Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to the official Charlie Tango DX Group CB And Amateur Radio Forum. You are visiting the UK's biggest and most active CB Radio club.. We hope you enjoy your visit.

Charlie Tango DX is a group dedicated to Hobby Radio Users in all forms, whether CB, Amateur, PMR446, Scanning and Short Wave Listening.
We are a very active and friendly group that welcomes anyone from anywhere in the world who has an interest in Radio, regardless of their level of experience, their equipment, their location, or their radio preference. We have members varying from fully qualified operators on the Amateur Bands, to newcomers who have just bought a PMR446 set, and many CBers both old and new. All are equal on the Site.

The CT Site contains many reviews, tips and modifications within the forums, and we take pride that no sensible question is ever left unanswered, and nobody is ever belittled or mocked for asking an honest question, no matter how simple it may seem. We were all new to the hobby once.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join Charlie Tango you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, voting in polls, viewing modifications and more.

If you are not yet a member: Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Simply CLICK HERE to start the Registration process. Your application will need to include your personal name and approximate location, it will require you to confirm your email, and then be signed-off by one of our Admin Staff, but this is usually completed within 24 hours (48 max)

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
antenna height
Topic Started: Saturday, 5. September 2015, 08:56 (1,279 Views)
26ct758
No Avatar
26 Charlie Tango 758

iam sure this may of been discussed before and i sure its contraversial but can we discuss height of an antenna for best performance??, i know alot of people will say the higher the better, but if u had varely high noise level would u drop it to lower noise and would it always reduce signals just cos u have dropped it of height,so please give your veiws.it will be interesting
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RadioDaze
Member Avatar

I have been investigating height etc. complicated subject if you want it to be.

A few interesting thoughts....

A 1/2 wave GPA will push out a 16 degree TOA signal at just 0.5M high (as will a 5/8 wave with 1/4 wave radials) that is something worth knowing and why Rotel240 said he got out so well using a Silver Rod on a gate up a hill.

That said, I do not think this approach will work as well in a domestic scenario. The hilltop allows this RF to propagate nicely with an unimpeded take off into free space. At home it might simply saturate your neighbourhood with RF and all the issues that follow.

I can conclude he is right it does very, very well at low heights off ground (though a hill sure helps take off with this approach), especially when attached to a wacking great ground plane such as a big steel gate. I am going to be doing some interesting experiments soon and I would really like you to join in if you fancy. (I will announce a test date in the near future once I have sorted a few things out this end) Of course I am interested in the results for my own station but it might also give food for though for others.

What antenna do you have Andy ?

It seems here the focus could be RX noise reduction.

Know where the noise is coming from and if it is from domestic equipment then I think height would try and clear it (though I heard it can persist for a long distance), just a logical thought. Or are you speaking of pick up of what seems to be a high level of hiss or static from the sky ? I have often heard people suggesting that the "Antron -0.3" and IMAX2000 can be noisier antennas than say the GM or basic 1/2 wave dipole. Maybe that static crackle is related to the dipole type antennas being balanced and cancelling static charge across the +/- antenna poles. Where as a GPA type antenna with some multiple coil/capacitive matching system might have a more ambiguous time rejecting such noise. I don't know for sure but it is a commonly reported issue with these 2 aerials, online at least. (though many users report no issues at all). It has also been suggested that noisy RX in general could relate to common mode current issues on the coax leading to a higher RX noise level.

Have you got a coaxial choke like this chart? That might help with any end fed vertical other than if you have a GM (which is well choked by design). : (Though if the Rx noise is domestic born I doubt it will have any effect)

Basically look for the green bits...for 27mHz thereabouts...

5 Turns RG213 4.25 inch air cored (Soil pipe)
5 Turns RG58 4.25 inch air cored (Soil pipe)



Posted Image

I also heard some noise problems can be nulled by going horizontal.

I think your signal in and out would go down slightly for DX if you mounted very low (depends how low, low is?) and more so for local line of sight contacts if you drop in height. Also noise if domestic likely go upwards. For DX signals incoming it might not be such an issue as I seem to do ok with the silver rod on a window sill upstairs, lol. But I also have a S3day-S5night noise floor issues at home QTH.

I reckon on pushing your antenna to your height limit and choking the coax as being goals in your situation. My semi educated guess : )

Just a few thoughts to start us off. None of it gospel by any means but just some thoughts and utterings. B)

When The DB comes along he will set us straight no doubt.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
26PS001
Member Avatar
26 Charlie Tango 1523

I look forward to your experiments. I remember buying an antenna (360 multi band antenna) Mounting it on a tripod on my decking in the garden and getting straight into Canada, couple of days later I mounted it as high as I possibly could and struggled to make it there again. I know thats a poor piece of information because prop could have been better one day than the other but it has always crossed my mind.

I made a t2lt cb antenna, mounted it on a 10 metre telescopic fibreglass mast sitting on my decking, SWR fantastic got out locally ok, mounted it way up high and struggled to get the SWR down again but still got out.

The only way to do this is really on the same day with another operator else where, say 6 miles are so away and put it low then high.

Ive been wanting to do experiments with mobile antennas on a similar basis, you can buy these mega watt antennas and something cheap like a red devil or a springer which I use as they are so rubost, I dont really think you would see any difference in them TBH.

Maybe one day I will get to try this theory out.

Posted Image
Charlie Tango member 26CT1523 since 12/11/14
Mark (252) thecobraman tribute youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-jDebaO5BGsAjdy3pNiG7Q
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RadioDaze
Member Avatar

26PS001
Saturday, 5. September 2015, 12:48
I look forward to your experiments. I remember buying an antenna (360 multi band antenna) Mounting it on a tripod on my decking in the garden and getting straight into Canada, couple of days later I mounted it as high as I possibly could and struggled to make it there again. I know thats a poor piece of information because prop could have been better one day than the other but it has always crossed my mind.

I made a t2lt cb antenna, mounted it on a 10 metre telescopic fibreglass mast sitting on my decking, SWR fantastic got out locally ok, mounted it way up high and struggled to get the SWR down again but still got out.

The only way to do this is really on the same day with another operator else where, say 6 miles are so away and put it low then high.

Ive been wanting to do experiments with mobile antennas on a similar basis, you can buy these mega watt antennas and something cheap like a red devil or a springer which I use as they are so rubost, I dont really think you would see any difference in them TBH.

Maybe one day I will get to try this theory out.

Very easy with some willing participants, get a couple of people on local/not so local and blind test, swap them with the same power running calling them antenna A and B. You will soon find out. The key to this is creating identical set up scenarios and not having 2 antennas up at the same time... 1 antenna, 1 identical mount. That will let you know what works best in any given QTH, local/line of sight at least without the discrepancy of another antenna affecting the characteristics of the one under test.

It may not represent the likely DX performance exactly as they are subject to all manner of unpredictable changes even during the space of seconds on a QSO.

I am not 100pct but I think a low angle of radiation will ensure good long distance line of sight contacts and be generally favourable for DX.

I have seen a very interesting topic online with regards to good DX antenna systems (including, coax, ground conditions, mounts, antenna itself, height etc.) having a wide dispersion of radiation lobes with relatively benign nulls in between. Say 4 lobes at very low, low, medium low and medium angles. This is a "catch all" antenna system that should work well on both F2 and E layer skip. Both TXing and RXing through a wide range of usable/favourable DX TOA's.

I suspect it is not easy to engineer such an antenna system so you would need to follow a known model to the letter or get very technical indeed to design an antenna system with such characteristics from scratch.

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

Just to add : I noted you use a pre amp switched on inline all the time Andy, the quality of that preamp might determine noise pick up as well. I think many preamps built into "ancillary items" let's say, are pretty good at amplifying noise as well as wanted signals. (possibly disproportionately)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
26ct758
No Avatar
26 Charlie Tango 758

well thats a lot to digest ...i have a thunderpole 5/8 wave geoff which approx 27 ft of the ground against house,the 7 ft is above the gutter.but i suppose u have to take in to account the sloping roof,maybe it could deflect signal being that the roof is sloping?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The DB
No Avatar


2ct758
 
iam sure this may of been discussed before and i sure its contraversial but can we discuss height of an antenna for best performance??, i know alot of people will say the higher the better, but if u had varely high noise level would u drop it to lower noise and would it always reduce signals just cos u have dropped it of height,so please give your veiws.it will be interesting
There is no big secret to antenna height and performance, more height equals better performance, and lower radiation angles, and for verticals better groundwave signal strength at a distance.

It is possible to get heights that will actually have a lower actual gain than a lower height, but those heights are far our of the budget for most to achieve at HF frequencies, easily in excess of three wavelengths in height. Even so, when it does happen the minor dips in gain are nothing big, and definitely not big enough to be noticed by an operator.

Some antennas work better at lower heights than others. Any center fed design, such as the Gainmaster or the T2LT antenna designs, don't work well at lower heights, but more than make up for it as you get them higher. Any antenna with a ground plane built into the design will work better than most at lower heights, the groundplane has a shielding effect if you will, it somewhat shields the antenna from the effects of the earth below.

One thing that you will note when changing antenna heights is a change in impedance and where the antenna is resonant. For an antenna design such as the T2LT it is not uncommon to have to retune the antenna when there is a change of height, especially if one of those heights in a low height above earth. The Gainmaster also has a minimum height recommendation, and it may well not be tuned properly if it is to low. Groundplane antennas will often need retunign as well, but due to the nature of their design, not typically as much.

The earth below the antenna makes a big difference as well. It makes far more of a difference than most people think. There is no one ground type that exists everywhere, and the ground beneath some antennas is better than others. Most cities have a very poor ground, as do deserts. Farmland is an example of a much better ground type. Because of this the earth beneath the antenna will also affect its overall radiation pattern, and it is possible with modeling to show the same antenna, mounted at the same elevation over three different earths, and get three completely different radiation patterns. Because of this the only way you can tell for sure if the model accurately represents your antenna at your location is know, among other things, the ground type at your location at the frequency you are using, and the ground type used in the model. The reality is, however, in most cases you won't know either.

So this leaves us with three things that are relevant for the real world...

1) Height is might.
2) When changing how high an antenna is mounted you may need to retune it. This is normal.
3) Try it and see what happens, and when you do tell us about it.


The DB
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RadioDaze
Member Avatar

Good reply as always The DB....this is interesting... at 0.5M it does surprisingly well.... caveats like soil type notwithstanding...

http://www.dx-antennas.com/Half%20wave%20vertical.htm

At 6M you get a second lower angle lobe (plus the high one) but lower gain, I think both would work at 0.5M and 6M for DX no problems. Thing is 0.5M in domestic situation would not work well as RF would be sent into everyone's house around. Handy for a gate post in the countryside for quick deployment set up.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cozzmik
No Avatar
26 Charlie Tango 465

Ive never bothered with facts and/or figures regarding antenna height,ive had 7/8w,5/8w,1/2w and beams and 25ft from the ground at 69m asl (my qth) has done me proud over the years..infact when many of my antennas have been higher pulling in more noise was always the downside (not scientific i know ;) )

At my qth i get zero noise 24/7 at 4 feet off the ground (static mobile) or 25ft fixed antenna :thumb:








Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RadioDaze
Member Avatar

Understandable... I think we are talking dB's not S points....If I see S points between any antennas I will be astounded.

If we see S points this will show clear design differences favouring different mount/conditions... this is why the gate mount and the high pole mount will be of most interest. Ideally I will get them on 5 poles in testing but it will depend on WX. Wind will put an end to that. No doubt that day will be wet and blowing a gale and put an end to the day out. Fingers crossed.

I would expect to see 1/2 and 5/8 wave GP types do well clamped to gate and dipoles badly.... but who knows?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cozzmik
No Avatar
26 Charlie Tango 465

I noticed half an s point difference when Mark in essex changed from an sirio 827 to a gm at the same height.. :thumb:








Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RadioDaze
Member Avatar

Cozzmik
Saturday, 5. September 2015, 17:40
I noticed half an s point difference when Mark in essex changed from an sirio 827 to a gm at the same height.. :thumb:
3dB is a good positive change, very significant given 2 vertical monopoles.

I imagine to see a larger difference than what I stated with the Magmount, most will be able to spot that one I bet ;) I would have to guess that must be an S point difference. Then again the Sirio HP4000 is no bad mobile antenna, the contrary in fact. Will be very interesting to find all this out.

To bring it back on topic we had an interesting chat today (CT331 myself and Andy) about Andy's situation. Whilst height seems obvious (and it is if you can get a long antenna very high like 15M +) it might actually bear DX fruit if he lowers it for DX as ground mounted can do well. I just wonder if his RX QRM "local RF noise floor" noise might go up and the local housing/built up area might attenuate his outgoing signal. (I am assuming he live in an urban/semi urban area mind you, maybe he lives on a nice open farm ?) That low height approach might work better in low QRM and open free spaces like countryside etc.

I would be very interested to see how he gets on.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lowflyer
Member Avatar
108 Charlie Tango 036

Just to illustrate what Steve is saying in his post above, I took the EZNEC model of my 4el LFA Yagi and set it over MININEC ground conditions and raised the height in 1 meter increments and recorded the results in excel. I will however sort of disagree that "height is might" though, because after a certain point (usually just over 1 lambda) the theoretical gain only increases a miniscule amount, where as the take off angle generally keeps decreasing as the antenna height increases. This is due to the diminishing influence the ground has on the radiation pattern.
The perceived benefit of a lower take off angle is that your signal will get out further with less RF going into the space above the antenna. In theory this should be better for longer DX if there are conditions to reflect the signal where it hits the atmosphere.
IMO an optimum antenna height is around 10-12m AGL. This lets your antenna achieve a decent amount of gain and brings the take off angle down below 16 degrees.
Posted Image
108CT036
"Some People are so Poor, all they have is Money!"
UNIQUE CHARLIE TANGO UK FM CONTACTS - 74 Stations Worldwide
-----> LIVE BROADCAST ON USTREAM <-----
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RadioDaze
Member Avatar

I enjoyed reading your first part if that post, helped me visualize. How the ground is effecting the pattern. That lobe naturally wants to hang down in a "free space" scenario...But the earth deflects it upwards somewhat it seems. I suspect 36ft is high for many people unless they go directly to the chimney with a pole under.

As I gather it is very important for horizontals including Yagi's to have very good height otherwise they ill perform in terms of take of angle, in theory at least, not my area of expertise really, none of it is. The advantage of a vertical is when correctly set up is they should provide lower angles in general relative to a horizontal at the same low height option that many people may be restricted to.

Nice graph.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lowflyer
Member Avatar
108 Charlie Tango 036

Ok for giggles here is a 1/2 wave vertical GP antenna following the same increase in height over MININEC ground conditions. This will perhaps illustrate clearly where the idea originated that you should have a vertical at least a 1/2 wave length AGL. Note that the theoretical gain increases most dramatically in the initial 6m and actually drops again by around 1dBi before it peaks again nearer 1 WL above the ground. As with the horizontal yagi. the take off angle always drops as the antenna rises and ground influence diminishes.

I removed the initial 5 TOA results from the graph to make the scaling show the gain fluctuations clearer to see. I would post up the images for the radiation patterns for each height but im sure most have seen these online before and get the picture of how they can change in relation to the ground influence.

In the case of a vertical, height would appear to be might, and multiples of 1/2 WL are optimal for maximizing the gain. Again over 10m will achieve a TOA below 16 Degrees it would seem.

Posted Image

Edited by Lowflyer, Sunday, 6. September 2015, 19:56.
108CT036
"Some People are so Poor, all they have is Money!"
UNIQUE CHARLIE TANGO UK FM CONTACTS - 74 Stations Worldwide
-----> LIVE BROADCAST ON USTREAM <-----
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The DB
No Avatar


When I did research in August of last year I did essentially the same thing as the charts above. I made this gain comparison chart in excel then.

Posted Image

The blue line is a 5/8 wavelength end fed groundplane. The yellow line is a 1/4 wavelength groundplane, and the red line is a center fed 1/2 wavelength antenna. The numbers up the left side is gain, and the numbers across the bottom is height to the base of the antenna in wavelengths. These were modeled over 4NEC2's "Real" earth which was set to "Average Ground".

I posted this here for people to compare and contrast the data Paul posted. I haven't really done multiple ground types with this, but it could be worth it to show how different grounds can vary different aspects of antenna performance...


The DB
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RadioDaze
Member Avatar

The DB
Sunday, 6. September 2015, 20:44
When I did research in August of last year I did essentially the same thing as the charts above. I made this gain comparison chart in excel then.

Posted Image

The blue line is a 5/8 wavelength end fed groundplane. The yellow line is a 1/4 wavelength groundplane, and the red line is a center fed 1/2 wavelength antenna. The numbers up the left side is gain, and the numbers across the bottom is height to the base of the antenna in wavelengths. These were modeled over 4NEC2's "Real" earth which was set to "Average Ground".

I posted this here for people to compare and contrast the data Paul posted. I haven't really done multiple ground types with this, but it could be worth it to show how different grounds can vary different aspects of antenna performance...


The DB
Great info At 0.8 Wavelength the difference would be unnoticeable... lower the 5/8 does surprisingly well. Is that a 5/8 with full 1/4 wave radials or no radials ?

It also shows how the 1/2 wave is an unfussy antenna relative to height and all round great performer in most mounting conditions.

I am a little surprised the 1/4 wave GPA does not do better at low heights but "gain" or focus is maybe a better word from the ground planes protection from the earth is maybe countered by lower efficiency due to less efficiency as it is just 1/4 wave radiating element, is that ringing true ?
Edited by RadioDaze, Monday, 7. September 2015, 09:53.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Henry HPSD
Member Avatar
19 Charlie Tango 249

Lowflyer
Sunday, 6. September 2015, 17:22

IMO an optimum antenna height is around 10-12m AGL. This lets your antenna achieve a decent amount of gain and brings the take off angle down below 16 degrees.



Couldnt agree more...
With a small "but"...

The situation described will put you into the "DX" most of the time.
There are however the " DXers", those who hunt islands and work on "bursts" those who want to work that special DXCC to extend their list beyond the 200 figures
Those guys will want that lower angle...
Especially now with the dropping propagation angles lower than 10(TAO) will put you "on top"
It is facinating to see (low) stations comming in on beams that are 20-30 meters high and you wont hear them at say 10 meters.
Perhaps a youtube film would be nice to watch...(switching between beams)

But again...without a doubt, you can work most and almost "all" at 10-12 meters height.

73s H>
Edited by Henry HPSD, Monday, 7. September 2015, 10:28.
www.hpsd.nl www.CB-ANTENNAS.com

1 watt into a dipole will work DX !,
100 watt into a antenna which is only 1 percent as efficient as the dipole will work the same DX.
Keep that in mind when someone claims good results from a small antenna.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RadioDaze
Member Avatar

Henry HPSD
Monday, 7. September 2015, 10:28
Lowflyer
Sunday, 6. September 2015, 17:22

IMO an optimum antenna height is around 10-12m AGL. This lets your antenna achieve a decent amount of gain and brings the take off angle down below 16 degrees.



Couldnt agree more...
With a small "but"...

The situation described will put you into the "DX" most of the time.
There are however the " DXers", those who hunt islands and work on "bursts" those who want to work that special DXCC to extend their list beyond the 200 figures
Those guys will want that lower angle...
Especially now with the dropping propagation angles lower than 10(TAO) will put you "on top"
It is facinating to see (low) stations comming in on beams that are 20-30 meters high and you wont hear them at say 10 meters.
Perhaps a youtube film would be nice to watch...(switching between beams)

But again...without a doubt, you can work most and almost "all" at 10-12 meters height.

73s H>
Interetsing thoughts Henry...I wonder about TOA's quite a bit. Surely DX is ultimately 100pct dependent on luck. As in... whatever your take off angle... it is reliant on lady luck if the part of the Ionospere is charged or not at the spot where your RF hits.

Lets say you have a 9 degree TOA what if that bit of atmosphere has no charge at let's say 2,000 miles away into the sky but the bit 500miles before it does. (i.e. 1,500miles is charged). A 16 degree angle might hit it just right and you get a nice bounce back down onto sea and back up making the contact. Maybe the 9 degree lobe will pass straight through the uncharged F2 at the 2,000 mile uncharged area ?

Given you need to bounce on the long haul, you cannot conclude where your bounce might happen you might get lucky on the 16 degree earth/land bounce on a nice low loss bit of sea and unlucky on the bounce with the 2,000 miles hop and bounce on more lossy land. (and/or overshoot the RX stations QTH)

I suppose all antennas have multiple lobes so the goal is having multiple lobes and aiming for at least one really low lobe which vanishes, or is squashed into your next highest lobe by the ground effects when you do not get the height away fromthe grounds negative influence..

I think so much of this is multi hop anyway, I think the F2 at 10-12M is 2.500 miles on one bounce... that is not enough to get you to the USA from Europe.. so maybe it is best to aim for multi bounce when you set your antennas up. (which is impossible as you cannot predict where or when what part of the F2 is charged)

Multi lobes + 1 really low one must be the goal, I guess anyway. Enjoyable topic.

Just thoughts and visualizations. :thumb:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RadioDaze
Member Avatar

Lowflyer
Sunday, 6. September 2015, 19:50
Ok for giggles here is a 1/2 wave vertical GP antenna following the same increase in height over MININEC ground conditions. This will perhaps illustrate clearly where the idea originated that you should have a vertical at least a 1/2 wave length AGL. Note that the theoretical gain increases most dramatically in the initial 6m and actually drops again by around 1dBi before it peaks again nearer 1 WL above the ground. As with the horizontal yagi. the take off angle always drops as the antenna rises and ground influence diminishes.

I removed the initial 5 TOA results from the graph to make the scaling show the gain fluctuations clearer to see. I would post up the images for the radiation patterns for each height but im sure most have seen these online before and get the picture of how they can change in relation to the ground influence.

In the case of a vertical, height would appear to be might, and multiples of 1/2 WL are optimal for maximizing the gain. Again over 10m will achieve a TOA below 16 Degrees it would seem.

Posted Image

Thanks for posting that, it always disappoints me slightly as getting it up to 11m is impractical for me to get that really low angle lobe pushing out.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
RadioDaze
Member Avatar

Your findings seem to be different from these findings...

http://www.dx-antennas.com/Half%20wave%20vertical.htm

Posted Image

Reckoning on a 16 degree TOA at a mere 0.5M, a shame your plots did not test from 0M to 5M

The jump to 12M above ground to get it to a 13 degree TOA appears to be a case of diminishing returns vs impracticality of height required.
Especially given that your plot shows at 6M (I would say a fairly common domestic height and a height I commonly use myself) your TOA is 25 degrees.

I have worked a station with a Silver Rod 1/2 wave at 6M high in Reunion Island 6,000 miles away.Must have got lucky with the angles and multi hop bounces ?

Maybe these graphs are actually completely irrelevant in the real world :shrug:

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Aerials, RF & QRM Section · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1



This Website, Name, Logos and Products Are Copyright To Charlie Tango DX Group Copyright © 2009 - 2017
All Rights Reserved - No Part Of This Site May Be Copied Without Prior Written Permission. CharlieTango.co.uk have a legal Common Law Trademark and Registered Copyright #S0RN-LTC9-8CXT-LZLU of the brand "Charlie Tango" since 2009 and related Copyrights in place for domain names, Logos, images, format and layout of this website and associated material. charlietango.co.uk & charlietango.uk
Copyrighted.com Registered & Protected




View My Stats



DOMAIN NAMES FOR SALE
ConspiracyEffect.com | V5Bid.com Auction | 041183.com | Hiya.Mobi | VR Portal.Net | TrainerSox.com | CoinStealth.com | ChoccyBox.com Domains | FlutterBets.com | CharlieTango.UK | HallmarkedGold.com | MozSubmit.com | HorizontalEarth.com
CharlieTango.co.uk contact email leewardill@gmail.com