Hacker News

new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

3pt14159 on Nov 16, 2018 | parent | context | favorite | on: International System of Units overhauled in histor...
This is probably the dumbest thing I'll type on HN.
In university I just gave up trying to understand why we even needed the Avogadro constant / mole as a fundamental constant. It still confuses
me. Why have a difference between molar mass and mass? Why couldn't it just be "1" and everything else change around it?

jcranmer on Nov 16, 2018 | next [–]

Understanding mass in molar terms is necessary to do a lot of chemistry correctly. The mole is effectively a count of the number of molecules
kicking about, although the count is large enough that terms like "quadrillion" don't cut it. (One mole is about 600 sextillion molecules). Knowing
how many molecules are around lets you actually compute how much stuff can react in a given chemical environment, and other aspects of
chemistry end up being pretty related to molecule counts. Vanilla mass doesn't cut it since an atom of iodine weighs about 6.6 times that of
fluorine but can still only react with one other molecule.
The flip side is that the molecular count is less useful to us in the everyday world. We can gauge the weight of a kilogram much more than we
can gauge a septillion molecules. And if we're trying to figure out how much stuff a shelf can hold before it collapses, it's the weight that
matters, not the actual molecular count. (Note for pedants: in the familiar environment of Earth's surface, mass and weight can be treated as
the same quantity in most cases.)
So mass and molecular count are both very important quantities that have importance in different fields of science, and they don't have a trivial
relationship to each other. Avogadro's constant and molar mass is a way to express their relationship.

jackpirate on Nov 16, 2018 | parent | next [–]

I think the GP is making the claim that Avogadro's constant should be 1 (effectively eliminating it), not that there's no need to count
molecules.

jcranmer on Nov 16, 2018 | root | parent | next [–]

Avogadro's constant is not itself a heavily-used value in chemistry. Its derivation is obvious if you think in a different way:
You need to convert from mass to numbers of molecules, which means you need to divide it by the mass of a molecule. The
mass of a molecule is determined by the sum of the weights of each of the atoms, themselves the weights of their constituent
nucleons [1]. If you fix the weight of a nucleon to be 1 (that is, we measure in daltons), then computing the weight of a molecule
such as glucose (aka C₆H₁₂O₆) in daltons is a trivial formula. All you need is a periodic table that lists atomic weights, which is
every copy you find a chemist using. It's worth noting that the resulting molecular weights are going to be independent of
whatever measuring system you want to use [2], whether it be grams, ounces, alien flits, what have you.
Now you need to convert the mass of your substance into a count of "stuff-loads" of molecules. The simplest and most idiotic
thing to do is to define a "stuff-load" to be the amount of molecules in a unit mass if it weighs 1 dalton--in other words, you make
this formula be exactly one. In SI, the unit mass for this equation is grams and the "stuff-load" is the mole. If we were using US
ounces as the unit mass, we'd define an ounce-mole and use that instead of SI moles.
Put another way: we define a mole such that the constant in the computation of moles from molecular weight and mass is
exactly 1. Avogrado's constant itself is merely the inverse of the mass of a nucleon when expressed in grams.
[1] Okay, there's a lot more that goes on into the computation of mass. In terms of the mathematical error, though, other sources
of error (e.g., wrong isotopic ratio) are going to matter before these come up.
[2] Up to the slight adjustment (about ±1%) of what you consider the weight of a nucleon to actually be.

maccam94 on Nov 16, 2018 | root | parent | prev | next [–]

An Avogadro's constant number of molecules is one mole. One mole of hydrogen has much less mass than one mole of iron.
You have to choose an arbitrary mass of a single element as the base quantity. Hydrogen might be the best theoretically, it's just
a proton and an electron, but it is tricky to work with because it's a gas at room temperature. So instead the mole has been
defined as the number of molecules in a specific mass of carbon-12.

mbreese on Nov 16, 2018 | root | parent | next [–]

I think this is exactly the rationale. But, from a more practical perspective...
If instead of g/mol, we referred to molecules/g -- we would end up populating tables and charts with really big numbers.
This would make lookup tables hard to read, difficult to publish, and hard to work with. Imagine if you had to do math
with a bunch of 10^23 exponents all of the time.
Instead, it was agreed to effectively pull out a constant value from each of those to make the math significantly easier.
Now, instead of dealing with a lot of big numbers, all of the lookup tables could now list smaller g/mol values. And we
would be left with just the one single large (Avogadro's) number in the equations.
Honestly, we don't need a set mole constant, but it makes chemistry significantly easier to do so. Unlike the other
constants mentioned in the OP, Avogadro's number is completely arbitrary. It could be '1' as the parent suggested, except
then it makes the rest of the math more difficult.
Even for this SI overhaul, we didn't really even need to redefine the mole, except for the fact that it was previously defined
in terms of the old kg. This was just "fixing a glitch".
thaumasiotes on Nov 16, 2018 | root | parent | next [–]
> Even for this SI overhaul, we didn't really even need to redefine the mole, except for the fact that it was
previously defined in terms of the old kg. This was just "fixing a glitch".
I came to complain about the article calling the mole a "base unit of the SI", and this seems like an appropriate
thread.
Why is the mole a defined unit at all? As far as I understand things, "one mole" is the same thing as Avogadro's
number -- neither can be a unit, because they're both dimensionless constants (well, they're both one and the
same dimensionless constant). Applying actual units, "one mole of water molecules" is the same thing as
"Avogadro's number of water molecules". Avogadro's number, and therefore the mole, is the conversion factor
between atomic mass units and grams. Similarly, 3 is the conversion factor between feet and yards, but nobody
thinks 3 is a fundamental base unit of the imperial system. The foot is a base unit of the imperial system,
measuring length, the yard is a non-base unit also measuring length, and 3 is a number with no special
relationship to the system at all. It would be total nonsense to say that yards are defined by reference to 3. How is
Avogadro's number different?
Wouldn't "fixing the glitch" be abandoning the idea of calling the mole a unit in the first place?

int_19h on Nov 17, 2018 | root | parent | next [–]

The new definition of mole is exactly that - it's just 6.02214076×10^23 items of whatever, and no longer
depends on kilogram.

thaumasiotes on Nov 17, 2018 | root | parent | next [–]

That's not a base unit, or a unit of any kind. What's it doing in a list of SI base units?

kiriakasis on Nov 17, 2018 | root | parent | next [–]

Or you can say it is the conversion between a gram and a dalton, which is the same but
more complex as it is now intertwined with the gram

thaumasiotes on Nov 17, 2018 | root | parent | next [–]

I already said exactly that:
>>> Avogadro's number, and therefore the mole, is the conversion factor between
atomic mass units and grams.
But that doesn't intertwine anything with grams. I went on to say
>>> Similarly, 3 is the conversion factor between feet and yards, but nobody thinks
3 is a fundamental base unit of the imperial system.
>>> It would be total nonsense to say that yards are defined by reference to 3.

kiriakasis on Nov 17, 2018 | root | parent | prev | next [–]

It is a base unit, a unit for lots of stuff, and it is not dimensionless it is 6*10^23/mol

thaumasiotes on Nov 17, 2018 | root | parent | next [–]

I'm pretty sure the mole is not defined as 6 * 10^23 mol^{-1}.
There is a concept of "the Avogadro constant", which is defined to have units of
mol^{-1} (at least, according to a cited statement on wikipedia), but that is not a
coherent concept -- since mol is dimensionless, mol^{-1} is also dimensionless.
Just look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mole_(unit)#Criticism :
> Since its adoption into the International System of Units in 1971, numerous
criticisms of the concept of the mole as a unit like the metre or the second have
arisen:
> the number of molecules, etc. in a given amount of material is a fixed
dimensionless quantity
> the mole is not a true metric (i.e. measuring) unit
Or look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_mass_unit :
> One unified atomic mass unit is approximately the mass of one nucleon (either a
single proton or neutron) and is numerically equivalent to 1 g/mol.
amu and g are both units of mass, so 1 amu = 1 g/mol is an explicit statement that
mol is dimensionless.
Calling mol a unit won't accomplish anything except corrupting your dimensional
analysis. mol is not analogous to the SI units meter, second, ampere, gram, kelvin,
etc. -- it is analogous to the SI prefixes kilo-, mega-, milli-, micro-, nano-, etc.

thomasahle on Nov 16, 2018 | root | parent | prev | next [–]

 > Imagine if you had to do math with a bunch of 10^23 exponents all of the time.
What if it was just set to 10^24 then? Much easier to remember and serves the same purpose.
If it was 1 it would work too, since the SI system already has a way to deal with large numbers: prefixes. So we
might wrote Ymol for yotta mole = 10^24 mol.

bonzini on Nov 17, 2018 | root | parent | next [–]

Then 1 mol of carbon-12 would weigh 1300 g rather than 12 g and the conversions would be a pain.

Aunche on Nov 19, 2018 | root | parent | prev | next [–]

Why does it need to be based on the mass of an arbitrary molecule? Can't it just be 10^23 or 10^24? Most of the time,
you're going to have to look up constants to convert moles to mass anyways.

filmor on Nov 16, 2018 | root | parent | prev | next [–]

Carbon 12 is being used because that accounts for the nuclear forces which are absent for H-1.

nas on Nov 16, 2018 | root | parent | prev | next [–]

Yeah, I think that's his idea. So, instead of tables of molar mass in g/mol, you would have tables in terms of "amount of
substance"/g. E.g. number of atoms or number of molecules.

zwkrt on Nov 16, 2018 | parent | prev | next [–]

trying to use kg instead of moles when calculating a chemical reaction would be like trying to set up a speed dating event by taking the
weights of all the men and women instead of matching them up pairwise. Sometimes it is much easier to calculate based on scalar
quantity than it is to calculate based on mass.

dfox on Nov 17, 2018 | root | parent | next [–]

The argument there is that avogadro's constant is just an arbitrary number and mol is not an unit, but weird case of SI prefix.
On the other hand it is fundamental-ish constant, because it is defined as arbitrarily scaled result of inherently uncertain
measurement. And the new definition of kilogram had significantly increased the attainable certainity of such measurement (to
the extent that it is uncertain due to practical issues, not by definition). The other proposed replicable definition of kilogram (ie.
mass of Si monocrystal wih particular geometry) would fix the definition of mole as some known and defined number, but would
be significantly harder to replicate (because it would define how to produce an artifact in contrast to how to directly measure the
mass as the ratified definition does)

leni536 on Nov 16, 2018 | prev | next [–]

My understanding is that the cause is error propagation. We can measure certain kind of masses really accurately in unified atomic mass unit.
With better relative precision than the Avogadro constant. But if we used kilograms to write down these quantities then they would carry the
error of the Avogadro constant needlessly.
Edit: I think your question boils down to "Why do we have two separate units for mass, u and kg, connected by the Avogadro constant?" Most
answers dismiss your original question as Avogadro constant is not a unit. But u is a unit and it's the point why we have this constant.
Edit2: To further emphasize my point look at the mass of neutron[1]. It's listed both in kg and u. Note the number of decimal places.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

3pt14159 on Nov 16, 2018 | parent | next [–]

Right, I get that, and if anything I feel less dumb now that I've asked it publicly and people seem to think that it's a non-dumb question,
but when talking about fundamental constants I understand there is a practical nature to it all, but just as we have a nano-meter and a
light-year I figured we'd have the same for mass.
Why do I need both kg and u as fundamental constants?
I believe the comments here have answered it. It isn't something weird, like quantum gravity or some such. If I understand everyone
correctly it's just a practical decision we made at some point because we didn't want mass to be in u and that's that.
I feel better about it now.

jessriedel on Nov 16, 2018 | root | parent | next [–]

They aren't fundamental constants, they are fundamental units. The system is ultimately about allowing people to compare
measurements (not describing the universe in abstract), and is only tied to fundamental physical constants where it makes that
more reliable.
That's not a whole answer, but it may be helpful for your thinking.

DoofusOfDeath on Nov 16, 2018 | prev | next [–]

In a meta-sense, I don't think your question is dumb at all.
There's a complicated technical topic which you're still not understanding. There's no indication it's a question you could easily answer yourself,
and you're posting it in a forum of people likely to find the topic interesting, some of whom might give an answer that clicks for you.
Well done, IMHO.
XorNot on Nov 16, 2018 | prev | next [–]
As others have noted, knowing the count of entities (note: not atoms, entities - i.e. it can also be molecules) in relation to actual mass is very
useful for the physical sciences - at a molecular level the quantities of molecules and atoms interacting matter, not their masses - but mass is
the unit I do experiments with.
EDIT: A simple example would be if you were trying to make water - H2O, from hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2). The molar ratio is 2:1 - but in
doing a practical synthesis, that doesn't tell me how much mass/volume of gases to actually mix up. Avogadro's number and molar mass is
what I need to turn those into practical units to work with.

aylmao on Nov 16, 2018 | parent | next [–]

I think what the commenter is referring to is why use Avogadro's number instead of say, just Sextillions or Septillions.

XorNot on Nov 17, 2018 | root | parent | next [–]

I mean that really comes back to the "practical units" thing (and that chemists were the ones doing the work) - a kilogram of
anything in chemistry is a huge amount, whereas a gram is about right to make "a lot" of something (in synthesis research
people get excited about gram-scale synthetic yields).
So it's pretty much chosen to get integer-ish units with common things you work with like carbon - i.e. 1 mole of carbon of is ~12
grams.

aylmao on Nov 19, 2018 | root | parent | next [–]

Yeah, that makes sense (:

Zarel on Nov 16, 2018 | prev | next [–]

It's not a fundamental constant.
> the Avogadro number was initially defined by Jean Baptiste Perrin as the number of atoms in one gram-molecule of atomic hydrogen, meaning
one gram of hydrogen. (from Wikipedia)
(It's since been refined to be 12 grams of carbon-12.)
So a mole is defined to be approximately one gram worth of protons and neutrons. We use it because grams are a significantly easier unit of
mass for humans to work with, than like individual particles.

garmaine on Nov 16, 2018 | parent | next [–]

Read the OP. It is now a fundamental constant. (But you’re right if you’re referring to the status quo before).

Zarel on Nov 17, 2018 | root | parent | next [–]

No, it's not. Avogadro's number is a constant, but it's not fundamental - the only difference is that it's defined in terms of
fundamental constants (namely, the Planck constant) now. It's still an arbitrary number defined in terms of the mass of a gram.

garmaine on Nov 17, 2018 | root | parent | next [–]

Nope, it is fixed to be N_A = 602,214,076,000,000,000,000,000 exactly (6.02214076x10^23 to units precision).
It used to be the case that the mole was an experimental value equal to the number of atoms in a certain mass of a
certain something. That is no longer the case with this revision. It is a fixed, never changing integer constant.
This does mean that 1 mole of carbon-12 is no longer exactly 12 grams. But it is approximately 12.0000000 grams,
which is within the best we can experimentally measure today, so nothing changes in practice as a result of this update
except first chapter of an introductory chemistry textbook (good excuse to push out a 9th edition for $250!).
Therefore it is accurate to say now that whereas before the Avogadro's number was experimentally determined based
the exact expressed mass of a carbon-12 atom relative to a platinum-iridium cylinder in Paris (the old kg), it is now the
case that the expressed mass of the carbon-12 atom must be measured relative to the a kg definition based on Planck's
constant.
(I say "expressed mass" because this situation is a little confusing... I'm talking about the numbers we write down
expressing the mass as a multiple of some standard kilogram. That reference mass changed, not the actual inertial
mass.)
EDIT: Or you can just read the draft of the agreement that was voted on. The definitions are on the first page:
https://www.bipm.org/utils/en/pdf/CGPM/Draft-Resolution-A-EN...

Zarel on Nov 17, 2018 | root | parent | next [–]

No, that's not the part we disagree about. Yes, I know, Avogadro's number is a fixed constant now. It's not a
_fundamental constant_:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_constant
A fundamental constant isn't just any fixed constant. It's specifically a constant that describes a fundamental
property of the universe.
For instance, c describes the speed of light in a vacuum, and is a fundamental physical property of the universe.
 Avogadro's constant isn't the same thing. It's just a number that humans decided would be useful. We could have
fixed it to any other number; there's nothing fundamental about the number ~6.022e23.

garmaine on Nov 17, 2018 | root | parent | next [–]

Fair enough. I was using a different definition, but arguing over definitions isn't a good use of time :)

madhadron on Nov 16, 2018 | prev | next [–]

Historically, the mole predates the acceptance of atomic theory. Stoichiometry of various reactions let you work out that there was some mass
of oxygen that would entirely react with some mass of carbon to form carbon monoxide. They didn't have the same masses, but the relative
amounts for each element were constant (or small integer multiples, such as twice as much oxygen to carbon for CO_2).
So Dalton took the lightest one, hydrogen, and defined a mole as the stoichiometric amount equivalent to that in 1g of hydrogen. Looked at that
way, it's a pretty solid choice.

Koshkin on Nov 16, 2018 | prev | next [–]

In chemistry, the molar “mass” plays a more important role than the mass proper. Why has its unit not been chosen to be equal to 1? For the
same reason as why the gram is not defined to be the mass of, say, proton. (Chemistry doesn’t normally deal with single molecules.)

jjjensen90 on Nov 16, 2018 | prev | next [–]

In my opinion it is because a mole is a numerical amount of atoms vs the mass of the substance, so it makes reactions, formulas, and
measurements easier to determine. Avogadro's number is useful just as a baseline to use (number of carbon-12 atoms in 12 grams of carbon-
12), like there are 12 inches in a foot or 100 centimeters in a meter...

out_of_protocol on Nov 16, 2018 | parent | next [–]

... except if you take 6 two-inches you'll see something different than 12 one-inches. Our universe is weird. Defect of mass and stuff

amptorn on Nov 16, 2018 | prev | next [–]

I don't believe the Avogadro constant needs to be an SI unit. It's like having 12 as an SI unit, or a million, or 1. Sure, it's a useful constant scaling
factor, but it doesn't need to be canonized at the heart of the SI system. It doesn't actually express anything fundamental about how we
measure our universe.
And if nothing else, it can be derived: a mole is the number of atoms in a kilogram of carbon-12. Done.

thomasahle on Nov 16, 2018 | parent | next [–]

> And if nothing else, it can be derived: a mole is the number of atoms in a kilogram of carbon-12. Done.
No longer is. Not quite.

AstralStorm on Nov 16, 2018 | prev | next [–]

For the same reason count is not a mass.
Avogadro constant is a count relating number of specified atoms to mass.

3pt14159 on Nov 16, 2018 | parent | next [–]

Isn't this something essentially tautological though?
When we discuss the mass of a neutron and we say "one neutron weighs one u" then we discuss the mass of an electron and we say
"one electron is 5.4858×10−4 u" and "one proton is 1.0072764 u" then we add them up and say "one hydrogen atom is 1.00794 u while
one helium atom is 4.002602" (forgetting some complications for a moment) are we not just summing likes?
Or is it just that since mass is defined in Planck and time / distance terms that we need to relate it to counts of things? Theres a gap
there I don't understand. Can we not just say "we measured a proton's mass and it is u"? Am I making a jump there?

da_chicken on Nov 16, 2018 | prev | next [–]

The one that made it click for me as incredibly useful was Avogrado's Law (now part of the Ideal Gas Law):
> Equal volumes of all gases, at the same temperature and pressure, have the same number of molecules.
This law, for example, explains why hot air rises. Take two equal quanties of the same gas at the same pressure. They will have the same
volume. Now, heat one quantity of gas. By this law, that gas will have a larger volume at the same pressure. Because it has the same amount of
mass distributed over a larger volume, it must be less dense. Therefore, it rises.

effie on Nov 16, 2018 | parent | next [–]

> By this law, that gas will have a larger volume at the same pressure.
It will have larger volume, but that is not implied by Avogadro's law. That law is about the surprising property of all gases: no matter the
chemical nature of the gases, if they all have same T and P, they all will have same number of molecules per unit volume.

tantalor on Nov 16, 2018 | parent | prev | next [–]

> By this law, that gas will have a larger volume
The law as quoted doesn't say what happens when the temperature change. Maybe it gets more dense? Be more specific.
Jedi72 on Nov 16, 2018 | prev | next [–]
No I agree, it seems stupid. What we did is take a block of metal and call it a kilogram, figure out how many atoms are in 1/1000 of it (a gram)
and call that a mole. What we should do is redefine the gram to be whatever 1e10 atoms of Hydrogen weighs, or something similar. When I read
the headline I thought thats what they did, and I admit first reaction was "oh god I'm going to be dealing with conversions and associated errors
for the rest of my life".
Disclaimer: I took high school chem, that's it.

pbhjpbhj on Nov 16, 2018 | parent | next [–]

1E10 atoms of hydrogen isn't a fixed mass.
Cf binding energy, electron excitation, E=mc^2 (the m there is m0, the rest mass; the full equation includes the momentum and
"relativistic mass").
The situation is actually worse for hydrogen (cf hydrogen bonding).
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.htm... is a pretty coherent and readable approach to the subject.

bonzini on Nov 17, 2018 | parent | prev | next [–]

> What we should do is redefine the gram to be whatever 1e10 atoms of Hydrogen weighs, or something similar.
That was actually an alternative proposal for redefining the kg. The kg would have been 1000/28 the weight of a mole of silicon-28; you
could build a sample by counting 6.023x10^26/28 atoms of silicon-28, and making a sphere out of them.
Initially the watt balance seemed to be less precise than atom counting, but then it was improved to a point where defining the kg on top
of the mole became less convenient than the definition they are adopting now.

pfortuny on Nov 16, 2018 | prev | next [–]

Simplistically: two moles of protons+two moles of neutrons do not weight the same as a mole of nuclei of He-4, as far as I know.

jimktrains2 on Nov 16, 2018 | prev | next [–]

Stoichiometry.
We need a means of converting mass to number of atoms so that we can predict how much mass of a specific product will be formed, what
the limiting reägent will be, &c.
It also helps to define concentrations based on number of moles in a L of solvent (Molarity vs g/L) for the same reason.

j1vms on Nov 16, 2018 | prev | next [–]

> why we even needed the Avogadro constant / mole as a fundamental constant(...?)
It serves as a link between human-scale and atomic-scale observations, classically needed for chemistry performed on Earth by humans. This
link must exist, as others mentioned, for stoichiometric calculations (e.g. air/gas mixture in a internal combustion engine). For much of modern
scientific history, it was deemed useful to scale into an easily eye-visible human scale (the gram). [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avogadro_constant#General_role...

aaronblohowiak on Nov 16, 2018 | prev | next [–]

The candela is a real abomination of a unit.

ben509 on Nov 16, 2018 | parent | next [–]

Absolutely, it's candelous that it's part of the standard.

grogers on Nov 17, 2018 | prev | next [–]

The number of things in a mole is arbitrary. It's a dimensionless unit. However, since many things are already measured in moles in chemistry,
there's no real reason to remove it. Dealing with numbers on a more practical macroscopic scale is probably more convenient than dealing with
large powers of 10.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mole_(unit)#Criticism

garmaine on Nov 16, 2018 | prev | next [–]

Well, now you could do that. At least you could next March when these rules take affect. But before you could not because the conversion
between atomic mass and SI/kg mass depended on that experimental constant. Two mass systems were required because we couldn’t conver
between them with atomic accuracy.

FPGAhacker on Nov 16, 2018 | prev | next [–]

I thought it was just a ratio. Mass per mole. I admit I have never used this in my day to day life and college was 20 years ago. So maybe I am
clueless.

tetha on Nov 16, 2018 | parent | next [–]

Nah, I think that's just it. It's easier to write down certain calculations in mole in a chemical context, because you're concerned with
atoms reacting with each other. You don't have 12 grams of carbon and 4 grams of hydrogen, but 1 mole of carbon and 4 mole of
 hydrogen.

weinzierl on Nov 16, 2018 | prev | next [–]

leni536’s answer is the real answer but I’ll give you another more meta one:
Because the SI system is redundant anyway one constant more or less doesn’t matter much.
If you want a truly minimalist system you can use CGM or MKS.

adamnemecek on Nov 16, 2018 | prev | next [–]

If it makes you feel any better, I've asked the same thing before.

namirez on Nov 16, 2018 | prev [–]

For the same reason that we use both temperature and energy and find them both useful. We can talk of the energy of an electron. On the other
hand, temperature, is an statistical property defined for many particles.
Using mole (based on Avogadro constant) makes it easier to do statistical mechanics, but it's not a microscopic property like mass.

Applications are open for YC Winter 2023

Guidelines
| FAQ
| Lists
| API
| Security
| Legal
| Apply to YC
| Contact

Search: