 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Audi Cars / October 2008Magnets on the fuel line intake
I would like to inquire if any Audi drivers in this forum have installed magnets on their fuel line intake. It is an old idea that comes from the second world war when the Brits were putting those on their Hurricanes and Spitfires to boost them up against the german warplanes. The RAF also indicated that they were also acheiving fuel economy. Even the USAF did install them on their Mustang. The germans were putting magnetic rods inside the fuel intake and this would reduce the amount of black fumes coming out of their engine exhausts making them less likely to be seen. There are lots of websites selling them in the UK or Germany, Even Jacques Calvet (former Peugeot-Citroen president) has once said that motors will be improved with proper use of magnetic technology. In some other car forums there is much controversy about these since I have seen writers insulting others abou this issue which I believe is worth gathering facts from the largest amount of trials. My own experience now is that I have installed two magnets from Magnofuel in Germany on the plastic tube before the fuel pump and my car which is an Audi 80 with a 1.9 L TDi engine has seen dramatic acceleration improvements in the low revs. This is important for this car since it was lacking punch and now it is quite decent in ciry traffic. LHR > I would like to inquire if any Audi drivers in this forum have > installed magnets on their fuel line intake. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > LHR Why don't you try them while running on water as fuel? http://www.mnsu.edu/news/read/?paper=topstories&id=old-1086498001 Dan D '04 A4 1.8Tq MT-6 Central NJ USA > I would like to inquire if any Audi drivers in this forum have > installed magnets on their fuel line intake. If such a simple and inexpensive modification actually worked, don't you think cars would come that way from the factory?  SignatureLife is too short to play cheap guitars. > > I would like to inquire if any Audi drivers in this forum have > > installed magnets on their fuel line intake. > > If such a simple and inexpensive modification actually worked, > don't you think cars would come that way from the factory? Exactly. Same with the 200 mpg carburetor, intake 'superchargers', etc.... BTW, I play a cheap guitar and love it..... ;-) Dan D '04 A4 1.8Tq MT-6 Central NJ USA > > I would like to inquire if any Audi drivers in this forum have > > installed magnets on their fuel line intake. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Life is too short to play cheap guitars. As I told you my old Audi has much more punch in the low revs, so it is working. My friend living in front of our house, he has put them on his Toyota Lucida and his Land Rover and he says that he saves on fuel consumption. About milleage, I am making my own tests on long trips now and I will give up the results later when I have done enough to be reliable results. I am a engineering researcher and I can tell you that there are a lot of ideas that are good but for some reasons were never used or each time you talk about them, there is huge lot of uneducated sceptics that make fun of you. I will give you an example. Citroen did put front wheel drive on its main production car (the Traction) in 1935 making them the first company to mass produce a FWD. They offered the best road holding cars of that era and nobdy followed. They would beat an Alfa Romeo or Bentley in the curves easily. Citroen again proposed a cheap front wheel drive with full independant suspensions which was sold at a very cheap price in 1948. the 2 CV. You had to wait until recently when all other car manufacturers followed and commenced building FWD. 30 years later than Citroen. Bests, LHR Life is too short to drive US cars. > I am a engineering researcher and I can tell you that there are a lot > of ideas that are good but for some reasons were never used or each > time you talk about them, there is huge lot of uneducated sceptics > that make fun of you. When I was but a lad, back in 1970 or so, I would spend hours pouring over the J.C. Whitney catalogue, my longing gaze drifting over the tools, the parts, the accessories. One of the things you could get from them was a magnet that clamped around the fuel line, and it was supposed to do all the things you are claiming. It sounded like bullshit to me then, and it sounds like bullshit to me now. I remember the first gas crisis (OPEC? What's an OPEC?) and sitting in line to pick up the ten gallons we were allowed. The auto manufactures, caught flat footed, started building the most ugly cars ever turned loose upon the streets of this fair land. They were smaller, however, and got better mileage in an effort to compete with Datsun and Toyota. One would suspect that if a magnet would have helped with that, magnets would have been installed. I suspect your performance improvements exist largely in your mind. SignatureLife is too short to play cheap guitars. > > I am a engineering researcher and I can tell you that there are a lot > > of ideas that are good but for some reasons were never used or each [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Life is too short to play cheap guitars. Lets try to be Cartesian or rational about these subjects. What you believe is of no interest for people living on facts and scientific thinking. That is the basis of engineering, never take for granted what people believe, it often proves wrong. Example, when a persone drive a car with a small engine with not much torque, they will drive it in the low revs because they feel the engine suffers less since it makes less noise. They then drive the car with almost no torque and risk to damage it. Try to explain that to the average people knowing nothing about cars. What I am trying to do here is to collect facts from people who made tests by themselves and give enough information so we can repeat them. One guy showed a page of researchers who have tried various fuel saving gadgets where they say that nothing works so these results are important but we only see their results but we have no idea of what they tried and which methodology they applied. Then, I do not know if they worked properly and if their results are valid. Double checking others results is part of our academic jobs. And now, if you have not tried magnets on our own Audi, how can you have the honest nerve to say that performance improvements exist largely in my mind. People should not judge each other in that sense. LHR Life is too short to drive US cars. On Aug 27, 6:26 pm, Steve Daniels <sdani...@gorge.net> wrote: > On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 06:47:17 -0700 (PDT), against all advice, > something compelled laurentien <luc.roll...@gmail.com>, to say: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Life is too short to play cheap guitars. Lets try to be Cartesian or rational about these subjects. What you believe is of no interest for people living on facts and scientific thinking. That is the basis of engineering, never take for granted what people believe, it often proves wrong. Example, when a persone drive a car with a small engine with not much torque, they will drive it in the low revs because they feel the engine suffers less since it makes less noise. They then drive the car with almost no torque and risk to damage it. Try to explain that to the average people knowing nothing about cars. What I am trying to do here is to collect facts from people who made tests by themselves and give enough information so we can repeat them. One guy showed a page of researchers who have tried various fuel saving gadgets where they say that nothing works so these results are important but we only see their results but we have no idea of what they tried and which methodology they applied. Then, I do not know if they worked properly and if their results are valid. Double checking others results is part of our academic jobs. And now, if you have not tried magnets on our own Audi, how can you have the honest nerve to say that performance improvements exist largely in my mind. People should not judge each other in that sense. LHR Life is too short to drive US cars. Steve is just here for an argument so do not worry too much over him..... now to really get 10 to 15% more mpg out of your Audi, 1. do not take the revs over 2k where possible. 2. reduce acceleration unless really necessary. 3. keep tyres at correct pressure. 4. polish the bodywork to reduce drag. 5. keep the engine and mechanics in tip top condition. > > I am a engineering researcher and I can tell you that there are a lot > > of ideas that are good but for some reasons were never used or each [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Life is too short to play cheap guitars. By the way, the RAF and USAF did put them on their fighter airplanes during the WWII. LHR > > I am a engineering researcher and I can tell you that there are a lot > > of ideas that are good but for some reasons were never used or each [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > I suspect your performance improvements exist largely in your > mind. Yep, can't quite see how a magnet near the fuel tank, even if it does have an effect on the (non magnetic) fuel, by the time it's got to the engine, any effect must surely be lost. Even stranger that it would also work just as well on both petrol & diesel fuels. As others have said major manufacturers spend millions looking into ways to reduce fuel economy, especially at these times, if it worked, it'd be standard, or at worst they'd offer it as an over priced option. They don't. They've never been scientifically proven, but have been scientficially disproven many times. It's just a few people saying well my car feels faster, and I reckon I'm getting 2mpg more. Probably because they push the pedal harder up the hills, and between time hold back off the gas trying to prove it, and therefore increasing fuel economy anyway. SignatureJon B Above email address IS valid. <http://www.bramley-computers.co.uk/> Apple Laptop Repairs. Well, this argument looks quite rational but can only considered as common sense which cannot be considered as a proof. maybe because it is simple and it does not involve much R+D. In health care, my friends have seen the same, the doctors are only pushed by pharmaceutical companies backed by insurance companies (in the USA where they rule) and NHS bodies (where people believe in public services) to apply very complex medecine that needed ages of work to produce then to solve the problems simply like you can do often it. To justify an overpiced option, you have to explain that it required years of development. But to say that is quite irrational although I have a few friends how can prove it in the health care world. For example, if solar panels were so good, why is it that thay do not cover the whole of Italy or the south of the USA ? It is funny because you see them everywhere in Turkey and theydo run very well. Or another here, the French know how to make a smooth car hold the road very well with classical suspensions, why is it that the big three never could do it on a cheap and simple car where Renault or Peugeot can ? Luc Rolland > > > I am a engineering researcher and I can tell you that there are a lot > > > of ideas that are good but for some reasons were never used or each [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > Well, this argument looks quite rational but can only considered as > common sense which cannot be considered as a proof. True enough. Tell us, Mr. Engineering Researcher, do you have data past what you feel in your butt when you mash the gas pedal? Which scientific methods have you employed, and which instruments are you using? So far all we've seen is "It feels like it's more powerful, and this constitutes scientific research." which I assure you, does not. Signature"The ABS system can not overcome the laws of physics." Audi Owner's Manual laurentien knastet i vei: > I will give you an example. > Citroen did put front wheel drive on its main production car (the > Traction) in 1935 making them the first company to mass produce a FWD. Ehh .. DKW did it before, early 1931 > laurentien knastet i vei: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Ehh .. DKW did it before, early 1931 DKW which entered Auto Union in 1932, they only offered a FWD in 1951. Citroen is still the first car manufacturer to bring FWD to a car built on a production line. The first car that came with FWD was in fact the Cord but it was hand made and was not available to the average person. LHR laurentien knastet i vei: >> laurentien knastet i vei: >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > DKW which entered Auto Union in 1932, they only offered a FWD in 1951. "DKW cars were made from 1928 until 1966. They always used two-stroke engines and, from 1931, the company was a pioneer in front-wheel drive and transverse mounting." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DKW > Citroen is still the first car manufacturer to bring FWD to a car > built on a production line. > The first car that came with FWD was in fact the Cord but it was hand > made and was not available to the average person. > > LHR > laurentien knastet i vei: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > > LHR No, Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information, since I have read a lot of false information there and anyone can write in there. I have done some research on DKW, it is nowhere indicated that they did a FWD before 1951. However, making a FWD in 1951 is still ahead of most car manufacturers since the next one would be the Renault 16 in 1965. LHR laurentien knastet i vei: >> engines and, from 1931, the company was a pioneer in front-wheel drive >> and transverse mounting." >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DKW > No, Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information, since I have > read a lot of false information there and anyone can write in there. I Thhen, look at a picture of a DKW 1931 with fwd http://www.classiccar.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/240/cat/514 http://www.automotto.org/entry/top-10-ugliest-vintage-cars/ Fake ? False ? Try Google http://www.google.no/search?hl=no&q=dkw+fwd Frank knastet i vei: > laurentien knastet i vei: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > http://www.google.no/search?hl=no&q=dkw+fwd At Audi.com website; "The 1931 DKW F 1 was the car that introduced front-wheel drive to the mass-produced car for the first time." "In 1933, an Audi with front-wheel drive appeared, to join the DKW `Front´ models on the market" http://www.audi.com/audi/com/en2/about_audi_ag/history/technical_highlights/fron t_wheel_drive.html --- Need more references ? Frank knastet i vei: > Need more references ? Conclusion, the frog eaters came with fwd 4 years later then DKW, 2 years later than Audi. Your information "Citroen ... in 1935 making them the first company to mass produce a FWD." Indicated as being incorrect. --- I guess, your impression of "dramatic acceleration improvements" with "Magnets on the fuel line intake" on your Audi, will show to be as unfounded as your statements on fwd ... > Frank knastet i vei: > > > Need more references ? > > Conclusion, the frog eaters came with fwd 4 years later then DKW, > 2 years later than Audi. By the way, eating frogs is very tasty if you know how to prepare them in garlic and high quality oilve oil. Oh, by the way, I am not French. > Your information "Citroen ... in 1935 making them the first company > to mass produce a FWD." Indicated as being incorrect. Point made but it took you sime time to give valuable piece of information. > --- > > I guess, your impression of "dramatic acceleration improvements" with > "Magnets on the fuel line intake" on your Audi, will show to be as > unfounded as your statements on fwd ... You are being undully emotional. This is simply judgmental from your part. Understand that I do not know anyone who knows that DKW and Audi did a FWD before Citroen. You should be more tolerant about ignorance, event after trying a lot a searches on google. Maybe I did insult some Audi or even DKW engineers by forgeting their input in car evolution and I do apologize for that. However, the fact is that Citroen was also a pioneer on FWD and this you can at least recognise without removing on DKW's contribution. Now, lets got to the next step and compare numbers. How many FWD for each car models did DKW, Audi and Citroen produce. You have to remember that the Citroen Traction was a best seller in France for quite a while. Cordialy, Luc laurentien knastet i vei: >> Frank knastet i vei: >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > in garlic and high quality oilve oil. Oh, by the way, I am not > French. I'll try it, thanx ;-) > Now, lets got to the next step and compare numbers. How many FWD for > each car models did DKW, Audi and Citroen produce. You have to > remember that the Citroen Traction was a best seller in France for > quite a while. No doubt, Kermit did an excellent job. Last thing here. I did visit Audi's website and they mention that the UW was out in 1933. if you look on Citroen's webiste http://www.citroen.com/CWW/en-US/HISTORY/CITROENHISTORY/1930TO1939/1930.htm you will see that they launched the Traction in 1934. This narrows the gap between the 2 that can easily compete for being the most original car makers in the world in my humble opinion since they were all having a car linup of FWD in the 50's. But, I forgot, the original point was to explain to some that so many original and effective ideas do not see their way to the final product line for quite some time. It is pity to say that I have plenty of examples which show that major compamies (except a few) are very conservative and will really make serious changes whence their back against the wall. Bests, Luc > laurentien knastet i vei: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > No doubt, Kermit did an excellent job. > But, I forgot, the original point was to explain to some that so many > original and effective ideas do not see their way to the final product > line for quite some time. It is pity to say that I have plenty of > examples which show that major compamies (except a few) are very > conservative and will really make serious changes whence their back > against the wall. And in the case of your gas magnet, it's been at least thirty eight years. If it worked, you'd think it would have caught on by now. SignatureLife is too short to play cheap guitars. No, it has been there on the BF109, USAF Mustangs and RAF Spitfires around 1944. This story is more than 60 years old. So, knowing how serious the military people are, this makes this story likely to be true. Independant suspensions, overhead camshafts, hemi heads and multivalve systems were imagines in the thirties. Even Citroen introduced unibody construction (without any chassis in 1934 on its Traction) In the USA, you had to wait for Chrysler until 1969 to introduce unibody. You had to wait until the nineties before they decided to follow the Europeans who were using overhead cams long before. Now, how many people did try them ? Where are the serious reports which a proper approach to study effects of magnetic fields on the parafins ? Everybody believe the same as you do, that is then a good reason to try then. Bests, LHR > > But, I forgot, the original point was to explain to some that so many > > original and effective ideas do not see their way to the final product [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Life is too short to play cheap guitars. LHR, you continue to miss the point here. You claim that we should accept scientific evidence about your claims on the magnets. You cite, as part of your 'proof', the fact that many good ideas are never accepted, and you use the FWD Citroen as an example. That's an invalid example as FWD HAS been accepted for the benefits it brings. Your second example, the use of magnets by the military in WWII, is also invalid to your point, because it HASN'T been accepted as valid in auto technology, and, in fact, magnets have been shown to have little or no effect on gas mileage or performance. I'm not denying that they MAY have had a beneficial impact on WWII aircraft; I'm simply saying that you can't say 'because they work on WWII aircraft, they will work on 21st Century cars'. You also give us anecdotal data on your personal experience with the magnets on your car, but you haven't given us the scientific proof that you say we should accept. So, I would suggest that until you can give us scientific proof, you should not make claims about the efficacy of magnets. Dan D '04 A4 1.8Tq MT-6 Central NJ USA I do not think I miss the point here. You seem to be able to tunr things upside down. If you read what I have said, it is quite simple : I have asked if anyone in this group did make some trials on these magnets, that is all I did. I have also said that I am trying them and will come back once I do obtain a sufficient amount of concluding results. I have driven the car and could clearly notice much more punch in the low revs, I am not the only driver on that car and the other persone alos notice a difference, but I never said it was sufficient since I have not tested put the car on the torque reader. Now, apart from one guy who gives me a link to a magazine review of some researchers work which conclude that no fuel savers do work, I have not seen any results from the people here. The only responses I read are completely irrelevant such like "if it was good then it would have been done a long time". I have answered that are a lot of good ideas which took a long time before they got applied and some are still waiting to appear. It took more than 40 years to see FWD finding its way to the everyday car in America and a little less in Europe. There, you have missed the point I was making. > LHR, you continue to miss the point here. You claim that we should > accept scientific evidence about your claims on the magnets. You cite, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > auto technology, and, in fact, magnets have been shown to have little > or no effect on gas mileage or performance. Well prove it. You are not bringing any information that shows that magnets have little or no effect on gas mileage or performance. > I'm not denying that they > MAY have had a beneficial impact on WWII aircraft; I'm simply saying > that you can't say 'because they work on WWII aircraft, they will work > on 21st Century cars'. I completely disagree with your argument here. They both run on fuel powered piston driven engines and therefore what can improve fuel punch or economy on WWII airplanes will have an impact on any other vehicles may they be cars, boats or even your house boiler. > You also give us anecdotal data on your personal experience with the > magnets on your car, but you haven't given us the scientific proof > that you say we should accept. Indeed, your feeling while you drive your car may not be considered scientific facts but this is what will determine if your car has improved or not. In this cas, I am telling that it did improve but now you do whatever you want with this information. Knowing how cheap these magnets are, I think this is worth trying so and knowing that Audi drivers are not poor people, then if more people try them, we could gather more information. > So, I would suggest that until you can give us scientific proof, you > should not make claims about the efficacy of magnets. I have driven 4500 km throughout Europe and Turkey with a heavy car fully loaded including a 450 L roof box and it did 6.5 L / 100 km and this includes crossing several mountain ranges and driving nervously in italian and Turkish cities as well. I am now waiting for the box to get removed and see how the car makes when it is empty to compare. Beforehand, in the UK, the car was doing 7 l / 100 km on motorways. Draw your conclusions. But, I still wait to tell you the final results. LHR > Dan D > '04 A4 1.8Tq MT-6 > Central NJ USA > Now, apart from one guy who gives me a link to a magazine review of > some researchers work which conclude that no fuel savers do work, I > have not seen any results from the people here. What more do you want? That link is much more credible than your claim. Using simple LOGIC actually defeats your claim. > The only responses I > read are completely irrelevant such like "if it was good then it would > have been done a long time". Your logic fails here. Carmakers would LOVE to have a device that saves fuel or adds power for almost no additional weight or research spending. It make huge monetary sense. What possible reason would carmakers have for NOT adding such a device? > > ... because [use of magnets] HASN'T been accepted as valid in > > auto technology, and, in fact, magnets have been shown to have little > > or no effect on gas mileage or performance. > > Well prove it. Actually, you have it backwards. You are making a claim that, contrary to logic and published data, magnets do something. It is up to *you* to prove it. With hard data, not "my car feels faster." > You are not bringing any information that shows that magnets have > little or no effect on gas mileage or performance. Such information exists in abundance. A 30-second Google search gives quite a long list of articles. Use "fuel" and "magnets" as your search parameters. Enjoy. > > You also give us anecdotal data on your personal experience with the > > magnets on your car, but you haven't given us the scientific proof [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > scientific facts but this is what will determine if your car has > improved or not. Actually, no. Your "feeling" is irrelevant. Hard data is the only thing that can be used as proof. And, since there exists a body of data that already says that there is no effect, your experiment must not only produce statistically positive results, it must be repeatable. > In this cas, I am telling that it did improve but now > you do whatever you want with this information. I can say that grass is red, but that does not make it true. You may believe what you want, but *this* chemist is willing to bet that any positive results you get will not be repeatable by anyone else. Would you like to make a wager? Like 10000 Euros? E.P. > > Now, apart from one guy who gives me a link to a magazine review of > > some researchers work which conclude that no fuel savers do work, I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Using simple LOGIC actually defeats your claim. It ıs not a questıon of logic here (leave where it applies please) but a question of facts > > The only responses I > > read are completely irrelevant such like "if it was good then it would [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > spending. It make huge monetary sense. What possible reason would > carmakers have for NOT adding such a device? Many reasons would lead to that observation and especially the ones of being very conservative and therefore your point is not an educated one. Who are you to say what carmakers think and would like to do ? Are you one of them ? Do you do research for BMW or VAG or PSA ? Do you have access to carmaker data which proves your point ? > > > ... because [use of magnets] HASN'T been accepted as valid in > > > auto technology, and, in fact, magnets have been shown to have little [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > contrary to logic and published data, magnets do something. It is up > to *you* to prove it. With hard data, not "my car feels faster." In a serious groupm it goes both ways. There are explanations for saving energy wıth magnets. Are you ready to hear it ? > > You are not bringing any information that shows that magnets have > > little or no effect on gas mileage or performance. > > Such information exists in abundance. A 30-second Google search gives > quite a long list of articles. Use "fuel" and "magnets" as your > search parameters. Enjoy. I was not satisfied with what I have seen. > > > You also give us anecdotal data on your personal experience with the > > > magnets on your car, but you haven't given us the scientific proof [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > not only produce statistically positive results, it must be > repeatable. This is you opinion but it is good enough for me to spend 30 euros on these and obtain a car that drives better. Now it is up to you to accept it or not. I do not have access to the proper facilities to make proper tests on two Audi A4 1.9 TDi and see the results. But you do not as well so we are both stuck with our Audis (if you have the chance to own one). > > In this case, I am telling that it did improve but now > > you do whatever you want with this information. > > I can say that grass is red, but that does not make it true. Come to Cyprus and I will show some. The same can be said the other way. > You may believe what you want, but *this* chemist is willing to bet > that any positive results you get will not be repeatable by anyone > else. Irrelevant remark here. Have you trierd them or not. If not then you are waisting our time because you point of view will only be relevant if you did try some tests on them. > Would you like to make a wager? Like 10000 Euros? > > E.P. No gıve me two identical Audis and I will produce the tests within the University labs here and if you are right I will buy you a new Audi and if I am right you buy me a new one. LHR laurentien knastet i vei: >> Actually, you have it backwards. You are making a claim that, >> contrary to logic and published data, magnets do something. It is up >> to *you* to prove it. With hard data, not "my car feels faster." > > In a serious groupm it goes both ways. There are explanations for > saving energy wıth magnets. Are you ready to hear it ? We are ready to hear proof of the claim, which can be reproduced by others. If validated by others, you may tell us where to buy this (up-to-now) snake-oil. >> Such information exists in abundance. A 30-second Google search gives >> quite a long list of articles. Use "fuel" and "magnets" as your >> search parameters. Enjoy. > > I was not satisfied with what I have seen. You are the one to present facts to support the claim. If you can't, the claim is unfounded. >> Actually, no. Your "feeling" is irrelevant. Hard data is the only >> thing that can be used as proof. And, since there exists a body of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > these and obtain a car that drives better. Now it is up to you to > accept it or not. You may spend 300+ euros on this, it doesn't bother us. We're waiting for the facts. >> You may believe what you want, but *this* chemist is willing to bet >> that any positive results you get will not be repeatable by anyone [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > are waisting our time because you point of view will only be relevant > if you did try some tests on them. You are about to make yourself irrelevant. Present some scientific evidence of your claim. If not, we've to consider the magnets as another bottle of snake oil. > > > Now, apart from one guy who gives me a link to a magazine review of > > > some researchers work which conclude that no fuel savers do work, I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It ýs not a questýon of logic here (leave where it applies please) but > a question of facts Well, since you have present zero facts, then logic is what is to be used. It worked for Aristotle, so it can work for you, too. > > > The only responses I > > > read are completely irrelevant such like "if it was good then it would [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > being very conservative and therefore your point is not an educated > one. That is not a logical refutation, but a red herring ad hominem. Both of those things are called "logical fallacies", which you may look up at your leisure. > Who are you to say what carmakers think and would like to do ? A person that understands simple economics. So simple, that a college freshman could understand them. An item to help meet government mileage and emissions requirements, with very little capital outlay, and very little space used. Again, simple logic. Basic logic. Again, I ask you: why *wouldn't* ALL of the carmakers use such a thing if they could to produce better results? Especially considering the cost:benefit ratio? > > > > ... because [use of magnets] HASN'T been accepted as valid in > > > > auto technology, and, in fact, magnets have been shown to have little [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > In a serious groupm it goes both ways. Actually, it doesn't. Folks who make unproven claims get to prove them. The original data stands as proof of the contrary claim. > There are explanations for > saving energy wýth magnets. Are you ready to hear it ? The changes brought about in organic compounds by magnetism are so small that it takes fields in excess of 5 Tesla to gain molecular data. Tell me more about NMR spectroscopy, if you will. > > > You are not bringing any information that shows that magnets have > > > little or no effect on gas mileage or performance. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I was not satisfied with what I have seen. So? Your satisfaction is immaterial. Either the material you read has flaws in experiment or conclusion, or they don't. Point out these errors, and why they are errors. > > > > You also give us anecdotal data on your personal experience with the > > > > magnets on your car, but you haven't given us the scientific proof [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > This is you opinion... No, this is what's known as "The Scientific Method". Not opinion, but a way of life for everyone who does research in a hard science. > I do not have access to the proper facilities to make proper tests on > two Audi A4 1.9 TDi and see the results. Ah. So you do not even know *how* to design a conclusive experiment. I thought as much. Hint: you do not need two cars. > But you do not as well ... I wouldn't need two. I could use one. I doesn't even matter what kind of car. > > You may believe what you want, but *this* chemist is willing to bet > > that any positive results you get will not be repeatable by anyone > > else. > > Irrelevant remark here. Wrong. It is the cornerstone. If the results cannot be repeated by someone else, then your results have no value. This is just the way science works. > ... because you point of view will only be relevant > if you did try some tests on them. Why would I bother? Only very strong, supercooled electromagnets have the slightest effect on organic molecules found in motor fuels. Those things weigh tons, and are extremely expensive. And yes, I have done NMR spectroscopy. > > Would you like to make a wager? Like 10000 Euros? > > > E.P. > > No [...] I thought not. LOL. E.P. > > > > Now, apart from one guy who gives me a link to a magazine review of > > > > some researchers work which conclude that no fuel savers do work, I [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Well, since you have present zero facts, then logic is what is to be > used. It worked for Aristotle, so it can work for you, too. OK ıf you read my posts you will fınd that I did present this group some facts that I have obtained. But the initial point here was me asking the people on this forum with their own facts on magnets. Nobody could produce facts that are as you say repeatable. Only one person did point to sone news report about R+D done by some research groups. That is all. The rest is just YOUR pure speculation that companies would absolutely apply them if they were functionnal. I repeat that you can say that if you cannot prove your point. Nobody can bring data that actually Renault or Toyota or VAG did try them and produced resports which I can read and judge by myself. This argument may be logical but is not worth anything since this is what your naive mind wants to believe. This what a lot of people want to believe. Things can prove differently in the world where economics rule. As the philosopher John Saul explains in hıs book "The Bastards of Voltaire" we do not lıve ın a world beiıng rational but everything is done so that we can believe. > > > > The only responses I > > > > read are completely irrelevant such like "if it was good then it would [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > of those things are called "logical fallacies", which you may look up > at your leisure. It is not a question of logic but a question of being rational ın a world which is not. I do not think that you know what logic is and where it application commences and finishes. > > Who are you to say what carmakers think and would like to do ? > > A person that understands simple economics. So simple, that a college > freshman could understand them. An item to help meet government > mileage and emissions requirements, with very little capital outlay, > and very little space used. Naive again. I though that some time ago until I had these companies as clients. Well continue to believe in this religion of yours and it will lead to the disasters that we now live more and more. > Again, simple logic. Basic logic. It is not a question of logic but a question of being rational ın a world which is not. I do not think that you know what logic is and where it application commences and finishes. > Again, I ask you: why *wouldn't* ALL of the carmakers use such a > thing if they could to produce better results? Especially considering > the cost:benefit ratio? Since I do not see you or anyone else bringing me reports from the car makers showing that they do not work. Then I have to judge them severly and you believiıng without seing makes you a simple propagandist of the good news of economics. Has Audi worked on these magnets ? > > > > > ... because [use of magnets] HASN'T been accepted as valid in > > > > > auto technology, and, in fact, magnets have been shown to have little [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Actually, it doesn't. Folks who make unproven claims get to prove > them. The original data stands as proof of the contrary claim. Sorry as far as I am concerned IT DOES. You are making an unproven claim yourself. And also I never made claim that they work. I just saıd that I tried them as anyone with an open mind should do if they do not see proper reports. I dıd post some results but it is up to you to decide for yourself (not for the others) if they are worth something. > > There are explanations for > > saving energy wýth magnets. Are you ready to hear it ? > > The changes brought about in organic compounds by magnetism are so > small that it takes fields in excess of 5 Tesla to gain molecular > data. Tell me more about NMR spectroscopy, if you will. Well maybe but through a magnetic field you can untwist those parafines and this means less energy consummed to do the combustion. > > > > You are not bringing any information that shows that magnets have > > > > little or no effect on gas mileage or performance. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > has flaws in experiment or conclusion, or they don't. Point out these > errors, and why they are errors. Show me something serious that came out of your Google search. We will see about that later. > > > > > You also give us anecdotal data on your personal experience with the > > > > > magnets on your car, but you haven't given us the scientific proof [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > No, this is what's known as "The Scientific Method". What do you know about it ? I am not using one of my labs to do this can of ınvestigation since I work on other issues. I cannot justify funding requests for this can of tests. I have to do it by myself with only one car. If you are waiting for scientific results then wait until someone else does it. Myself I am gathering as much as I can with the resources available and I will tell this group about them. Lets be honest with each other : if my car gets more punch (meaning more HP) or does save even 10 % I will be satisfied. > Not opinion, but a way of life for everyone who does research in a > hard science. Who are you to lecture me about science ? What are your credentials ? Myself I have three scientific journal articles and one book chapter in robotics kinematics a domain where everybody thought that if improvements were being possible they would have been done but it proved false and I am working on issues that people do not want me to publish because I show the flaws of the accepted methods. > > I do not have access to the proper facilities to make proper tests on > > two Audi A4 1.9 TDi and see the results. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Hint: you do not need two cars. Is this an attempt to make a joke ? Do you read what I wrote ? I know exactly how to design one serious experiment but I do not have access to the resources to do it. This what you should have read ıf you would understand plain English. > > But you do not as well ... > > I wouldn't need two. I could use one. I doesn't even matter what > kind of car. No ! The weather changes the condition changes ... Same test protocole on two identical cars. > > > You may believe what you want, but *this* chemist is willing to bet > > > that any positive results you get will not be repeatable by anyone [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > someone else, then your results have no value. This is just the way > science works. It is irrelevant since you are telling me what you feel about my results. To bet is very far from being rational. > > ... because your point of view will only be relevant > > if you did try some tests on them. > > Why would I bother? Only very strong, supercooled electromagnets have > the slightest effect on organic molecules found in motor fuels. Can you explain a little bit for the neophyte that I am ? Ok interesting point here do you know a scientific paper showing that ? > Those things weigh tons, and are extremely expensive. And yes, I have > done NMR spectroscopy. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > E.P. Luc > > > > > Now, apart from one guy who gives me a link to a magazine review of > > > > > some researchers work which conclude that no fuel savers do work, I [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > OK ıf you read my posts you will fınd that I did present this group > some facts that I have obtained. No, you presented some OPINIONS that you had. Not facts. > But the initial point here was me asking the people on this forum with > their own facts on magnets. Nobody has offered data because there are no hard data to offer. Folks gullible enough to believe that magnets do anything to motor fuels are not smart enough to carry out controlled experiments. > Only one person did point to sone news report about R+D done by some > research groups. So far, the only credible source of information, which, oddly has not been refuted by you or anyone, by anything other than you saying "I don't believe it." > The rest is just YOUR pure speculation that companies would absolutely > apply them if they were functionnal. You are mischaracterizing my comments. If my logic is not sound, refute it, if you can. > I repeat that you can say that if you cannot prove your point. Luckily, it is not I who must prove myself. Your demand otherwise is a logical fallacy of reversing the burden of proof. > Nobody > can bring data that actually Renault or Toyota or VAG did try them and > produced resports which I can read and judge by myself. Logical fallacy - demanding proof of a negative. > This argument may be logical but is not worth anything since this is > what your naive mind wants to believe. Logical fallacy - ad hominem. > Things can prove > differently in the world where economics rule. As you have shown, your knowledge of basic economics is poor. I suggest further coursework. > > > > > The only responses I > > > > > read are completely irrelevant such like "if it was good then it would [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > It is not a question of logic but a question of being rational ın a > world which is not. If you are attempting to convince others of your position, you must rely on some sort of rational system. Logic. > I do not think that you know what logic is and where it application > commences and finishes. Logical fallacy - ad hominem. > > > Who are you to say what carmakers think and would like to do ? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Naive again. Logical fallacy - ad hominem. > I though that some time ago until I had these companies as clients. Unproven claim. > Well continue to believe in this religion of yours and it will lead to > the disasters that we now live more and more. Logical fallacy - red herring. > > Again, simple logic. Basic logic. > > It is not a question of logic but a question of being rational ın a > world which is not. Your comment has even less meaning now than when you said it the first time. If you wish to have a rational discussion, you cannot abandon reason. Reason and logic are tied together, and cannot be unbound. > I do not think that you know what logic is and where it application > commences and finishes. Logical fallacy - ad hominem. > > Again, I ask you: why *wouldn't* ALL of the carmakers use such a > > thing if they could to produce better results? Especially considering > > the cost:benefit ratio? > > Since I do not see you or anyone else bringing me reports from the car > makers showing that they do not work. That is not a response to the question asked, but yet another red herring fallacy. > Then I have to judge them severly and you believiıng without seing > makes you a simple propagandist of the good news of economics. Ad hominem. > Has Audi worked on these magnets ? Why would they? Simple physics shows that the cannot work. > > > > > > ... because [use of magnets] HASN'T been accepted as valid in > > > > > > auto technology, and, in fact, magnets have been shown to have little [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Sorry as far as I am concerned IT DOES. Then it is fortunate for me that it is not you who gets to make up the rules of logic and reason, yes? > You are making an unproven claim yourself. You are mistaken. Quote it exactly. > And also I never made claim that they work. Your first paragraph above says differently. > I just saıd that I tried them as anyone with an open mind should do if > they do not see proper reports. I consider the reports given as proper. I have seen no refutation with data, or in questioning of method or results. > I dıd post some results but it is up to you to decide for yourself > (not for the others) if they are worth something. You posted your opinion. Opinion is not data. > > > There are explanations for > > > saving energy wýth magnets. Are you ready to hear it ? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Well maybe but through a magnetic field you can untwist those > parafines and this means less energy consummed to do the combustion. No. Both your chemistry and physics are wrong in the above statement. > > > > > You are not bringing any information that shows that magnets have > > > > > little or no effect on gas mileage or performance. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Show me something serious that came out of your Google search. You are avoiding the question. (Or, logical fallacy - red herring). If you do not like what you've seen, then tell me how it's flawed. You do realize this the the cornerstone of science publishing, right? > > > > > > You also give us anecdotal data on your personal experience with the > > > > > > magnets on your car, but you haven't given us the scientific proof [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > What do you know about it ? Obviously much more than you. If you cannot recognize the difference between feeling and hard, reproducable data, then explaining the scientific method is a waste of my time. > I am not using one of my labs to do this can of ınvestigation since I > work on other issues. It doesn't require a lab. > I cannot justify funding requests for this can of tests. If you can buy magnets, then you can afford the testing. > I have to do it by myself with only one car. Easily done. > If you are waiting for scientific results then wait until someone else > does it. Then all you're doing is typing a bunch of gibberish on the internet. If you are unwilling to even collect preliminary data, what use is anything you have to say? > Lets be honest with each other : if my car gets more punch (meaning > more HP) or does save even 10 % I will be satisfied. Let's be honest: you won't see even a single HP increase. > > Not opinion, but a way of life for everyone who does research in a > > hard science. > > Who are you to lecture me about science ? Someone who has lived and worked science his entire adult life. But it is a nice ad hominem. > What are your credentials ? > Myself I have three scientific journal articles and one book chapter > in robotics kinematics a domain where everybody thought that if > improvements were being possible they would have been done but it > proved false and I am working on issues that people do not want me to > publish because I show the flaws of the accepted methods. Logical fallacy - appeal to authority. Please spare me the "I would have been published except for politics in my field." > > > I do not have access to the proper facilities to make proper tests on > > > two Audi A4 1.9 TDi and see the results. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Is this an attempt to make a joke ? No. > Do you read what I wrote ? Yes. > I know exactly how to design one serious experiment but I do not have > access to the resources to do it. You have a car and magnets. The experiment is *dead simple*. > This what you should have read ıf > you would understand plain English. Logical fallacy - ad hominem. > > > But you do not as well ... > > > I wouldn't need two. I could use one. I doesn't even matter what > > kind of car. > > No ! Yes! > The weather changes the condition changes ... You're talking about *10%* change above - barometric pressure changes and atmospheric moisture and temperature can ALL be corrected for. Easily. And with a supposed 10% increase in performance, those parameters must be VERY different to have much effect on the experiment. > Same test protocole on two identical cars. No. > > > > You may believe what you want, but *this* chemist is willing to bet > > > > that any positive results you get will not be repeatable by anyone [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > It is irrelevant since you are telling me what you feel about my > results. You are questioning *my* English skills? It's a nice red herring, but in reality, if the experiment cannot be reproduced, and the results duplicated, then the experiment was flawed. Anyone who has a publication knows this. Maybe your credentials are not as impressive as you claim? > To bet is very far from being rational. It is a way to cut through all the bullshit to get to the heart of the matter. If you believe in your results, you're willing to take a chance. And what a chance! 10000 Euros! If only you could get any kind of results.... > > > ... because your point of view will only be relevant > > > if you did try some tests on them. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Can you explain a little bit for the neophyte that I am ? Google "Nuclear Magnetic Resonance" and some parameter like "triacontane", and view the molecular shifts brought about by very powerful magnets in a controlled environment. Your "untwisting" claim is laughable. > Ok interesting point here do you know a scientific paper showing > that ? Only several thousand. I supposed that a researcher like yourself has access to all sorts of on-line journals that could explain the exact amount of effect magnets have on non-polar molecules. In your next reply, please try and avoid logical fallacies. They get in the way of the discussion, are ineffective, and are boringly tiresome. E.P. > > > > > > Now, apart from one guy who gives me a link to a magazine review of > > > > > > some researchers work which conclude that no fuel savers do work, I [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Folks gullible enough to believe that magnets do anything to motor > fuels are not smart enough to carry out controlled experiments. If your respect the others speak for yourself. You have no rright to speak for anyone else than others. You are becomıng very rude and I do not see why I keep answering to your comments. > > Only one person did point to sone news report about R+D done by some > > research groups. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > You are mischaracterizing my comments. If my logic is not sound, > refute it, if you can. Again it is not a question of logic. > > I repeat that you can say that if you cannot prove your point. > > Luckily, it is not I who must prove myself. I completely disagree here. You cannot prove that the magnets are not working since you cannot produce any facts done by yourself nor can you explain using physics or chemestry that it is not going to work. You keep insulting people by saying that anybody knowing elementary science will know what happens. OK than can you enlight us with that verifyable basic knowledge of yours. Can you do it ? > Your demand otherwise is a logical fallacy of reversing the burden of > proof. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Logical fallacy - demanding proof of a negative. You have no sense of science when you say that. > > This argument may be logical but is not worth anything since this is > > what your naive mind wants to believe. > > Logical fallacy - ad hominem. It sounds lıke you live in the religion of logic. > > Things can prove > > differently in the world where economics rule. > > As you have shown, your knowledge of basic economics is poor. I > suggest further coursework. There is no point discussing furter with you. LHR > > > > > > > Now, apart from one guy who gives me a link to a magazine review of > > > > > > > some researchers work which conclude that no fuel savers do work, I [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > If your respect the others speak for yourself. I do not respect people who proclaim fact without knowing any. Who propound theory without knowing any. I repeat: if you are DUMB enough to believe that you can get something for nothing, then you deserve what you get. Throwing Euros down the toilet. > > > Only one person did point to sone news report about R+D done by some > > > research groups. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Again it is not a question of logic. Repeating that claim does not make it valid. If you cannot reason, then you cannot have a rational discussion. If you cannot use logic, then you cannot make a rational presentation of hypothesis, experiment, results nor conclusion. > > > I repeat that you can say that if you cannot prove your point. > > > Luckily, it is not I who must prove myself. > > I completely disagree here. You disagreeing does not make you correct. You are arguing against already-published data. It is up to YOU to prove that data wrong. Either through rational discussions of the experimental design or conclusions from data. Or, you can perform the experiments yourself and present the data. Until you do those things, the original data stand. Your attempt at reversing the burden of proof is laughable. > > Your demand otherwise is a logical fallacy of reversing the burden of > > proof. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > You have no sense of science when you say that. Wrong. > > > This argument may be logical but is not worth anything since this is > > > what your naive mind wants to believe. > > > Logical fallacy - ad hominem. > > It sounds lıke you live in the religion of logic. Logical fallacy - straw man. If you cannot present rational argument, why should anyone take you seriously? > > > Things can prove > > > differently in the world where economics rule. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > There is no point discussing furter with you. Actually, you didn't have a point to begin with. You bought some junk for your car, and emotionally felt the need to justify it by "feeling" something that wasn't (and never will be) there. It's called "The Placebo Effect". Next time you wish to engage in a Usenet debate, try and use reason and logic, rather than your overwrought emotions. You might get further. And focusing on the emotion, rather than the facts, will always put you in a bad spot. E.P. I once had a magnetic driven car. Actually two cars, toy cars, both with a magnets. Depending on direction of the first car did the other car goes away or comes back aginst the first car. No external power, or?? Magnetic force will never ever add power to something. It is a force a lot similar to gravity. It will help the car to go downhill but it will also come a uphill. The trick is to fool the car that it always is a bit downhill. It can be done with bigger rear wheels or holding a magnet in front of the car. As a carrot in front of a donkey. A lot of magnetic force is added to the fuel in a modern car due magnetic field around the electric injection coil. It does not harm the fuel despite that the magnetic field comes in very close contact with fuel. A magnet close around gasoline hose will result in a lot of magnetic fuel in the gas tank due to that most of the fuel is returned to the gas tank in an injection system. If two such magnetic cars comes cloes to each other will fuel be sucked to to the tank with strongest magnetic force and result in less fuel consumtion for that car. Magnetic carbon exist. It requires very sensitive instruments to prove this effect as it is a extreme small effect and also requires a unusal form of carbon. Several 1000 times less then the force from gravity. If gas tank is placed 10 feets below the car could it reduce fuel consumtion due to gravity makes it hard to pump fuel high enough? Electric fields in a combustion chamber can reduce some carbon gases. Throw in a magnet also...and it will reduce every thing. /Alf > I once had a magnetic driven car. Actually two cars, toy cars, both > with a magnets. Depending on direction of the first car did the other [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > /Alf LOL! I tried putting a big magnet in the combustion chamber but it just went "THUD!" SignatureGoogle is a pro-spamming service. I will not see your reply if you use Google. Here are the latest results in terms of using these magnets: The car is a 1994 Audi 80 Saloon equiped with a 1.9 TDi rated at 90 HP (in fact 105 HP) running on diesel fuel. The car has 230 000 km. Beforehand, without the magnets, in the UK, the car was doing from 7 to 7.2 L / 100 km on motorways. I had checked that several times on trips to the outscirts (fair centre) of Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool airport starting from Lancaster. I have driven 4500 km throughout Europe and Turkey from Lancaster to Morphou in Cyprus with a heavy car fully loaded including a 450 L roof box and it did 6.5 L / 100 km and this includes crossing several mountain ranges, driving nervously in french, italian and Turkish cities as well. We could say that we were on mixed driving. I have now completed a test mostly on motorways around Cyprus but also including city driving in Lefkosia and the car did just below 6 L / 100 km. We can say that the magnets have reduced the fuel conusmption by just more than 14 %. If you read the magnet documentation, they advocate savings around 15 % which means that I have reached them. Apart from that I can really appreciate the added punch that the diesel has now in the low revs which means that city driving is much more pleasant. Therefore, I do conclude on these two lines: 1- these magnets are really functionning as far as I am concerned and I will keep them 2- there is enough evidence to go further with investigations, I set up a lab demonstration to launch my own instrumented tests and publish them in the open domain (that is the role of free public Engineering Schools) Now, it is up to you to decide if 30 euros is worth spending on a device that can add punch (meaning more HP) and also save up to 14 % on your petrol bill. Luc Rolland [100% bullshit snipped] > Luc Rolland Without hard proof, Luc, your claims are garbage. Get back to us when you have hard data. E.P. Frank knastet i vei: > Need more references ? Conclusion, the frog eaters came with fwd 4 years later than DKW, 2 years later than Audi. Your information "Citroen ... in 1935 making them the first company to mass produce a FWD." Indicated as being incorrect. --- I guess, your impression of "dramatic acceleration improvements" with "Magnets on the fuel line intake" on your Audi, will show to be as unfounded as your statements on fwd ... It seems. you are not a very "reliable source of information" > Frank knastet i vei: > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > - Show quoted text - OK, this is a genuine piece of information. Point made. I then will tell everyone that up to now, DKW (Auto Union) were the first to mass produce a FWD with a twin stroke engine and this car was cheap enough to be available to a lot of people. Yes, I would need an image of motor and drive train so I can show that on my blog and to my students. I am bout to build the history of FWD. Thanks for the information, Luc > laurentien knastet i vei: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > http://www.google.no/search?hl=no&q=dkw+fwd These sites do not prove your point. For now fake ! LHR http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Fuel-Saver-for-VAUXHALL-AGILA-ASTRA-ASTRAVAN-COMBO_W0QQite mZ170249484419QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item170249484419&_trkparms=39%3A1%7C66%3A1%7C6 5%3A1%7C240%3A1318&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14 >I would like to inquire if any Audi drivers in this forum have > installed magnets on their fuel line intake. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > LHR On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 07:34:32 +0100, against all advice, something compelled "\(!\)" <Hypoid90@btinternet.com>, to say: > http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Fuel-Saver-for-VAUXHALL-AGILA-ASTRA-ASTRAVAN-COMBO_W0QQite mZ170249484419QQcmdZViewItem?hash=item170249484419&_trkparms=39%3A1%7C66%3A1%7C6 5%3A1%7C240%3A1318&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14 I like snake oil. It keeps the snakes from squeaking. SignatureLife is too short to play cheap guitars. > I would like to inquire if any Audi drivers in this forum have > installed magnets on their fuel line intake. Where's the hard data? Accelerometer? Fuel logs? E.P. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.