with rods at 100% and Gelid Cryotheum cooling. 15 wide x 15 long x 3 high.

This is the controller GUI after the reactor had time to sit and stabilize.

The entire inside edge is coolant and the rods / coolant are checkerboarded on the inside 11 spaces.

Edited by Cancro_Senzafine
##### Share on other sites

By Big Reactors' efficiency standard (in the GUI of the reactor) I am at 507%.

That is not efficiency, but Core Irradiation. Getting it high up is beneficial and will increase efficiency, but there are other factors still.

An efficiency index is nice, but I have been using RF per yellorium ingot so far. Also, you need to normalize parameters for the metric to make sense. The reactor will decrease in power and efficiency when fuel sinks below 100%, so I guess you want the number for 100% fuel load.

Also, Control Rods have a big influence on efficiency, so you either want to dictate a fixed setting for measurements, or require them to be posted with the results.

As far as I can tell, the bigger the reactor, the more efficient it will be. High fuel density helps increase Core Irradiation, so what we seek would be the optimal cooling balance and placement in the biggest possible frame. That begs the question: What is the biggest possible frame size for a yellorium reactor? I have no clue, and I don't remember ever seeing that mentioned anywhere.

I will participate once I got enough materials to build a really big one again. Not quite there yet on my new world.

##### Share on other sites

You could always build the reactor in creative. nothing wrong with that when looking for efficient designs.

The efficiency score I stated is very simplified.  probably has little meaning outside of this topic, though...

The more complicated calculation would be to find the average amount of RF a reactor can generate per ingot of yellorium.  But that could be simply done by taking the score you get here and moving the decimal point over too the right 6 places.  so 112.7 becomes 112,700,000  because: (score = RF per 0.001mb fuel, score x 1000 = 1mb, that resault x 1000 = 1 ingot) so (score x 1000 x 1000 = RF per ingot)

as for what effects a reactors efficiency?

1: Irradiation level of the fuel rods, higher the better

2: Running temperature, lower is more efficient

3: amount of waste in the fuel rods, less is better

4: setting of the control rods, higher % does not always improve efficiency

5: coolant, this gets a bit complicated.

Coolant and efficiency/effectiveness.

Most should know now that water is not the best coolant.  But on the same note, gelid cryothium is also not the best coolant for all reactors.  This all depends on the density of your fuel rods in your reactor design and the sheer size of your reactor.  From testing the same reactor with different types of coolant, I have confirmed that this is in fact a true statement.  If you fill most of your reactor's usable interior space with fuel rods, gelid cryothium can actually cause your reactors total output to drop in some cases.  for example, my small reactor stated above.  If I use resonant ender as it's coolant, it outputs 898RF/tick and uses 0.016mb/tick of fuel.  But, if I switch all it's coolant too gelid cryothium, it's output actually drops while still using the same amount of fuel.  So it becomes less efficient.  And switching too water dropped it's output too around 700RF/tick, but both it's temperature and fuel usage went up.  But not so much that it made water useless as a coolant for this design.

But, here is where it changes.  If I take that same reactor, and increase it's diameter too 7x7x3, leaving the 5 fuel rods in the same shape, thus making it so there is more coolant then control rods.  then fill the rest of the space with resonant ender, it's power output raises slightly too 904RF/tick with only a slight increase in fuel use.  Then replacing the ender with gelid cryothium, the output jumps too 1080RF/tick with no changes in fuel use or control rod settings from when I was using resonant ender.  It can also be stated that using water in this particular design resulted in a pathetically small output in power, less then 300RF/tick with more then double the fuel usage.  Making water even worse then having no coolant in the reactor.

Edited by jakalth
##### Share on other sites
• 1 month later...

Interesting topic.  Don't know how I missed this before.  I was just playing with some 9x9 designs today in creative to help decide on a layout in one of my current worlds.  Seems like the most efficient reactors are made by packing in the fuel rods tightly, and running the control rod high enough to control the heat.  For example, here's my best design in the 9x9 category.  Don't let this blow your mind.

NNNNNNNNN

NCCCCCCCN

NCFFFFFCN

NCFFFFFCN

NCFFFFFCN

NCFFFFFCN

NCFFFFFCN

NCCCCCCCN

NNNNNNNNN

Yup that's right.  5x5 pack of fuel rods.  I made this reactor 9x9x9.  I can't say how much it will change going up or down with the height, but this should be fairly comparable to your design.  This design used Gelid Cryotheum.

Control Rods: 90%

Power:            13.1 kRF/t

Burnup:           0.104 mB/t

Reactivity:       473%

Efficiency:       (13.1 / .104) = 126%

I'm truly unsure of the practicality of this.  It produces far less RF than your 'O' design, but it does beat your efficiency model.  This is a LOT of resources for squeezing out just a tad more efficiency.  Ignoring temp and efficiency, setting control rods to 0% yielded 40.5 kRF/t at 1.075 mB/t.  That's an abysmal 36.7 cooling rating.

The design I settled on my survival world is a 9x9x9 made with 3 rows of 5.  This was a middle of the road design that topped out at 35 kRF/t and was able to reach over 115 efficiency when control rods were set to 81%.  Also, the performance gap between Res Ender and Gelid Cryo was very slim for some reason with this design.  Therefore, I used 12 buckets of Res Ender to cool this beast, WAY easier to setup than Gelid Cryo.

NNNNNNNNN

NCCCCCCCN

NCFFFFFCN

NCCCCCCCN

NCFFFFFCN

NCCCCCCCN

NCFFFFFCN

NCCCCCCCN

NNNNNNNNN

With control rods at 81% I managed a safe temp generating 13.9 kRF/t with an efficiency of 114.9.  I actually run this with a Programmable RedNet Controller that takes the power level and sets the control rod to the same value.  It's currently producing exactly 30 kRF/t for my MFR lasers and I am easily making more ingots than I am using.  This is also producing me good quantities of Cyanite so I can convert it to an actively cooled reactor at some point.

I'd love to see those high efficiency reactors that produce good quantities of power, but I have a feeling you have to go REALLY big to do that.

##### Share on other sites

The reason for coolant differences being very slim: You are actually not producing that much heat.

In the current build, it seems that packing fuel tightly and using strong coolants is rewarded most. Might be balanced a little once the meltdown feature is implemented. I am using rather boring 3x3 fuel rod columns and don't bother with experimenting any more.

The venue to get more efficiency is always throwing more 'big iron' at the problem. Which is true for passive setups, but even more so for active (Turbine) ones. A few massive 7x7 Turbines (housing diameter, so 5x5 inside with double-finned fans) coming close to the 2000 mB/t Steam limit are the way to go if you want maximum oomph from your Yellorium. I am currently running two of those on a rather small reactor that is basically oversized for them already.

However, this is just an intermediate setup to generate enough Cyanite. I am close to assembling The Core now.  :-)

##### Share on other sites
• 6 months later...

First, I would like to apologize for the necro. I did read about that being somewhat of a touchy subject in the rules, but as it is still permitted, I would like to add my two cents to this thread. I did look through the recent posts and was not able to find this subject recently discussed within at least four iterations of the "load more topics" button. It's been a while since I played Tekkit and I wanted to jump into the efficiency debate. There were a couple of points that I think were missed in most of the popular setups I've seen.

The first thing I noticed was that a lot of people are focusing on "best layout" as if it's something finite or predetermined. 7x7 is mentioned a lot. During my studies, I found that the efficiencies are not based on any specific size, but on the internal layout. I looked up as much information as I could about the behavior of the simulated radiation, and how to control it.

My current setup is designed not only to use the maximum number of coolant source blocks (4 in cardinal directions), but also to use moderating blocks (I chose Graphite) to convert fast radiation to usable energy. I read somewhe (in several websites, actually) that the energy penalty for going over 1000C is actually an increase in fast radiation, not just an arbitrary reduction in energy produced, so I took that into account when I designed my reactor.

If I have understood it correctly, I have the maximum number of moderating blocks (3) between my fuel rods, making sure that most of the radiation that hits an adjacent fuel rod is absorbed by it. I tested this by running the reactor at approximately "optimal" temperature (989C) and measuring the results, then letting it run at 0% control and recording the changes. The temperature and energy output both rose by ~14%. Without the moderating material, temperature gains and energy output gains should not be proportionate. This would seem to suggest that the penalty is indeed an increase in fast radiation, and not a global reduction in output. If that's the case, moderating blocks are a clear advantage over lowering the temperature via control rods.

The layout itself is a 19x19x42 reactor. There are four spaces of Destabilized Redstone coolant between the casing and the core, and there are three spaces of Graphite Blocks between each fuel rod. The core is composed of nine fuel rods. I built to maximum height (42), which means 40 fuel rod blocks per fuel rod.

The readings I took were as follows:

-Control Rods @ 30%

Max Heat: 989C

Max Output: 190 KiRF/t

Max Fuel Usage: 1.373 mB/t

Fuel Reactivity: 592%

-Control Rods @ 0%

Max Heat: 1136C

Max Output: 218 KiRF/t

Max Fuel Usage: 1.7 mB/t

Fuel Reactivity: 594%

To compare, I once had a reactor at maximum height and width/length (38x38x42) which had its fuel rods spaced four blocks apart (from the casing and from each other). I did not use any moderating materials for this design. It reached a maximum output of 396 KiRF/t with Destabilized Redstone coolant. Now...I'm using a reactor with 9 fuel rods instead of (what would it have been...36?) the original design and I'm still reaching over half of its output, even at temperatures which should be penalizing me. At maximum width/length, this design would use 49 fuel rods! I plan on building that reactor out to its max horizontal dimensions at some point, and I can only speculate on the gains on output.

It is also worth noting that higher temperatures do seem to negatively affect Fuel Reactivity. The above readings were taken at full operation, once the readout stabilized. However, I tend to regulate my reactors with the Redstone Ports. I have them set to toggle the reactor on when its energy buffer falls below 50%. On pulse, the Fuel Reactivity reaches 620%, which makes it more fuel efficient than just leaving it running. The peak power output on pulse seems to be around 100 KiRF/t, which is enough to take the energy buffer from 50% to ~75%, even after it's shut off.

TL;DR. Basically, Fuel Reactivity and Moderation are the two most important factors in my opinion. If you're moderating most of your fast radiation into usable energy, then temperature does not matter (outside of meltdown, of course, but that hasn't been implemented yet). The ability to reduce the diminishing returns penalty via moderation opens up worlds of potential for this device.

And...for the record, yes, I am using it to power Laser Drills. When it was only putting out 80 KiRF/t, I had four of them in service. With the new build, I could power eleven of them. I used Yellow, Cyan and Lime Laser Foci to amp up the Uranium and Yellorite production, so it is officially showing a net profit. I'm at about 7500 Yellorium in stock and about 300 Blutonium, which shows I've been profiting for some time.

Please let me know if I've overlooked something. I will try to get some screenshots up. Unfortunately my reactor did not use glass, so you won't be able to see inside it.

EDIT: Pictures

My previous "best" design was clearly inefficient. It did not benefit from the Fuel Reactivity boosts you see in my current designs. 14.xx mB/t fuel consumption is outrageous.

The current design, operating at maximum output.

Current design, on pulse.

Also, I just remembered about the efficiency equation. Mine scores 129.127358490566 once stabilized. Not bad.

Edited by BlessedWrath
##### Share on other sites
• Discord Moderator

Could you include a pic of your fuel rod layout? Are you using the "plus" shape design? Or just a solid block of nine rods?

Edited by AetherPirate
##### Share on other sites

Yes, actually, I could post a pic. It'll have to be a screenshot of the top of the reactor, though; my casing is opaque. And I'm not using "plus". It's an arrangement of 3x3, with each rod spaced 3 blocks apart.

Also, I modified the design (Pic Below). I now have four Redstone Ports. They're connected in pairs by RedNet Cable. Both pairs are configured to listen for energy levels above and below 25%. When above 25%, the left pair is configured to change the Control Rod insertion to 71% (tops out at 70-something, which is just barely less power than I need for all my equipment). When below 25%, the right pair is configured to change Control Rod insertion to 70%, which puts me back up at 81k. I can avoid having to use the Toggle Reactor On/Off settings this way, and the lower temperature puts my efficiency index score at about 147, which is much higher than I anticipated. Settings for the four ports are as follows:

Left Top: Output - Active Above 25%

Left Bottom: Input - Change Control Rod Insertion (Mode: Set On Pulse) @ 71%

Right Top: Output - Active Below 25%

Right Bottom: Input - Change Control Rod Insertion (Mode: Set On Pulse) @ 70%

Picture:

All of this using Redstone as my coolant. I imagine the gains on Resonant Ender would be significantly higher.

The problems I see with the preferred "shape" layouts (plus, X, etc) are that the density of fuel rods does not allow for cross-rod fertility. You get some, but nowher near what you get with three moderating blocks between rods. X is actually the worst for fertility, since radiation does not travel on the diagonal. With this layout and these settings, my fuel usage drops to ~0.5 mB/t. That's powering four MFR Laser Drills continuously, as well as the equipment to process ores.

Edited by BlessedWrath
##### Share on other sites

Don't spend too much time with the old version. BigReactors is out for Minecraft 1.7 for a while now, and packs are beginning to stabilize around that. A few things have changed, and I suggest that you only invest time once you got over to the other side. There has been no announcement when (or if) Tekkit is going to go 1.7, so maybe nuclear enthusiasts should look into other choices.

##### Share on other sites

I look forward to the changes. If enough information is available, I should be able to modify the designs accordingly. Hopefully the Tekkit Team is able to get it working sooner, rather than later.

##### Share on other sites

Have been playing around a little with the 1.7.10 version of big reactors.  The changes made do not seem to have much effect on power output and fuel use for reactor designs.  Have not played much with turbines.  But the changes to how you interact with the reactor are Huge!  Makes playing around with large reactors so much easier and it's even easier to use ComputerCraft or Rednet to control with your reactor.

For the passive cooled reactors, there has been a few little changes to coolant.  Most of these changes just seem to improve the consistency of the mod as a whole rather then change how it works.  So what works well for one person should work the same for someone else.

I have not quite back tested this yet, but the most efficient small reactor design I've seen in the last few weeks, seems to now involve using more then one type of coolant inside the reactor.  A small 7x7x3 reactor with the + shaped cluster of 5 fuel rods in the center gives the highest output from your fuel that I have seen so far.

The reactor is 7x7x3 outside with only a 5x5x1 area inside the reactor for fuel and coolant.  It has 5 fuel rods in a + shape with 5 control rods all set to 0%.  The reactor seems to level out at around 700C while running at full power.  I've tested the same design with both of the coolants alone in the reactor as well.

The design outputs a Max of about 2,640 RF/tick using a combination of Gelid Cryothium AND Resonant Ender.  Using ONLY Gelid Cryothium, it outputs about 2,620 RF/tick and with just Resonant Ender, outputs only about 2,580 RF/tick.  All Three coolants use basically the same amount of fuel per tick, which is a very small amount.

Too build the reactor:

N = Reactor Casing

G = Gelid Cryothium

R = Resonant Ender

F = Fuel Rods

NNNNNNN

NRRRRRN

NRGFGRN

NRFFFRN

NRGFGRN

NRRRRRN

NNNNNNN

The exact efficiency score is not accurate due to the mod pack I was playing with not using the same settings as Tekkit for fuel burn rate.

Edited by jakalth
##### Share on other sites

It's the small things that really make BR 0.4 so much more fun to use. Point in case: Control rods can now be set in +5 and +1 increments, and holding down Ctrl will automatically replicate the setting to all Control Rods even with manual control (previously only possible via Rednet or Computer Port). Even works with Ctrl-Alt-Shift to replicate +1 increments to all rods.

All hail ErogenousBeef for a fine piece of work.

Edited by Curunir
##### Share on other sites

Now that is useful. One of the most annoying things was the inability to precisely control the rods. I ended up linking in a Redstone Port to set all control rods to the same level, upon configuration and activation of a connected lever. It sounds like that will no longer be necessary. 1% increments will go a long way toward eliminating the need for regulation, so long as power demands don't fluctuate.

On the subject of changing power demands, I ended up setting two arrays of 20 Redstone Ports each. The left array activates at 5% energy buffer intervals, and uses the Insert On Pulse setting to increase Control Rod insertion by 10% as the buffer fills. As it drains, the right array does the opposite. I normally hover around the 50% mark as a result. It does take a moment to adjust to changing power needs, but I can increase or decrease demands on the system on-the-fly and not have to recalibrate the system. Unless I exceed the maximum output of the reactor, I never have to touch its controls.

As a side note: Don't use RedNet cables with a regulation system if you're using Redstone Ports to trigger signals. They work until you log out, then they cease working altogether. I replaced the RedNet Cable with regular Redstone dust and haven't had that problem since. I wonder if that'll be fixed in 0.4.

##### Share on other sites

Damn, I always forget to test this setup. Need a BC filler to build the walls.

##### Share on other sites

So I finally built out to max dimensions, but I sort of overbuilt on the horizontal. I had to alter the configuration file to allow reactors over the default size (32, I think). Mine ended up being 43 X and Z, and (I think) 42 Y. I did not want to take down that much Reactor Glass.

Folks...the power this thing puts out is so immense that it actually had to switch to a higher measurement. I passed 1,000 KiRF/t and it changed to MeRF/t. Maximum output is almost 600 MeRF/t, and it's using about the same fuel as the design I posted which topped out at 369 KiRF/t. To clarify, that's 1,198,486 RF/t. And I'm still getting 630% Fuel Reactivity because of my moderating material.

I knew I would beat that output, but I never dreamed it would be this high. 14.xx mB/t fuel cost is extreme, but if you're running enough laser drills to warrant that much power, you're making the Yellorium to cover it (if you have the correct Laser Foci installed). I had to dial it down to 96% control rod insertion just to get the output to closely match what my four drills require. That setting takes it down to about 110 KiRF/t, and the fuel efficiency is pretty good.

Now for the incredible bit. The max output, divided by max fuel usage, comes out to 83,228.

Anyway, here's a video including the configuration file and maximum stable output.

##### Share on other sites

Don't get use to MFR drills for keeping up with your Yellorite demands. It changed in more recent MFR versions.

##### Share on other sites

Rats. Even with all foci geared for Yellorite, we won't be able to keep up? That's terrible.

##### Share on other sites

0,25% chance for yellorite ore with all 8 foci installed. Do the math.

##### Share on other sites

Depends. If you're running a very efficient active reactor (optimal Turbine design) and take measures to spread the power intelligently, 0.25% might actually be enough. One trick is to limit each Laser Drill Precharger's intake to exactly 5000 RF/t with a buffer energy cell or other eligible method. Keep in mind that they will eat a lot more for no gain if you don't match that.

Another measure would be recuperating half your waste by converting to Blutonium. I'm not sure, but I guess if you build really efficient, that Laser Drill might provide just enough Yellorite to keep things rolling even with the new setting.

##### Share on other sites

I have mine set up to automatically process Yellorite, Uranium and Nether Uranium, with equal foci for each. I'm also set up to automatically reprocess Cyanite into Blutonium, and have an Itemduct/Deep Storage system which can be switched from one to the other. I save as much Blutonium as I can, then, when my Yellorium stores get low, I switch to Blutonium.

I haven't tested its efficiency at lower power outputs, so I'm not sure whether it's more efficient to run with control rods or less efficient. Because I'm set up to take maximum advantage of moderating fast radiation, I assume my best efficiency will come at higher temperatures. I may be wrong about that; I'd have to test it. In any event, it's more power than any ten people need. I just wanted to see what was possible.

If MFR is specifically seeking to nerf Yellorium production for the sole purpose of making a self-sustaining laser drill impossible, I may have to look at tweaking the settings for my own use. I think that intelligent and efficient design should be rewarded; if you build tight enough to break the equilibrium barrier, you deserve to get something out of it. Besides, the laser drill is non-subtractive, low-latency and is much more expensive than a Quarry. I would think that should be enough of a counterbalance for the ores it generates. Add in the slow production rate and I think there are enough negatives to balance the positives. We don't need self-sustaining reactor prevention. It just has to be pricey enough that it takes some effort to acquire.

EDIT: The rate is 0.25% now. What was it before? Because I hit 25k Yellorium in a couple of days, with four drills and all three fuel foci installed.

Edited by BlessedWrath
##### Share on other sites

Agreed on most points. There is one more thing: If the Laser Drill breaks its own price/reward ratio regarding power demand and supply, a considerable number of people won't adapt their setups, but simply switch to other solutions. Mekanism's Digital Miner comes to mind. I think it's alright for MFR to nerf Yellorite yield when it's still possible for players to achieve self-sustenance with clever design. If that is not possible, the nerf will just make the Laser Drill irrelevant for many.

It will also slow down servers. Why? A Yellorium reactor is rather low-lag and frugal on server ticks for the power it provides. The alternatives are mostly massive racks of lower-grade power solutions, think Coal plants with the accompanying Charcoal production chain. If most players switch to something like that, server loads will be quite a bit higher.

Of course, this is all not about current Tekkit, which has neither the nerf nor the other tech mods to make this relevant.

##### Share on other sites

Definitely agreed. I used to rely solely on quarries, which require chunkloading and devastate the landscape. When I discovered the laser drill, I was first skeptical, then ecstatic. I had found a solution to the strip mining problem and my lag. I don't want to find something else. It's a very effective solution. If I have to go back to quarries to refuel my reactor, or wander through caves looking for Yellorite just to bring my drills back online...well, it'll kind of defeat the purpose.

There's also the fact that players will do whatever it takes to get what they want. If that means higher latency devices, like you mention, you can believe they'll do it.

I really would like to see the rarity of ores determined by their spawn chance during world generation. Yellorite is not uncommon; it's everywhere in the worlds I've played. Right now, it seems like Yellorite is rarer than Diamond and Emerald when generated by the drill. That kind of screws with my sense of order in the world.

##### Share on other sites

Well, I can accept that mod authors try to bring a bit of diversity back and encourage users to seek alternative power solutions or at least delve into the details of a power solution to optimize it. I find it laudable when a "stupidly simple" passive Yellorium reactor is not enough to power everything and be its own fuel supply, but building a good Turbine setup allows you to close the gap.

##### Share on other sites

I do agree that design should play a role. I find that most people just latch on to a specific style and never try anything else, simply because they were told it was "most efficient". I actually studied a great deal before designing mine, and got a much higher output than I expected as a result. It's not enough to just bandwagon on a pre-determined layout; you should learn the mechanics of the mod and use that information to your advantage.

The Big Reactors mod is one that does reward a bit of thinking; I just hope that doesn't change.

Edited by BlessedWrath

## Join the conversation

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

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.