 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Mercedes-Benz Cars / November 2007I Beat both Mercedes "MINI Range" and "Toyota Prius"
On city/highway driving, my Infiniti G20T now reached 65mpg - 73mpg. No battery required, and no stingy driving required. That's right, I will let you put my car to test (if you belong to a media company), by driving from WA State to CA with 1 tank of fuel, 14-15 gallons. My Mercedes E320 also reached 51mpg mark, I could improve it a little bit better if I have the time. I'm thinking to write a book on how to increase the MPG, My question to you is, would you think people will buy my book at $99 The problem is, not every one has the same skill in terms of car mechanic and computer program, the lack of their understanding could make my book looks like a scam. Thanks for your input. Cam 20 years ElectroMechanic engineer. Why buy expensive hybrid when you can have luxury, safety, force and efficiency at the same time? Here is Info about Mercedes MINI Range, http://forums.mg-rover.org/showthread.php?t=194886 Remember, 72.4 miles per imperial gallon translates to 60.28 miles per US gallon- and this is for the average figure of combined city/highway driving >On city/highway driving, my Infiniti G20T now reached 65mpg - 73mpg. No >battery required, and no stingy driving required. That's right, I will let [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Remember, 72.4 miles per imperial gallon translates to 60.28 miles per US >gallon- and this is for the average figure of combined city/highway driving Do I asume that neither Mercedes and Toyota (Lexus) aren't interested? I wonder why:-). Perhaps snake oil comes to mind. On Oct 23, 1:08 am, Edward W. Thompson <thomed...@btopenworld.com> wrote: > >On city/highway driving, my Infiniti G20T now reached 65mpg - 73mpg. No > >battery required, and no stingy driving required. That's right, I will let [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Do I asume that neither Mercedes and Toyota (Lexus) aren't interested? > I wonder why:-). Perhaps snake oil comes to mind. Perhaps poor engrish grammar make your book looks like a scam. Seriously, if you want to make money, make it on service, not the book. Offer to do this for people (modify their cars), not sell a book for an exorbitant cost. $99 for a book is scam no matter what the subject is. If you want people to buy it at that price make it a college textbook, thats the only way I would pay that much money for a book. > On Oct 23, 1:08 am, Edward W. Thompson <thomed...@btopenworld.com> > wrote: >> >Cam >> >20 years ElectroMechanic engineer. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Perhaps poor engrish grammar make your book looks like a scam. Ah, so. Engrish. http://www.engrish.com/ Bery, bery funny! You raugh so hard you cly.  SignatureTegger The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ Use the power of the internet. First, create a short ad in youtube to show off your car. After that, people can comment if its a scam or not. > Use the power of the internet. First, create a short ad in youtube to > show off your car. After that, people can comment if its a scam or not. Thanks Ed, I thought about that idea too but how can you prove to people that your video is not a scam? It can be manipulated like photos. You can't video all the way to 800-900 miles of driving, you have to stop and start the video, this is where people will have doubt. I thought about having someone put a security tape on my gas cap to guarantee that I will not refuel. This security tape must come from someone I do not know. What do you think about this idea? Cam > > Use the power of the internet. First, create a short ad in youtube to > > show off your car. After that, people can comment if its a scam or not. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Cam Well, here are some suggestions: 1. There are mpg measuring instruments that you plug into a cars ODB connector. 2. Can you hook up your device in some standalone electric generator? Pour half a gallon, or lower, of gas and run the engine and measure the time before it dies out. Compare it with the engine having no device installed. 3. Briefly explain the theory of your product. 4. Get a DMV inspection before and after, and show the results 5. The security seal on the tank is a great idea. Have some reputable third party involvement like AAA. AAA WA will seal the tank and AAA CA will verify 6. Team up with bus companies where the driver / passenger will verify the seal and mileage of your car from start to finish. 7. Get a service from Infiniti or Mercedes Benz and talk to the service manager and tell us what they think about your car. Hope you like these suggestions and good luck! >> > Use the power of the internet. First, create a short ad in youtube to >> > show off your car. After that, people can comment if its a scam or not. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Hope you like these suggestions and good luck! Thanks for your suggestion, I like your idea for the most part, except that this theory isn't just a single device, it is the integration of new technology and the improvement of the old technology. It won't be easy to undo the work, because it took me 3 days to integrate and test them together, so it will take equal time to undo and redo to use your method of measurement. I used the Fuel meter and known distance to measure the performance along with my calculator. It's a simple math any one can understand, because Distance, MPG and hours to drive are all related, plus you know your Tank capacity. On the Mercedes, there is a built-in Computer that tells you the MPG which is nice. > >> "EdV" <systme...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > you know your Tank capacity. On the Mercedes, there is a built-in Computer > that tells you the MPG which is nice. DMV and Manufacturer's comment is important. These are always in the FAQ's, 1. Will it void my car's warranty? 2. Is this damage my vehicle? 3. Will my car pass inspection? >> >> "EdV" <systme...@hotmail.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > DMV and Manufacturer's comment is important. These are always in the I do not think DMV will not endorse any one's invention. > FAQ's, > 1. Will it void my car's warranty? Car Manufacturers will always want no one to tamper with their design even though they have lots of errors in their own design. For instance, when I first bought my infiniti, I smell motor oil every time I went to have an oil change, it's typical for Japanese cars and for American car. Do you know why? they didn't seal the engine comparment very well, so I went ahead and seal it (to block some oil spill by the technician), so does it mean I break their warranty? Very likely the car maker will say Yes, but I don't care since I am doing the right thing. German cars are well made, you won't smell the oil at all. In any cases, I have NEVER benefit anything from the car's warranty. Warranty = Guarantee with condition, if your car is new then they will give you a prompt attention. > 2. Is this damage my vehicle? Definitely NO, if it had the ability to damage the car then I would have been dead long time ago. I put my cars to test on the high-way (up to 100mph) for over a year now, I got speedy tickets while testing, I drove what I invented. So do you think I want to die? I worked in Engineering field for over 20 years, everything I do has to be safe and well computed. The answer is No It will not damage your vehicle, it will extend the life of your car, because your car will work less hard. > 3. Will my car pass inspection? Of course your car will pass the inspection. In fact I already went through DMV inspection once, it passed without any problem. There is no smoke whatsoever from the exhaust pipe. > >> "EdV" <systme...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > car's warranty. Warranty = Guarantee with condition, if your car is new > then they will give you a prompt attention. You have never seen the oil on my BMW E34 =) Anyway, warranty is important as long as the car doesn't breakdown because of the add on modification. > > 2. Is this damage my vehicle? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The answer is No It will not damage your vehicle, it will extend the life of > your car, because your car will work less hard. What's holding you back, for $99 but 50% inc in MPG people will buy them. Some still use acetone in their fuel. Tornados and other devices are still popular even if EPA test reveal no savings. Just make sure you offer a 30 day money back guarantee and it will not be busted by discovery channels mythbusters =) If the principle behind the method will stand the criticisms here in this news group then for sure you already have an idea on what the actual market will say. By the way, when you buy the book it comes with the device? > > Use the power of the internet. First, create a short ad in youtube to > > show off your car. After that, people can comment if its a scam or not. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Cam First you need to submit your vehicle to a well respected test agency, to obtain an independent realistic report from their standard test circuit. Consumer Reports? > Thanks for your suggestion, I like your idea for the most part, except that > this theory isn't just a single device, it is the integration of new [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > you know your Tank capacity. On the Mercedes, there is a built-in Computer > that tells you the MPG which is nice. Your last comments above have created doubt in my mind. Sounds a bit like the French air car, which hasn't burned up the roads. >> > Use the power of the internet. First, create a short ad in youtube to >> > show off your car. After that, people can comment if its a scam or not. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Your last comments above have created doubt in my mind. > Sounds a bit like the French air car, which hasn't burned up the roads. It's your own imagination. Do not let your faulty imagination drive you nuts. I agree, I do not like the French cars, however their math is much more easier to handle the complexity. I am not French but I went to French schools when I was little. My English is not perfect, because I was not born with it. If you judge people by their tongues, then you are looking at their tongues rather than their brains. >> > Use the power of the internet. First, create a short ad in youtube to >> > show off your car. After that, people can comment if its a scam or not. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >Your last comments above have created doubt in my mind. >Sounds a bit like the French air car, which hasn't burned up the roads. I really can't understand how you guys can give this claim any credibility. Simply think it through. Without modifying the basic engine and by simply modifying timing and the fuel injection characteristics a very substantial invcrease in fuel consumption can be achieved. If significant improvement in fuel consumption can so easily be achieved why are manufacturers spending substantail money on trying to improve fuel consumption by designing ever more economical vehicles, hybrids, fuel cells and the like? The manufacturers' engineers must be truly incompetent! >>>>Use the power of the internet. First, create a short ad in youtube to >>>>show off your car. After that, people can comment if its a scam or not. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > vehicles, hybrids, fuel cells and the like? The manufacturers' > engineers must be truly incompetent! You know, that's the problem, they are not. They are the best that money can buy. So, if the choice is either you are right and they are wrong, or you are wrong and they are right, well, I will go with the latter. Extreme claims require extreme proof. j. >>>>>Use the power of the internet. First, create a short ad in youtube to >>>>>show off your car. After that, people can comment if its a scam or not. [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > j. Many carmakers designed their vehicles with unnecessary frictions, and you paid so many thousands $$$ for saying "That's the way it ought to be designed" by listening to the poor mechanics and your carmakers. Now you can fix the frictions and save your dollars by using my expertise. Mechanics can only do so much, they have fixed-minds. I am not hungry for your dollars, I am here to help. If you don't need my help then go on spend your dollars at the pumps. Regards, Cam. Please read this entire post before you attack me for defending Cam. I think that a lot of people on here are stuck in a paradigm. Cam is right that there are lots of places in an engine where there is unnecessary friction. (Even if his english is not perfect, it is better than any language I've tried to speak that isn't English.) This has actually been proven by many people over the years. One of my engineering professors worked for GM in the 70s and by redesigning piston rings his team was able to raise fuel efficiency in some GM engines by about 4%, which is not trivial. There are loads of places where engineers accept that losses are present, and little is done about it. The internal combustion engine is old technology that we keep improving on, but aside from teh rotary engine, there isn't a radically new type of IC technology. If you look at the wiseman crank, at www.wisemanengine.com, you will see solid engineering that proves that there are huge losses due to friction caused by the side to side motion of the crank rod causing a binding tendency between the piston skirt and the cylinder wall. Wiseman invented a way around this and they have documented huge fuel savings. I have a hunch that manufacturing costs are keeping it out of the mainstream. The Coates engines(www.coatesengine.com) have a rotary valvetrain for higher power and increased efficiency. It is a matter of a manufacturer being willing to take the leap of investing in retooling, being able to sell the public on the idea, and testing the hell out of a technology so they don't get pie on their face when it starts failing at 40k miles or 3 years like the reolutionary multilayered unibody chevy monzas(or was it the Vegas?) that were stiff and light, but rusted in 3 years. The original rotary engine was pretty much given up on by its inventor when mazda took on the program. They couldn't seal it properly in a way that woudl last. And over the years many have tried to build a good rotary valve as an alternative to tapet valves. Rotary valves had sealing problems or flow problems for years. Coates got around that. There are solutions out there. Some have even been found. Additionally, it is possible to increase efficiency by changing timing and a few basic operating parameters of the engine. Check into the miller cycle. It is a cycle that uses a different valve opening algorythm to improve efficiency. Mazda toyed around with that in the 90s on more than one car, and the toyota prius uses it. It sacrifices power for efficiency though. In today's horsepower race, that is not the way to go. So engineers today know about things like the Miller cycle, but in every design solution there are compromises. They choose to bias more towards performance than economy-thus no miller cycle. So some solutions are not used because they come with unpreferable compromises. Some because they are against the paradigm, some because they don't have the proof of longevity, some because manufacturing costs would be too high. There are many reasons that there may be a legitimate way of saving gas that we don't currently have on our cars. The question is does Cam have the answer? I'd bet the likeliness that he has an original answer that can easily be modified into a newer car is pretty small. Very small. Especially since he claims it is noninvasive. Perhaps it is an already invented, yet not widely known technology that he simply tells you about in the book. Changing the ECU's mapping is not easy or cheap. Installing a wiseman crank necessitates redesigning the entire lower end. Coates valves are a total head replacement. Teflon coatings are not cheap. I just can't imagine an easy noninvasive way of doing it. (But that doesn't mean that someone else hasn't.) I think that if the Wiseman crank were combined with the coates valves and run with a miller cycle, or run on diesel, we could see efficiencies much higher than we see now. But that is just me dreaming. I'm not trying to sell you any books on it. > You know, that's the problem, they are not. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > - Show quoted text - If there is one fuel saving technique car manufacturers have to incorporate in engines, it should be on the air filter. It is already used in household vacuum cleaners called a Dyson. No loss of suction, no filters to replace. Maybe, just maybe, they can use it on exhaust pipes too. Yeah, but you have to empty the dust out of the machine. No hygienic bag. DAS For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling --- > If there is one fuel saving technique car manufacturers have to > incorporate in engines, it should be on the air filter. It is already > used in household vacuum cleaners called a Dyson. No loss of suction, > no filters to replace. Maybe, just maybe, they can use it on exhaust > pipes too. Well, there's a dust collector in a dyson so they wont be scattered back into the house. For car use, the dust can be dumped under the car, whats important is that the dust dont get inside the engine. Anyway, its a silly idea, and not cost effective. Air filters are cheap. > Yeah, but you have to empty the dust out of the machine. No hygienic bag. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > no filters to replace. Maybe, just maybe, they can use it on exhaust > > pipes too. >Please read this entire post before you attack me for defending Cam. > [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] >> >> - Show quoted text - I do not disagree with what you have posted except that improvement in fuel efficiency is a 'hot selling' item for all manufacturers and if there is an economic means to incorporate fuel efficiency measures then manufacturers would do it simply to give an 'edge' over competitors. There is no global conspiracy or collusion between auto manufacturers and oil companies to keep the automobile fuel inefficient. The reciprocating internal combustion engine is the best we have at present. The Wankel engine is interesting but has not (yet) realized its initial promise (high power to weight ratio plus efficiency). Other auto fuel economy schemes, such as hybrids, are very questionable when overall fuel economy is concerned. The hydrogen cell again is interesting but is not fuel efficient when all factors are taken into consideration (if there is sufficient non fossil fuel available it may be useful but not otherwise at least taking present technology into consideration). Returning to the claims of CAM's, they are simply preposterous. My understanding is that by non invasive means he claims his 'invention' will very significantly (not marginally), increase the fuel consumption of modern autos. If that was true he would not need to come to a NG such as this for advice on how to market his 'invention'. Auto companies would be queuing at his doorstep. I am suprised that so many who subscribe to this NG have given his claim credibility, it deserves nothing but derision. > I am suprised that so many who subscribe to this NG have given his > claim credibility, it deserves nothing but derision. Cam was only asking for suggestion on how to market his product, such that it would look like a scam. Why would I put down someone who came to this NG for some friendly advice? It is car related and deserves a fair response, there's much more off topic threads here (alt.autos.toyota) but I don't complain. I was not giving him credit. At the end I think I made my skepticism of his claims clear. Maybe I didn't make them clear enough. I was merely trying to point out that it is possible to make engines much more efficient than they are, but it is very often not practical. I have heard people complain that they think that there is a conspiracy to keep these fuel saving inventions off the road, but I don't buy that. Often times the more promising ones are bought and benched. However, it is not to appease the oil companies as is often claimed, but instead because of economics, longevity, emissions, or safety considerations. Mass producing, testing, and backing up an engine that you have made more efficient is more complicated than it seems. I agree but also disagree with you that fuel efficiency is a hot item. It is only hot in terms of competition amongst manufacturers, but not in terms of trying to maximize the possibilities. Any large manufacturer today has the knowledge, technology, and capability to build cars capable of over 60 miles per gallon without using a complex hybrid drivetrain. However, the compromises might not be acceptable. Crashworthiness might suffer. Acceleration would definitely suffer. Payload would definitely suffer. Thus marketing those cars would be tough. You may say that the prius is proof to the contrary since it has a wait list. (Does it still?). However, I'd guess that the prius makes up less than 0.5% of cars on the road, and if we were to reach say 2%, the market would be saturated. It is a well engineered car, but definitely not for everyone. So fuel efficiency is a marketable item, but you only have to be more efficient than your competitor, and the counter to that is you have to offer comparable performance. That is the big sticking point-performance. We are making cars today that are much much more powerful than cars were in the eighties, and use about the same fuel. The technology has improved. However, the focus has not been on using less gas, but on going faster. The public is no longer receptive to cars that take 13 seconds to hit 60 like many cars did 20 years ago. The blistering pace of the mid eighties pony cars can now be bested or at least accomplished with an economy car. I remember when GM stuck the 275 horse V8 into the camaro in 93. That was basically a mildly detuned Corvette engine, and made the car much faster than anything else for that much money at the time. It was huge bang for the buck. The 0-60 was I think 5.7 seconds. Now Honda accords and Hyundai Sonatas are not much slower than that. Stock minivans can take integras at the drag strip. The race for power is not overt as much as a slippery slope, but it has slowly led us to ridiculously powered cars by 80s standards. The public won't settle for slow cars any more. I was thinking yesterday after I posted my post about a story that Doc Holloway-president of SAE in 1997 or so- told me. Some Nascar race team was testing at a track and they miraculously instantly gained a few miles per hour over the previous days performance, which is a huge gain. It baffled them until they realized that they had forgotten to fill the differential and had been running almost completely dry. The thick gear lube was worth that much losses. (If you have ever tried to squeeze a bottle of that stuff to force it into a transmission, a light bulb is probably lighting off over your head.) So it could be that Cams idea centers around changing all your lubricants to a much lower viscosity fluid. This would improve efficiency at the sacrifice of component life. Not the kind of trade-off I would want in my car. Have a good day, Bill > I do not disagree with what you have posted except that improvement in > fuel efficiency is a 'hot selling' item for all manufacturers and if [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >>> > Use the power of the internet. First, create a short ad in youtube to >>> > show off your car. After that, people can comment if its a scam or [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > vehicles, hybrids, fuel cells and the like? The manufacturers' > engineers must be truly incompetent! Many carmakers designed their vehicles with unnecessary frictions (except the hybridges), and you paid so many thousands $$$ for saying "That's the way it ought to be designed" by listening to the poor mechanics and your carmakers. Now you can fix the frictions and save your dollars by using my expertise. Mechanics can only do so much, they have fixed-minds. I am not hungry for your dollars, I am here to help. If you don't need my help then go on spend your dollars at the pumps. Regards, Cam. >>>> > Use the power of the internet. First, create a short ad in youtube to >>>> > show off your car. After that, people can comment if its a scam or [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > >Cam. What are frictions? If you mean 'friction' losses due to frictyion in automobile engines (bearings and piston rings) are very low. How are you going to reduce/eliminate piston ring and bearing losses? You seem to have all the characteristics of a 'nut case'. >>>>> > Use the power of the internet. First, create a short ad in youtube >>>>> > to [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > > You seem to have all the characteristics of a 'nut case'. Hey you idiot, Why don't you cut your talk and bring an equal car to raise for a 600 miles mark, to see which car will stop for Gas first, and see which one will reach destination without refueling. Shall we? >>>>>> > Use the power of the internet. First, create a short ad in youtube >>>>>> > to [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] >mark, to see which car will stop for Gas first, and see which one will reach >destination without refueling. Shall we? Touched a nerve did we? How about answering the question? Can't? Not suprised! >> > Use the power of the internet. First, create a short ad in youtube to >> > show off your car. After that, people can comment if its a scam or not. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Your last comments above have created doubt in my mind. > Sounds a bit like the French air car, which hasn't burned up the roads. Many carmakers designed their vehicles with unnecessary frictions, and you paid so many thousands $$$ for saying "That's the way it ought to be designed" by listening to the poor mechanics and your carmakers. Now you can fix the frictions and save your dollars by using my expertise. Mechanics can only do so much, they have fixed-minds. I am not hungry for your dollars, I am here to help. If you don't need my help then go on spend your dollars at the pumps. Regards, Cam. > On Oct 23, 1:08 am, Edward W. Thompson <thomed...@btopenworld.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Perhaps poor engrish grammar make your book looks like a scam. Yup berry phunny Tigger, in any cases thanks for your input, you would think I'm stupid enough to write the book on my own? hummm.. it's a typical American's attitude, I guess. > "DougS" <wdsims63@gmail.com> wrote in message >> Perhaps poor engrish grammar make your book looks like a scam. > > Yup berry phunny Tigger, in any cases thanks for your input, you would > think I'm stupid enough to write the book on my own? hummm.. it's a > typical American's attitude, I guess. I didn't write that comment. DougS did. And I'm not from the USA. :) SignatureTegger >> "DougS" <wdsims63@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > And I'm not from the USA. :) You're right, sorry about that. Cam [to "Tegger"] >> And I'm not from the USA. :) > You're right, sorry about that. What you _should_ be apologizing for is being chauvinistic about Americans, not mistaking somebody for one. Geoff -- "When his life was ruined, his family killed, his farm destroyed, Job knelt down on the ground and yelled up to the heavens, 'Why, God? Why me?' and the thundering voice of God answered, 'There's just something about you that pisses me off.'" -- Stephen King > [to "Tegger"] > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > God? Why me?' and the thundering voice of God answered, 'There's > just something about you that pisses me off.'" -- Stephen King I think you need to trace where the fire started, and fix it at the root level. Some of you started to make fun of me first without any evidence. This is not the first time, back in April 2007, I claimed I have successfully accomplished a 50mpg, some of you called me Mr.. snake oil, now I went to 65-73mpg, you still called me Mr. snake oil. The golden rule is: "Do not do unto others as you would they should do unto you." : What you _should_ be apologizing for is being chauvinistic : about Americans, not mistaking somebody for one. > I think you need to trace where the fire started, and fix it > at the root level. Some of you started to make fun of me > first without any evidence. This is not the first time, back > in April 2007, I claimed I have successfully accomplished a > 50mpg, some of you called me Mr.. snake oil, now I went to > 65-73mpg, you still called me Mr. snake oil. Nice attempt at diversion. What's that got to do with your being chauvinistic toward Americans? Geoff -- "When his life was ruined, his family killed, his farm destroyed, Job knelt down on the ground and yelled up to the heavens, 'Why, God? Why me?' and the thundering voice of God answered, 'There's just something about you that pisses me off.'" -- Stephen King > : What you _should_ be apologizing for is being chauvinistic > : about Americans, not mistaking somebody for one. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > God? Why me?' and the thundering voice of God answered, 'There's > just something about you that pisses me off.'" -- Stephen King Diversion? You speak like a drunk. Should I apologize for telling you the truth? Sometimes you ought to think why America has so many problems? Are we being cursed or what? I didn't know Mercedes had bought MINI off BMW... DAS For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] >>Here is Info about Mercedes MINI Range, >>http://forums.mg-rover.org/showthread.php?t=194886 [...] I live in S.W. Washington. I'd be willing to work with you. > On city/highway driving, my Infiniti G20T now reached 65mpg - 73mpg. No > battery required, and no stingy driving required. That's right, I will let [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Remember, 72.4 miles per imperial gallon translates to 60.28 miles per US > gallon- and this is for the average figure of combined city/highway driving |
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.