Jump to content

AR 13105


Philalethes

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Newbie said:

Hi Mike I thought it was odd, as I explained to Min, that 3105 with a higher expectation for C flares would have a lower chance of M flares compared to 3107. My thinking is that 3107 would have greater chance of both. Just my thought on it.

Understood. I was just suggesting that if a spot is located in an area with higher magnetic field, and has a similar configuration to a spot in an area of lower magnetic field, it might produce relatively more M flares, and fewer C flares. Hope that makes sense.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, MinYoongi said:

Are those percentages from the synoptic map from 5UTC? Thank you! ❤️ 

From SWPC, yes, they are Min, and now we have a C7 flare from 3105! :)

35 minutes ago, MinYoongi said:

According to ASSA 3105 is Beta Gamma. What do you say? ( i neither trust noaa nor Assa (cuz its just an algorythm) )

Yes I would call it Beta Gamma. I would like to see more development in the negative polarity areas but it's mixed enough for me.

N.

38 minutes ago, 3gMike said:

Understood. I was just suggesting that if a spot is located in an area with higher magnetic field, and has a similar configuration to a spot in an area of lower magnetic field, it might produce relatively more M flares, and fewer C flares. Hope that makes sense.

Totally agree with you here Mike, I think the new probabilities SWPC has provided are more realistic :)

N.

My reasoning is that it has to pass through C class before it becomes M. I guess its like cricket. You don't get a century until you reach 100. If you are out on 99, it's counted as a 50. Make sense :)

N.

Now I've probably confused most of the forum who do not understand cricket - sorry!

Edited by Newbie
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Newbie said:

 

Yes I would call it Beta Gamma. I would like to see more development in the negative polarity areas but it's mixed enough for me.

N.

Totally agree with you here Mike, I think the new probabilities SWPC has provided are more realistic :)

 

Thanks for your opinion/expertise!

I dont know if it can be really called Beta-Gamma since the mixing is there in the Magnetogram but looking at the Intensigram theres hardly umbra and just penumbra (if at all). I dont know if there have to be visible spots to it, to be called gamma.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Newbie said:

My reasoning is that it has to pass through C class before it becomes M. I guess its like cricket. You don't get a century until you reach 100. If you are out on 99, it's counted as a 50. Make sense

Yes, I understand what you are saying, but if there is more energy in the magnetic field then more flares are likely to reach M class, and therefore are not counted in the C category. I have to say that I have not examined past data to see if this can be verified.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, 3gMike said:

Yes, I understand what you are saying, but if there is more energy in the magnetic field then more flares are likely to reach M class, and therefore are not counted in the C category. I have to say that I have not examined past data to see if this can be verified.

Yes Mike I do understand what you are saying too I don't disagree with you.  :)

N.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, 3gMike said:

Yes, I understand what you are saying, but if there is more energy in the magnetic field then more flares are likely to reach M class, and therefore are not counted in the C category. I have to say that I have not examined past data to see if this can be verified.

Sorry 3g, Not!  The chances of a C flare are always going to be more than an M flare, which is always going to be more likely than an X flare, for any given region for a 24 hour forecast.

Also note, while they make the percentages add up to 100%, that's not reality. You could have a 70% chance of a C flare, a 40% chance of an M flare and 15% chance of producing an X flare in a forecast for any given region for any given 24 hour forecast.

That doesn't mean there's a 115% chance of a flare, no more than their adjusted values to add up to 100% mean there is a 100% chance of a flare being produced by a region in a forecast period...

it's probably a mistake when some guy at NOAA neglected to adjust the percentages to add to 100...

 

WnAK

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, MinYoongi said:

Thanks for your opinion/expertise!

I dont know if it can be really called Beta-Gamma since the mixing is there in the Magnetogram but looking at the Intensigram theres hardly umbra and just penumbra (if at all). I dont know if there have to be visible spots to it, to be called gamma.

Gamma to me is polarity intermixing. 

N.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MinYoongi said:

Thanks for your opinion/expertise!

I dont know if it can be really called Beta-Gamma since the mixing is there in the Magnetogram but looking at the Intensigram theres hardly umbra and just penumbra (if at all). I dont know if there have to be visible spots to it, to be called gamma.

Hi Min,

Gamma means that you can Not draw a "simple line" (a simple like can have curves, but it can't loop back on itself and it must be a single continuous line.)

When you have mixed polarities, you'll have pores and spots of different polarity within an area where you can't draw a simple line between them.

I would post an example of each, but I'm not privileged enough to post pictures like that and I am not going to waste an hour snd s half makin a picture like I did yesterday, only to be unable to upload it again. (Even though was downloaded from another post and cropped...  different story - no pics, just have to imagine it... 😉

Also keep in mind that, especially  on the limbs, sunspots are not necessarily visible, particularly on the instagram (enhanced, flattened, whatever).  
 I would refer you to Hale, 1922; Dalla, 2008; Maunder, Anne, 1907 - she discovered this phenomenon.

Also, you should  check out "Wang, Zirin, 1991" - pretty cool. Caltech has implemented a ccd system for detection of invisible sunspots, from what I understand - 2020. You can kind most of this if you Google invisible sunspots. The paper by Anne Maunder is a little harder to find...

I know...  I read a lot.

I hope that helps! Sorry, no pictures!

cheers

WnAK

 

 

Hi Min,

Also, last month Ph..B.. posted a couple of pictures where he drew (simple) lines separating the polarities. 
 

in other words, all the (+) stuff is together and (-) stuff is all clumped together in different clumps

lol

Edited by WildWill
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WildWill said:

Sorry 3g, Not!  The chances of a C flare are always going to be more than an M flare, which is always going to be more likely than an X flare, for any given region for a 24 hour forecast.

Hi Will, That does seem to be the case for the forecasts I checked for the April period, when we were getting lots of M flares (remember that?)

1 hour ago, WildWill said:

Also note, while they make the percentages add up to 100%, that's not reality. You could have a 70% chance of a C flare, a 40% chance of an M flare and 15% chance of producing an X flare in a forecast for any given region for any given 24 hour forecast.

No, they do not normally make them add up to 100%. I found examples like 95%C, 60%M, 20%X - in fact that is the highest set I found. In the same period the lowest I found was 20%C, 5%M, 1%X.

Yes, it probably was just an error.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 3gMike said:

Hi Will, That does seem to be the case for the forecasts I checked for the April period, when we were getting lots of M flares (remember that?)

No, they do not normally make them add up to 100%. I found examples like 95%C, 60%M, 20%X - in fact that is the highest set I found. In the same period the lowest I found was 20%C, 5%M, 1%X.

Yes, it probably was just an error.

My mistake, they don't usually add to 100, my bad, nice catch. I was thinking of something else. Thanks. 

WnAK

Edited by WildWill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, WildWill said:

Hi Min,

Gamma means that you can Not draw a "simple line" (a simple like can have curves, but it can't loop back on itself and it must be a single continuous line.)

When you have mixed polarities, you'll have pores and spots of different polarity within an area where you can't draw a simple line between them.

I would post an example of each, but I'm not privileged enough to post pictures like that and I am not going to waste an hour snd s half makin a picture like I did yesterday, only to be unable to upload it again. (Even though was downloaded from another post and cropped...  different story - no pics, just have to imagine it... 😉

Also keep in mind that, especially  on the limbs, sunspots are not necessarily visible, particularly on the instagram (enhanced, flattened, whatever).  
 I would refer you to Hale, 1922; Dalla, 2008; Maunder, Anne, 1907 - she discovered this phenomenon.

Also, you should  check out "Wang, Zirin, 1991" - pretty cool. Caltech has implemented a ccd system for detection of invisible sunspots, from what I understand - 2020. You can kind most of this if you Google invisible sunspots. The paper by Anne Maunder is a little harder to find...

I know...  I read a lot.

I hope that helps! Sorry, no pictures!

cheers

WnAK

 

 

Hi Min,

Also, last month Ph..B.. posted a couple of pictures where he drew (simple) lines separating the polarities. 
 

in other words, all the (+) stuff is together and (-) stuff is all clumped together in different clumps

lol

I believe the issue here isn't one of failing to understand what gamma classification refers to in general, but rather what parts to include or not when making that classification, much like in that thread where we discussed dividing the polarities using a line. Here's a current look at 3105:

latest.gif

If one is to only go by the areas with clearly defined umbrae, then there isn't really any mixing at all. Even if one were to include those small negative areas at the top you could make the case that there isn't much mixing.

If on the other hand one is to go more by the polarities in general as Newbie suggested above, then you could make the case both considering the positive area separating those small areas from the main body of the negative spots as well as the negative penumbra clinging to the left of the positive spots.

I don't believe there is any strict definition with regards to this, making it hard to give a definitive statement about whether or not a region should be classified as gamma or not. Until there is some universally accepted programmatic definition there will naturally always be some judgment involved.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Philalethes Bythos said:

I believe the issue here isn't one of failing to understand what gamma classification refers to in general, but rather what parts to include or not when making that classification, much like in that thread where we discussed dividing the polarities using a line. Here's a current look at 3105:

latest.gif

If one is to only go by the areas with clearly defined umbrae, then there isn't really any mixing at all. Even if one were to include those small negative areas at the top you could make the case that there isn't much mixing.

If on the other hand one is to go more by the polarities in general as Newbie suggested above, then you could make the case both considering the positive area separating those small areas from the main body of the negative spots as well as the negative penumbra clinging to the left of the positive spots.

I don't believe there is any strict definition with regards to this, making it hard to give a definitive statement about whether or not a region should be classified as gamma or not. Until there is some universally accepted programmatic definition there will naturally always be some judgment involved.

Kinda. The USAF and NOAA go through a long and tedious process in determine the complexity of an AR. It involves checking the polarity or each and every tiny spot and pore. They are also measured.  The diameter (or more specifically, the Area) is used to "determine" the intensity.  
Im not sure how much the computer does nowadays for determining intensity of each spot. But, it's still pretty much a very manual process (hence, once a day).

This is done, the diagram is used to determine the complexity (magnetic) of the group. This is done the same way (I am told) essentially  as it's been done since the process was defined (1919, 1925, Hale, Nicholson et all)) by Hale - who is the guy who discovered that sunspots are magnetically active.  It was later revised to include deltas. (Hale as in "Hales Law of Sun-spot Polarity").

The process followed by the Air Force and NOAA are such that anyone trained in the proper methodology will come up with the same answer for whether or not a sunspot group is gamma or not.

However, the determination of deltas is basically an art form. Two people trained in the same process and methods can come up with different answers as to having a delta classification.  Neither one is right or wrong necessarily. 
 

The process (lol) of looking at colorized Magnetograms and instagrams and "eyeballing it" to determine magnetic classification is both crude and unreliable. (Gamma and Delta).
 

While several people seem to be of the (strong and incorrect) opinion that the (non colorized) Magnetogram doesn't tell you anything about delta classification are mistaken.

The non-colorized Magnetogram will not tell you that you have a delta, but it can tell you if you don't.  In other words, it's a test - if the spot passes the test, you go to the next test.

The non-colorized Magnetogram will show a delta as a spot of black surrounded by white, or a spot of white surrounded by black. If'n it don't pass that test, it ain't a delta. Simple as that. If it does pass that test, it may be a delta, ya gotta look at the WL images to make that determination, which is fairly subjective - thus (I have read in numerous places) two "experts" trained the same way can come up with different answers - and because it is subjective, you can't really say unless it doesn't pass the first test I mentioned.  Picking out deltas is an art form.  Determining gamma classes is not.

Here are a few examples to look at: (sorry, I can only post the link and not the images). 
 

https://www.stce.be/educational/classification

Hale-Nicholson classification scheme can be found here:

 

https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1925ApJ....62..270H
 

The first link has some really good examples. The second shows numerous diagrams of groups- which are still used for classification today.

Cheers!

WnAK

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, WildWill said:

Kinda. The USAF and NOAA go through a long and tedious process in determine the complexity of an AR. It involves checking the polarity or each and every tiny spot and pore. They are also measured.  The diameter (or more specifically, the Area) is used to "determine" the intensity.  
Im not sure how much the computer does nowadays for determining intensity of each spot. But, it's still pretty much a very manual process (hence, once a day).

This is done, the diagram is used to determine the complexity (magnetic) of the group. This is done the same way (I am told) essentially  as it's been done since the process was defined (1919, 1925, Hale, Nicholson et all)) by Hale - who is the guy who discovered that sunspots are magnetically active.  It was later revised to include deltas. (Hale as in "Hales Law of Sun-spot Polarity").

The process followed by the Air Force and NOAA are such that anyone trained in the proper methodology will come up with the same answer for whether or not a sunspot group is gamma or not.

However, the determination of deltas is basically an art form. Two people trained in the same process and methods can come up with different answers as to having a delta classification.  Neither one is right or wrong necessarily. 
 

The process (lol) of looking at colorized Magnetograms and instagrams and "eyeballing it" to determine magnetic classification is both crude and unreliable. (Gamma and Delta).
 

While several people seem to be of the (strong and incorrect) opinion that the (non colorized) Magnetogram doesn't tell you anything about delta classification are mistaken.

The non-colorized Magnetogram will not tell you that you have a delta, but it can tell you if you don't.  In other words, it's a test - if the spot passes the test, you go to the next test.

The non-colorized Magnetogram will show a delta as a spot of black surrounded by white, or a spot of white surrounded by black. If'n it don't pass that test, it ain't a delta. Simple as that. If it does pass that test, it may be a delta, ya gotta look at the WL images to make that determination, which is fairly subjective - thus (I have read in numerous places) two "experts" trained the same way can come up with different answers - and because it is subjective, you can't really say unless it doesn't pass the first test I mentioned.  Picking out deltas is an art form.  Determining gamma classes is not.

Here are a few examples to look at: (sorry, I can only post the link and not the images). 
 

https://www.stce.be/educational/classification

Hale-Nicholson classification scheme can be found here:

 

https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1925ApJ....62..270H
 

The first link has some really good examples. The second shows numerous diagrams of groups- which are still used for classification today.

Cheers!

WnAK

 

Well, if such an exact programmatic process of determining what constitutes a gamma does in fact exist, then there would indeed not be any judgment involved (other than the exact determination of that process); it should also be relatively easy to have a computer do the classification in that case.

As for deltas, the criterion of being "surrounded" is not necessarily the case as far as I know; it's generally the case that such spots are indeed deeply enmeshed in the opposite polarity, but if by "surrounded" you mean "completely encircled by" I don't believe that's correct. It seems to me that any area where two sunspots of different polarity share the same penumbra counts as a delta, and this seems to match up with how agencies seem to classify them as such as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Philalethes Bythos said:

Well, if such an exact programmatic process of determining what constitutes a gamma does in fact exist, then there would indeed not be any judgment involved (other than the exact determination of that process); it should also be relatively easy to have a computer do the classification in that case.

As for deltas, the criterion of being "surrounded" is not necessarily the case as far as I know; it's generally the case that such spots are indeed deeply enmeshed in the opposite polarity, but if by "surrounded" you mean "completely encircled by" I don't believe that's correct. It seems to me that any area where two sunspots of different polarity share the same penumbra counts as a delta, and this seems to match up with how agencies seem to classify them as such as well.

Hi PB,

With regards to programmatically determination of gamma configuration, there have been a number of attempts and apparently are a number of issues. I've seen a couple of papers on that very topic, the most recent being 2020, another from 2016. You might wanna  do a little research of your own. So far, to my knowledge, no one has successfully demonstrated the ability to program a computer with the "algorithm" (read process or methodology) currently in use by the authoritative agencies (NOAA & USAF). Keep in mind that I am not saying that one doesn't exist - but if it does, they aren't using it. What's called "AI" - and the advances made in the last decade may make that possible. (I prefer adaptive programming to 'artificial intelligence' which I view as a misnomer) Be that as it may, the process / methodology in use by the Air Force is long, tiring, manual and tedious; however, it is of considerable importance in ensuring frequency management is effective- as FM is mission critical to just about everything that goes on.  I wouldn't expect the Air Force to make a change until they have something tried amd true.  That's the whole reason the Air Force started doing this and continues to "own" this process. Like I said, it's considered mission critical. 
 

As for the delta configuration determination, the definition I have heard over and over is:

Two spots of opposite polarity which share a single penumbra. You can get a delta in several ways, most commonly, a) a spot of opposite polarity "pops up" within the penumbra of a spot of opposite polarity or b) a spot of one polarity gets "pushed" into the penumbra of another spot - to the point where they first spot is contained in/ shares the penumbra of the other spot. Not just pushed halfway in with the second spot sticking half way out with it's own piece of its own penumbra still attached to the back end. There is also a requirement that the spots be separated by no more than 2* (I have also seen the number 2.5* used). 
 

A spot with a single penumbra will have a single polarity.  The delta is that spot of opposite polarity contained within the penumbra is what makes it so magnetically intense and more likely to produce stronger flares. 

Think about it, visualize it. When you have two spots next to each other, no penumbra, yeah, you are gonna see a bit of shear - let one of them grow a penumbra which then contains both, then you have a spot of one polarity surrounded by the opposite polarity, which is gonna make it much much more intense than just being next to it.

29C51D84-EB9A-4528-988C-5B69B072BD44.jpeg.9edcd6903fce1ac70e4c70214880a9a3.jpeg
 

This image was from 3089, and I didn't want to beat a dead horse at the time; However, it is very clear that I can separate the regions of opposite polarity with a simple line - at least around the spots in question.  At least that's what I see. I do see from this that there appears to be some mixing going on around the lead spots and between those and the large blue spots. A couple of those may be deltas, I'm not going to hazard a guess.
 

Unfortunately, none of the deltas are odd numbered problems, so we can't just flip to the back of the book for the answer ;-).  In my investigations around delta's I have learned a couple of things. One is that it is an art form. As I said, two experts who have had the same training and level of experience may disagree and neither is necessarily wrong. (Or right). The other is that we haven't really had any "classic" examples in quite some time. Most of the examples I've seen could go either way when compared with (what I would call classic) examples from the literature. That first link I posted contains a number of really good examples, showing deltas in different configurations. I found it to be quite enlightening. 

You cannot determine the magnetic classification of a (beta, gamma or delta) sunspot (group) without determining the magnetic polarity of every spot (and the extent of its associated penumbra).  And for that, you need the Magnetogram (non colored).  The colored Magnetograms are pretty recent, they weren't around 30 years ago - probably not even 15 years ago. They certainly weren't around in the 60s , when the delta classification was incorporated into the Hale-Nicholson magnetic classification methodology.

Cheers!

WnAK

PS: Sorry about the dissertation ;-).

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, WildWill said:

Hi PB,

With regards to programmatically determination of gamma configuration, there have been a number of attempts and apparently are a number of issues. I've seen a couple of papers on that very topic, the most recent being 2020, another from 2016. You might wanna  do a little research of your own. So far, to my knowledge, no one has successfully demonstrated the ability to program a computer with the "algorithm" (read process or methodology) currently in use by the authoritative agencies (NOAA & USAF). Keep in mind that I am not saying that one doesn't exist - but if it does, they aren't using it. What's called "AI" - and the advances made in the last decade may make that possible. (I prefer adaptive programming to 'artificial intelligence' which I view as a misnomer) Be that as it may, the process / methodology in use by the Air Force is long, tiring, manual and tedious; however, it is of considerable importance in ensuring frequency management is effective- as FM is mission critical to just about everything that goes on.  I wouldn't expect the Air Force to make a change until they have something tried amd true.  That's the whole reason the Air Force started doing this and continues to "own" this process. Like I said, it's considered mission critical. 
 

As for the delta configuration determination, the definition I have heard over and over is:

Two spots of opposite polarity which share a single penumbra. You can get a delta in several ways, most commonly, a) a spot of opposite polarity "pops up" within the penumbra of a spot of opposite polarity or b) a spot of one polarity gets "pushed" into the penumbra of another spot - to the point where they first spot is contained in/ shares the penumbra of the other spot. Not just pushed halfway in with the second spot sticking half way out with it's own piece of its own penumbra still attached to the back end. There is also a requirement that the spots be separated by no more than 2* (I have also seen the number 2.5* used). 
 

A spot with a single penumbra will have a single polarity.  The delta is that spot of opposite polarity contained within the penumbra is what makes it so magnetically intense and more likely to produce stronger flares. 

Think about it, visualize it. When you have two spots next to each other, no penumbra, yeah, you are gonna see a bit of shear - let one of them grow a penumbra which then contains both, then you have a spot of one polarity surrounded by the opposite polarity, which is gonna make it much much more intense than just being next to it.

29C51D84-EB9A-4528-988C-5B69B072BD44.jpeg.9edcd6903fce1ac70e4c70214880a9a3.jpeg
 

This image was from 3089, and I didn't want to beat a dead horse at the time; However, it is very clear that I can separate the regions of opposite polarity with a simple line - at least around the spots in question.  At least that's what I see. I do see from this that there appears to be some mixing going on around the lead spots and between those and the large blue spots. A couple of those may be deltas, I'm not going to hazard a guess.
 

Unfortunately, none of the deltas are odd numbered problems, so we can't just flip to the back of the book for the answer ;-).  In my investigations around delta's I have learned a couple of things. One is that it is an art form. As I said, two experts who have had the same training and level of experience may disagree and neither is necessarily wrong. (Or right). The other is that we haven't really had any "classic" examples in quite some time. Most of the examples I've seen could go either way when compared with (what I would call classic) examples from the literature. That first link I posted contains a number of really good examples, showing deltas in different configurations. I found it to be quite enlightening. 

You cannot determine the magnetic classification of a (beta, gamma or delta) sunspot (group) without determining the magnetic polarity of every spot (and the extent of its associated penumbra).  And for that, you need the Magnetogram (non colored).  The colored Magnetograms are pretty recent, they weren't around 30 years ago - probably not even 15 years ago. They certainly weren't around in the 60s , when the delta classification was incorporated into the Hale-Nicholson magnetic classification methodology.

Cheers!

WnAK

PS: Sorry about the dissertation ;-).

I don't think you quite understand what I mean by a programmatic definition; I'm not referring to actually using a computer program to make such a determination, but to the process you alluded to in your answer above, i.e. a procedure which is so strictly defined that it will yield the exact same answer every time it is performed. The reason I mentioned computers is because such a procedure should in principle be relatively easy to get a computer to perform, freeing up human hands for more worthwhile pursuits.

Also, just as a brief aside, and personally having a master's in computer engineering specializing in AI, it seems to me like you're not that familiar with the subject. The term "adaptive programming" would certainly be an egregious misnomer for the processes commonly denoted as artificial intelligence. That being said, I don't see why you would need AI in this particular case, if the procedure is so strictly defined that humans are simply going through an exactly described process by hand.

As for deltas, I understand by now what you believe about how they are classified, I just don't believe that's correct. I certainly don't believe I have any problems thinking about or visualizing what is being discussed. If what you're saying about delta classification is correct, then not only have I misunderstood, but so does it seem to that most agencies have, since they've classified regions as delta several times lately when I've been paying attention despite your stated criterion not being fulfilled at all.

Lastly, I would definitely object to the notion that you somehow need the non-colorized magnetogram to make such determinations, other than to make the colorized version; after all, the latter is made based on the former, and the polarities are made to match. As mentioned previously, what might be "off" in the colorized version is rather the intensity gradient within a given polarity with respect to the actual underlying spots as seen on the intensitygram due to the orientation of the field lines, but the polarities themselves still match the non-colorized version completely as far as I'm aware.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just by way of providing information Solen has finally called 3105 beta-gamma. A bit late to the party but at least they arrived. TBH I see an overall weakening on the  'gamma' side of things.

Interestingly they have called 3108 the same: BG. Dare I say it I see the potential for a delta spot in that AR.

N.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you also agree to our Terms of Use and our Privacy Policy.