I'd like to replace an electrical cable with a fiber cable, mainly for electromagnetic noise immunity and long distance (I need to reach 500m).9600bps, 500m, RS485.
The bitrate will be very low: 9600bps is ok.
I need to keep the cost low as possible.
I never used fiber cables before. In similar applications I used RS485 transceivers connected to the UART peripheral of an MCU.
I think I need a fiber optic cable transceiver, but I don't know what to search and how to interconnect with an MCU.
Any help?
I'd like to replace an electrical cable with a fiber cable, mainly for electromagnetic noise immunity and long distance (I need to reach 500m).
The bitrate will be very low: 9600bps is ok.
I need to keep the cost low as possible.
I never used fiber cables before. In similar applications I used RS485 transceivers connected to the UART peripheral of an MCU.
I think I need a fiber optic cable transceiver, but I don't know what to search and how to interconnect with an MCU.
Any help?
marți, 30 octombrie 2018, 16:00:06 UTC+2, pozz a scris:
I'd like to replace an electrical cable with a fiber cable, mainly for
electromagnetic noise immunity and long distance (I need to reach 500m).
The bitrate will be very low: 9600bps is ok.
I need to keep the cost low as possible.
I never used fiber cables before. In similar applications I used RS485
transceivers connected to the UART peripheral of an MCU.
I think I need a fiber optic cable transceiver, but I don't know what to
search and how to interconnect with an MCU.
Any help?
9600bps, 500m, RS485.
It's all you need.
Probably you also need galvanic isolation. Use optocouplers.
Use three wires, A,B,C. C is the common ground for ONLY RS485 communication, isolated on ALL ends.
I also use small 5V:5V DC/DC converters on all nodes to isolate the RS485 part.
Il 30/10/2018 15:26, raimond.dragomir@gmail.com ha scritto:
marți, 30 octombrie 2018, 16:00:06 UTC+2, pozz a scris:
I'd like to replace an electrical cable with a fiber cable, mainly for
electromagnetic noise immunity and long distance (I need to reach 500m). >> The bitrate will be very low: 9600bps is ok.
I need to keep the cost low as possible.
I never used fiber cables before. In similar applications I used RS485
transceivers connected to the UART peripheral of an MCU.
I think I need a fiber optic cable transceiver, but I don't know what to >> search and how to interconnect with an MCU.
Any help?
9600bps, 500m, RS485.
It's all you need.
Probably you also need galvanic isolation. Use optocouplers.
Use three wires, A,B,C. C is the common ground for ONLY RS485 communication, isolated on ALL ends.
Do you use CAT5E cable and connect A and B to a couple?
What's about termination resistor? In the past I used very small RS485 links (under 100m) with low bitrate (maximum 38400bps), so I never used termination resistor.
I think I need it for 500m link. Is the usual 120R ok?
Never used termination resistors either, even with networks up to 1km.I also use small 5V:5V DC/DC converters on all nodes to isolate the RS485 part.
I think I need it for 500m link. Is the usual 120R ok?
I'd like to replace an electrical cable with a fiber cable, mainly for >electromagnetic noise immunity and long distance (I need to reach 500m).
The bitrate will be very low: 9600bps is ok.
I need to keep the cost low as possible.
I never used fiber cables before. In similar applications I used RS485 >transceivers connected to the UART peripheral of an MCU.
I think I need a fiber optic cable transceiver, but I don't know what to >search and how to interconnect with an MCU.
Any help?
marÈ i, 30 octombrie 2018, 16:00:06 UTC+2, pozz a scris:
I'd like to replace an electrical cable with a fiber cable, mainly for
electromagnetic noise immunity and long distance (I need to reach 500m).
The bitrate will be very low: 9600bps is ok.
I need to keep the cost low as possible.
I never used fiber cables before. In similar applications I used RS485
transceivers connected to the UART peripheral of an MCU.
I think I need a fiber optic cable transceiver, but I don't know what to
search and how to interconnect with an MCU.
Any help?
9600bps, 500m, RS485.
It's all you need.
Probably you also need galvanic isolation. Use optocouplers.
Use three wires, A,B,C. C is the common ground for ONLY RS485 communication, isolated on ALL ends.
I also use small 5V:5V DC/DC converters on all nodes to isolate the RS485 part.
On 2018-10-31, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote:
I think I need it for 500m link. Is the usual 120R ok?
The terminating resistor value is chosen to match the cable's
impedance.
On 10/31/2018 7:03 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2018-10-31, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote:
I think I need it for 500m link. Is the usual 120R ok?
The terminating resistor value is chosen to match the cable's
impedance.
I have no experience with long wire RS485 applications. I find it hard
to believe that an appropriately sized resistor is not on the top of the list of RS485 best practices. I have solved so many "long" wire
problems by just adding termination resistors (in my case long wires are actually short but appear long due to edge speeds).
mar?i, 30 octombrie 2018, 16:00:06 UTC+2, pozz a scris:
I'd like to replace an electrical cable with a fiber cable, mainly for
electromagnetic noise immunity and long distance (I need to reach 500m).
The bitrate will be very low: 9600bps is ok.
I need to keep the cost low as possible.
I never used fiber cables before. In similar applications I used RS485
transceivers connected to the UART peripheral of an MCU.
I think I need a fiber optic cable transceiver, but I don't know what to
search and how to interconnect with an MCU.
Any help?
9600bps, 500m, RS485.
It's all you need.
Probably you also need galvanic isolation. Use optocouplers.
Use three wires, A,B,C. C is the common ground for ONLY RS485 communication, isolated on ALL ends.
I also use small 5V:5V DC/DC converters on all nodes to isolate the RS485 part.
On 31/10/2018 1:00 am, pozz wrote:
I'd like to replace an electrical cable with a fiber cable, mainly for
electromagnetic noise immunity and long distance (I need to reach 500m).
The bitrate will be very low: 9600bps is ok.
I need to keep the cost low as possible.
I never used fiber cables before. In similar applications I used RS485
transceivers connected to the UART peripheral of an MCU.
I think I need a fiber optic cable transceiver, but I don't know what to
search and how to interconnect with an MCU.
Any help?
Depending on your idea of 'low cost' we've used these with great
success: <https://www.moxa.com/product/TCF-142.htm>
But for 500m and cheap, I'd also go with a solution like Raimonds (other >reply).
On 10/31/2018 7:03 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2018-10-31, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote:
I think I need it for 500m link. Is the usual 120R ok?
The terminating resistor value is chosen to match the cable's
impedance.
I have no experience with long wire RS485 applications. I find it hard
to believe that an appropriately sized resistor is not on the top of the list of RS485 best practices. I have solved so many "long" wire
problems by just adding termination resistors (in my case long wires are actually short but appear long due to edge speeds).
On 2018-10-31, John Speth <johnspeth@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 10/31/2018 7:03 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2018-10-31, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote:
I think I need it for 500m link. Is the usual 120R ok?
The terminating resistor value is chosen to match the cable's
impedance.
I have no experience with long wire RS485 applications. I find it hard
to believe that an appropriately sized resistor is not on the top of the
list of RS485 best practices. I have solved so many "long" wire
problems by just adding termination resistors (in my case long wires are
actually short but appear long due to edge speeds).
And don't forget the _bias_ resistors to make sure that the line idles
in the proper state when no drivers are enabled.
And yes, a signal ground connection is also _required_. Even though
the signaling is differential, a signal ground is required to make
sure you don't violate the common-mode voltage specs on the
transceivers.
I've been dealing with customer RS485/RS422 issues for almost 30
years, and they're almost due to missing bias/terminating resistors or missing signal ground.
You can connect signal ground to Earth ground if you want, but _only_at_one_point_. Breaking that rule can start fires (yes, I've
seen the melted, charred results of connecting signal ground or cable
shield to Earth at to different points).
I will have two battery-powered devices, connected by a RS485 link. In
this case, both devices are isolated from mains and Earth.
Do you think it's safe to avoid signal ground connection between the two devices in this situation?
It's difficult to me to understand what happens to the common-mode
voltage at the receiver, if its power supply (battery) is isolated from
the rest of the world.
Il 31/10/2018 17:48, Grant Edwards ha scritto:
On 2018-10-31, John Speth <johnspeth@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 10/31/2018 7:03 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2018-10-31, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote:
I think I need it for 500m link. Is the usual 120R ok?
The terminating resistor value is chosen to match the cable's
impedance.
I have no experience with long wire RS485 applications. I find it hard
to believe that an appropriately sized resistor is not on the top of the >> list of RS485 best practices. I have solved so many "long" wire
problems by just adding termination resistors (in my case long wires are >> actually short but appear long due to edge speeds).
And don't forget the _bias_ resistors to make sure that the line idles
in the proper state when no drivers are enabled.
Yes, bias resistors are needed, even if modern transceivers seem to work well even without them (they are fail-safe even when all the drivers on
the bus are disabled).
And yes, a signal ground connection is also _required_. Even though
the signaling is differential, a signal ground is required to make
sure you don't violate the common-mode voltage specs on the
transceivers.
I will have two battery-powered devices, connected by a RS485 link. In
this case, both devices are isolated from mains and Earth.
Do you think it's safe to avoid signal ground connection between the two devices in this situation?
Il 31/10/2018 17:48, Grant Edwards ha scritto:
On 2018-10-31, John Speth <johnspeth@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 10/31/2018 7:03 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2018-10-31, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote:
I think I need it for 500m link. Is the usual 120R ok?
The terminating resistor value is chosen to match the cable's
impedance.
I have no experience with long wire RS485 applications. I find it hard
to believe that an appropriately sized resistor is not on the top of the >>> list of RS485 best practices. I have solved so many "long" wire
problems by just adding termination resistors (in my case long wires are >>> actually short but appear long due to edge speeds).
And don't forget the _bias_ resistors to make sure that the line idles
in the proper state when no drivers are enabled.
Yes, bias resistors are needed, even if modern transceivers seem to work well even without them (they are fail-safe even when all the drivers on
the bus are disabled).
And yes, a signal ground connection is also _required_. Even though
the signaling is differential, a signal ground is required to make
sure you don't violate the common-mode voltage specs on the
transceivers.
I will have two battery-powered devices, connected by a RS485 link. In
this case, both devices are isolated from mains and Earth.
Do you think it's safe to avoid signal ground connection between the two devices in this situation?
It's difficult to me to understand what happens to the common-mode
voltage at the receiver, if its power supply (battery) is isolated from
the rest of the world.
I will have two battery-powered devices, connected by a RS485
link. In this case, both devices are isolated from mains and Earth.
Do you think it's safe to avoid signal ground connection between the
two devices in this situation?
It's difficult to me to understand what happens to the common-mode
voltage at the receiver, if its power supply (battery) is isolated from
the rest of the world.
On 11/2/18 9:44 AM, pozz wrote:
I will have two battery-powered devices, connected by a RS485 link. In
this case, both devices are isolated from mains and Earth.
Do you think it's safe to avoid signal ground connection between the two
devices in this situation?
It's difficult to me to understand what happens to the common-mode
voltage at the receiver, if its power supply (battery) is isolated from
the rest of the world.
You should have the signal ground. Without it, you can not control the
common mode voltage of the differential pairs. The receivers likely have
a small common mode bias current, and without some form of ground
return, the common mode bias currents will just charge up they parasitic >capacitance until you get a bias voltage high enough to change that bias >current, at which point the receiver is likely impaired in functionality
if not make the system inoperable.
There are some tricks you can do to fake the ground signal, (the
fail-safe termination can help a lot here), but you need to be REAL
careful about leakages to the outside world.
On 02/11/2018 13:44, pozz wrote:
Il 31/10/2018 17:48, Grant Edwards ha scritto:
On 2018-10-31, John Speth <johnspeth@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 10/31/2018 7:03 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2018-10-31, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote:
I think I need it for 500m link. Is the usual 120R ok?
The terminating resistor value is chosen to match the cable's
impedance.
I have no experience with long wire RS485 applications. I find it hard >>>> to believe that an appropriately sized resistor is not on the top of
the
list of RS485 best practices. I have solved so many "long" wire
problems by just adding termination resistors (in my case long wires
are
actually short but appear long due to edge speeds).
And don't forget the _bias_ resistors to make sure that the line idles
in the proper state when no drivers are enabled.
Yes, bias resistors are needed, even if modern transceivers seem to
work well even without them (they are fail-safe even when all the
drivers on the bus are disabled).
And yes, a signal ground connection is also _required_. Even though
the signaling is differential, a signal ground is required to make
sure you don't violate the common-mode voltage specs on the
transceivers.
I will have two battery-powered devices, connected by a RS485 link. In
this case, both devices are isolated from mains and Earth.
Do you think it's safe to avoid signal ground connection between the
two devices in this situation?
It's difficult to me to understand what happens to the common-mode
voltage at the receiver, if its power supply (battery) is isolated
from the rest of the world.
I might consider using two resistors in series as the 'terminating
resistor' and to use the mid point as the receiver's ground.
On 2.11.18 17:22, Mike Perkins wrote:
On 02/11/2018 13:44, pozz wrote:
Il 31/10/2018 17:48, Grant Edwards ha scritto:
On 2018-10-31, John Speth <johnspeth@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 10/31/2018 7:03 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2018-10-31, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote:
I think I need it for 500m link. Is the usual 120R ok?
The terminating resistor value is chosen to match the cable's
impedance.
I have no experience with long wire RS485 applications. I find it
hard
to believe that an appropriately sized resistor is not on the top
of the
list of RS485 best practices. I have solved so many "long" wire
problems by just adding termination resistors (in my case long
wires are
actually short but appear long due to edge speeds).
And don't forget the _bias_ resistors to make sure that the line idles >>>> in the proper state when no drivers are enabled.
Yes, bias resistors are needed, even if modern transceivers seem to
work well even without them (they are fail-safe even when all the
drivers on the bus are disabled).
And yes, a signal ground connection is also _required_. Even though
the signaling is differential, a signal ground is required to make
sure you don't violate the common-mode voltage specs on the
transceivers.
I will have two battery-powered devices, connected by a RS485 link.
In this case, both devices are isolated from mains and Earth.
Do you think it's safe to avoid signal ground connection between the
two devices in this situation?
It's difficult to me to understand what happens to the common-mode
voltage at the receiver, if its power supply (battery) is isolated
from the rest of the world.
I might consider using two resistors in series as the 'terminating
resistor' and to use the mid point as the receiver's ground.
The receiver supposes that the midpoint is in the middle between the
supplies to it (typically at 2.5 V). The differential signal is one line
at 5 V and the other at 0 V.
The bias resistors are still necessary to handle an idle line.
On 2018-11-02, pozz <pozzugno@gmail.com> wrote:
I will have two battery-powered devices, connected by a RS485
link. In this case, both devices are isolated from mains and Earth.
Do you think it's safe to avoid signal ground connection between the
two devices in this situation?
Yes, it's "safe" (nothing's going to melt or burst into flames and
kill people). No, I wouldn't depend on it working reliably (though it >probably will).
It's difficult to me to understand what happens to the common-mode
voltage at the receiver, if its power supply (battery) is isolated from
the rest of the world.
There will be some sort of current leakage that will cause the the
signal ground to "float" to some voltage relative to the two signal
wires, but it's pretty difficult to predict exactly what happens.
It's far easier to understand what happens when you _do_ have a signal
ground connection.
The bias resistors are still necessary to handle an idle line.
On 2018-11-02 Tauno Voipio wrote in comp.arch.embedded:
[...]
The bias resistors are still necessary to handle an idle line.
With "fail safe" receivers, a termination resistor alone will
keep the differential voltage low enough for the receiver to see
'idle'. But if ypou can ad bias, why not do it?
Why is Pozz trying to do this without termination?
On RS485, use termination! Never had trouble with termination,
have had trouble without.
Just remembered an occasion where I had to source a resistor in a
remote location with no electronics shop anywhere nearby. And then
climb a 70m ladder to install it. Then you really wonder why they
originally did not install a termination resistor. :-(
On Fri, 02 Nov 2018 23:57:19 +0100, Stef <stef33d@yahooI-N-V-A-L-I-D.com.invalid> wrote:
On 2018-11-02 Tauno Voipio wrote in comp.arch.embedded:
[...]
The bias resistors are still necessary to handle an idle line.
With "fail safe" receivers, a termination resistor alone will
keep the differential voltage low enough for the receiver to see
'idle'. But if ypou can ad bias, why not do it?
Why is Pozz trying to do this without termination?
On RS485, use termination! Never had trouble with termination,
have had trouble without.
The only case I can understand is power consumption especially in
battery powered systems. There is quite lot power dissipated in the termination resistor and in drivers. This is a real problem with
RS-422 in which the transmitters are always active in idle Mark state.
On 02/11/2018 23:18, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Fri, 02 Nov 2018 23:57:19 +0100, Stef
<stef33d@yahooI-N-V-A-L-I-D.com.invalid> wrote:
On 2018-11-02 Tauno Voipio wrote in comp.arch.embedded:
[...]
The bias resistors are still necessary to handle an idle line.
With "fail safe" receivers, a termination resistor alone will
keep the differential voltage low enough for the receiver to see
'idle'. But if ypou can ad bias, why not do it?
Why is Pozz trying to do this without termination?
On RS485, use termination! Never had trouble with termination,
have had trouble without.
The only case I can understand is power consumption especially in
battery powered systems. There is quite lot power dissipated in the
termination resistor and in drivers. This is a real problem with
RS-422 in which the transmitters are always active in idle Mark state.
Then why not use series termination as used in all low power systems
I've ever come across?
On 11/3/18 3:05 PM, Mike Perkins wrote:
On 02/11/2018 23:18, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Fri, 02 Nov 2018 23:57:19 +0100, Stef
<stef33d@yahooI-N-V-A-L-I-D.com.invalid> wrote:
On 2018-11-02 Tauno Voipio wrote in comp.arch.embedded:
[...]
The bias resistors are still necessary to handle an idle line.
With "fail safe" receivers, a termination resistor alone will
keep the differential voltage low enough for the receiver to see
'idle'. But if ypou can ad bias, why not do it?
Why is Pozz trying to do this without termination?
On RS485, use termination! Never had trouble with termination,
have had trouble without.
The only case I can understand is power consumption especially in
battery powered systems. There is quite lot power dissipated in the
termination resistor and in drivers. This is a real problem with
RS-422 in which the transmitters are always active in idle Mark state.
Then why not use series termination as used in all low power systems
I've ever come across?
Series termination is really only appropriate for a point-to-point
system (one driver, one receiver) as it is based on the signal going to
half level until it reaches the far end when the reflection makes it
become full strength, and then the reflection comes back to the driving
end and the termination keeps it from bouncing back, so middle points
see 1/2 levels for a period until the reflection comes back.
On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 5:36:33 PM UTC-4, Richard Damon wrote:
On 11/3/18 3:05 PM, Mike Perkins wrote:
On 02/11/2018 23:18, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Fri, 02 Nov 2018 23:57:19 +0100, Stef
<stef33d@yahooI-N-V-A-L-I-D.com.invalid> wrote:
On 2018-11-02 Tauno Voipio wrote in comp.arch.embedded:
[...]
The bias resistors are still necessary to handle an idle line.
With "fail safe" receivers, a termination resistor alone will
keep the differential voltage low enough for the receiver to see
'idle'. But if ypou can ad bias, why not do it?
Why is Pozz trying to do this without termination?
On RS485, use termination! Never had trouble with termination,
have had trouble without.
The only case I can understand is power consumption especially in
battery powered systems. There is quite lot power dissipated in the
termination resistor and in drivers. This is a real problem with
RS-422 in which the transmitters are always active in idle Mark state.
Then why not use series termination as used in all low power systems
I've ever come across?
Series termination is really only appropriate for a point-to-point
system (one driver, one receiver) as it is based on the signal going to
half level until it reaches the far end when the reflection makes it
become full strength, and then the reflection comes back to the driving
end and the termination keeps it from bouncing back, so middle points
see 1/2 levels for a period until the reflection comes back.
With parallel termination doesn't every point see a significantly lower level all the time? The drivers aren't voltage sources, they still have significant series resistance, no?
Rick C.
On 2018-11-02 Tauno Voipio wrote in comp.arch.embedded:
[...]
The bias resistors are still necessary to handle an idle line.
With "fail safe" receivers, a termination resistor alone will
keep the differential voltage low enough for the receiver to see
'idle'. But if ypou can ad bias, why not do it?
Why is Pozz trying to do this without termination?
On RS485, use termination! Never had trouble with termination,
have had trouble without.
Just remembered an occasion where I had to source a resistor in a--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114
remote location with no electronics shop anywhere nearby. And then
climb a 70m ladder to install it. Then you really wonder why they
originally did not install a termination resistor. :-(
Il 02/11/2018 23:57, Stef ha scritto:
On 2018-11-02 Tauno Voipio wrote in comp.arch.embedded:
[...]
The bias resistors are still necessary to handle an idle line.
With "fail safe" receivers, a termination resistor alone will
keep the differential voltage low enough for the receiver to see
'idle'. But if ypou can ad bias, why not do it?
Why is Pozz trying to do this without termination?
On RS485, use termination! Never had trouble with termination,
have had trouble without.
I try to clarify my questions on termination resistors.
I can really use them. The higher power dissipation is interesting in my battery-powered application, but I think I will have enough energy. So
this isn't a problem.
I will use a termination resistor on both sides. My concerns were on the resistor correct value. If I need a termination, I need to use a correct resistor value. Is it critical?
The other problem with signal ground, I know it is better to connect it together with A and B. However it would be much more simple and cheap to
use a simple couple instead of a full CAT5E cable.
Just remembered an occasion where I had to source a resistor in a
remote location with no electronics shop anywhere nearby. And then
climb a 70m ladder to install it. Then you really wonder why they
originally did not install a termination resistor. :-(
Il 02/11/2018 23:57, Stef ha scritto:
On 2018-11-02 Tauno Voipio wrote in comp.arch.embedded:
[...]
The bias resistors are still necessary to handle an idle line.
With "fail safe" receivers, a termination resistor alone will
keep the differential voltage low enough for the receiver to see
'idle'. But if ypou can ad bias, why not do it?
Why is Pozz trying to do this without termination?
On RS485, use termination! Never had trouble with termination,
have had trouble without.
I try to clarify my questions on termination resistors.
I can really use them. The higher power dissipation is interesting in my battery-powered application, but I think I will have enough energy. So
this isn't a problem.
I will use a termination resistor on both sides. My concerns were on the resistor correct value. If I need a termination, I need to use a correct resistor value. Is it critical?
The other problem with signal ground, I know it is better to connect it together with A and B. However it would be much more simple and cheap to
use a simple couple instead of a full CAT5E cable.
Just remembered an occasion where I had to source a resistor in a
remote location with no electronics shop anywhere nearby. And then
climb a 70m ladder to install it. Then you really wonder why they
originally did not install a termination resistor. :-(
I'd like to replace an electrical cable with a fiber cable, mainly for electromagnetic noise immunity and long distance (I need to reach 500m).I have converted from RS232/RS422/RS485 to single-mode fiber over tens of kilometers. In fact I had that much bandwidth for RS232 that I would just create virtual wires from the 8 signals so baud rate etc wasn't important. What changed on one end would change on the other. For megabaud RS485 rates though I would buffer the data and send it in high speed packets to reduce latency and also allows for control signals.
The bitrate will be very low: 9600bps is ok.
I need to keep the cost low as possible.
I never used fiber cables before. In similar applications I used RS485 transceivers connected to the UART peripheral of an MCU.
I think I need a fiber optic cable transceiver, but I don't know what to search and how to interconnect with an MCU.
Any help?
Isolation (solid-state) and 2-wire is better but over long distances you need lightning protection too, and I use combinations of transzorbs, ferrite beads, polyfuses, and miniature gas discharge tube protection and in these cases there is not a ground, but there is a very good earth.
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,064 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 153:02:41 |
| Calls: | 13,691 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 186,936 |
| D/L today: |
2,525 files (731M bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,411,053 |