Axial Flow Supercharger
05-31-2004, 12:51 PM
#51
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Houston
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turbine_pwr,
I don't really see where you are picking a fight. Real nice plots there! The plots show that increased efficiency reduces compressor outlet temp but that much of the temp increase comes from the compression process and is not related to efficiency.
It is safe to say that if a specific engine had a 70% efficient compressor that produces 5 psi of boost then if the compressor were upgraded to a 90% efficient unit then the boost could be upped to say 6 psi and still have the same detonation resistance.
I don't really see where you are picking a fight. Real nice plots there! The plots show that increased efficiency reduces compressor outlet temp but that much of the temp increase comes from the compression process and is not related to efficiency.
It is safe to say that if a specific engine had a 70% efficient compressor that produces 5 psi of boost then if the compressor were upgraded to a 90% efficient unit then the boost could be upped to say 6 psi and still have the same detonation resistance.
05-31-2004, 01:03 PM
#52
Registered
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chandler, Az
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
babylou
You hit the nail on the head relative to detonation resistance. In addition to that, there would be less work/power being used to generate the same 5-6psig of boost. IE. Less wasted power
You hit the nail on the head relative to detonation resistance. In addition to that, there would be less work/power being used to generate the same 5-6psig of boost. IE. Less wasted power
05-31-2004, 01:23 PM
#53
Registered User
Turbine_pwr,
Let me try to restate what you have said:
1. Going from a 70% efficient unit to a 90% efficient unit will give you a slightly better resistance to detonation allowing you to use about 20% more boost.
2. The power lost in the 70% efficient supercharger is probably more of an issue over a 90% efficient unit than the actualy detonation resistance.
Correct?
Anyway to me the big advantage of efficient units are size, less heat and hopefully better reliability in the process.
Richard, please keep the Renesis of the RX-8 in mind for your product applications. The two working together should make for one tiny super potent power plant.
-Mr. Wigggles
Let me try to restate what you have said:
1. Going from a 70% efficient unit to a 90% efficient unit will give you a slightly better resistance to detonation allowing you to use about 20% more boost.
2. The power lost in the 70% efficient supercharger is probably more of an issue over a 90% efficient unit than the actualy detonation resistance.
Correct?
Anyway to me the big advantage of efficient units are size, less heat and hopefully better reliability in the process.
Richard, please keep the Renesis of the RX-8 in mind for your product applications. The two working together should make for one tiny super potent power plant.
-Mr. Wigggles
05-31-2004, 01:30 PM
#54
Registered User
BTW,
Richard Paul, you haven't mentioned anything about noise at this point. With such efficiency noise should be reduced however at 40,000+ RPM you are getting a lot closer to the point where humans are more sensitive to noise the 1K+ range.
In terms of dBA, how is your unit looking?
-Mr. Wigggles
Richard Paul, you haven't mentioned anything about noise at this point. With such efficiency noise should be reduced however at 40,000+ RPM you are getting a lot closer to the point where humans are more sensitive to noise the 1K+ range.
In terms of dBA, how is your unit looking?
-Mr. Wigggles
05-31-2004, 01:34 PM
#55
Registered User
Oh one more thing 
,
Richard, you say the pressure rise is linial, does that mean that if we set up the unit to provide 9lbs at 9000 RPM it is only going to give us 4lbs at 4000 RPM?
Are there any ways around this?
-Mr. Wigggles
,Richard, you say the pressure rise is linial, does that mean that if we set up the unit to provide 9lbs at 9000 RPM it is only going to give us 4lbs at 4000 RPM?
Are there any ways around this?
-Mr. Wigggles
05-31-2004, 02:54 PM
#56
FI
Turbine_pwr, Thank you. You make my point, I think I'll steal your plots.
We forget to tell the readers that they may not be able to use more boost just because it is cooler. This is because they are already getting more "boost". This is from the mass flow increase of the cooler charge.
The number you really want is "density ratio" rather then "pressure ratio"
The formula for density ratio is Pressure ratio times Temp 1 over temp 2. Temp is in degrees R. or absolute. or gauge plus 460.
So say our Pr is 1.5 or 7.5psi in hot rod lingo. or 45 in hg in abs.
Anyway lest I drift away, 70 ambient + 460=530 and say a rise of 128 for our 50% unit= 658
530 over 658=.8
Therefore 1.5x.8=1.2
So you only really got 3psi of extra air in your engine.
Lets try 65% blower or 95 temp rise
530+95=625 so 530 over 625=.848
.848x1.5=1.27
or aprox 4psi of extra air.
Now for 85% or 75 degrees increase.
530+75=605
530 over 605 .876
1.5x.876=1.31
or 4.6 added air.
I know, I'm not much of a professor, that's why I'm here and not on campus. But I hope you guys a smart enough to read through my convoluted expaination.
Mr Wiggles, On the pressure slope you are almost right. It really is a little worse. Due to the effects of leakage at lower speeds it might be slightly less. Is there hope, maybe. I am thinking of oversizing the compressor and bleeding some air between stages at the top end. Jet aircraft do this with electronic controls. That might not be practical for us. But a mechanical control might be.
Trouble with that is that axial compressors don't like to make very much external compression. It slows the air across the "wing" thus killing "lift". I take a lot of liberty with these words in an effort to explain it. The design of an AF compressor is one of the most complicated aerodynamic jobs one can take on. More so than just a wing it is a 3D cascading calculation.
So to make it simple, I can not give you a simple answer. But consider this; If you are the kind of driver who floors the engine at half speed you are not doing the engine a favor. Some call it lugging.
The high performance driver never treats his engine that way. Plus the point of optimum inlet filling is at peak torque. (my dog is named Torque. Tells ya where I'm at) so the point of critical detonation is there. NASCAR drivers when forced to restart lift when passing through peak torque. They race above that point.
They don't have electronic help. Not legal.
Next noise. All I can say is that on my older blowers as long as an aircleaner was on and you were not WOT there was no noise. I used to have a 928 Porche with a small block chevy in it and one of my blowers. It made 500 hp and 500 lbs of torque. All fit under the hood. When I would pick people up at LAX I made a point to not tell them anything. Then I'd go home on Supulveda which runs along the runway and not high trafic. Well you know the rest.
BTW, if you question my 928 story, the car was in about four magazines. I'm going to see if I can find a list for you.
So, have I missed anything???
Richard
PS OK for you guys, since there semms no end to your desire to read I'm attaching some light stuff for you. You see I used to like writing about these things.
We forget to tell the readers that they may not be able to use more boost just because it is cooler. This is because they are already getting more "boost". This is from the mass flow increase of the cooler charge.
The number you really want is "density ratio" rather then "pressure ratio"
The formula for density ratio is Pressure ratio times Temp 1 over temp 2. Temp is in degrees R. or absolute. or gauge plus 460.
So say our Pr is 1.5 or 7.5psi in hot rod lingo. or 45 in hg in abs.
Anyway lest I drift away, 70 ambient + 460=530 and say a rise of 128 for our 50% unit= 658
530 over 658=.8
Therefore 1.5x.8=1.2
So you only really got 3psi of extra air in your engine.
Lets try 65% blower or 95 temp rise
530+95=625 so 530 over 625=.848
.848x1.5=1.27
or aprox 4psi of extra air.
Now for 85% or 75 degrees increase.
530+75=605
530 over 605 .876
1.5x.876=1.31
or 4.6 added air.
I know, I'm not much of a professor, that's why I'm here and not on campus. But I hope you guys a smart enough to read through my convoluted expaination.
Mr Wiggles, On the pressure slope you are almost right. It really is a little worse. Due to the effects of leakage at lower speeds it might be slightly less. Is there hope, maybe. I am thinking of oversizing the compressor and bleeding some air between stages at the top end. Jet aircraft do this with electronic controls. That might not be practical for us. But a mechanical control might be.
Trouble with that is that axial compressors don't like to make very much external compression. It slows the air across the "wing" thus killing "lift". I take a lot of liberty with these words in an effort to explain it. The design of an AF compressor is one of the most complicated aerodynamic jobs one can take on. More so than just a wing it is a 3D cascading calculation.
So to make it simple, I can not give you a simple answer. But consider this; If you are the kind of driver who floors the engine at half speed you are not doing the engine a favor. Some call it lugging.
The high performance driver never treats his engine that way. Plus the point of optimum inlet filling is at peak torque. (my dog is named Torque. Tells ya where I'm at) so the point of critical detonation is there. NASCAR drivers when forced to restart lift when passing through peak torque. They race above that point.
They don't have electronic help. Not legal.
Next noise. All I can say is that on my older blowers as long as an aircleaner was on and you were not WOT there was no noise. I used to have a 928 Porche with a small block chevy in it and one of my blowers. It made 500 hp and 500 lbs of torque. All fit under the hood. When I would pick people up at LAX I made a point to not tell them anything. Then I'd go home on Supulveda which runs along the runway and not high trafic. Well you know the rest.
BTW, if you question my 928 story, the car was in about four magazines. I'm going to see if I can find a list for you.
So, have I missed anything???
Richard
PS OK for you guys, since there semms no end to your desire to read I'm attaching some light stuff for you. You see I used to like writing about these things.
05-31-2004, 03:19 PM
#57
One more thing for homework tonight. The power to compress the air is thus:
lbs of air per second x temp rise x .3395
That is what it takes in the way of work on the air. It does not include the mechanical losses. ie bearings, seals, belt drive. and the pumping losses for ducts.
I love having a captive group.
also looking for those magazines.
RAP
lbs of air per second x temp rise x .3395
That is what it takes in the way of work on the air. It does not include the mechanical losses. ie bearings, seals, belt drive. and the pumping losses for ducts.
I love having a captive group.
also looking for those magazines.
RAP
Last edited by Richard Paul; 05-31-2004 at 03:24 PM.
05-31-2004, 03:20 PM
#58
Registered User
Re: FI
Originally posted by Richard Paul
my convoluted expaination.
my convoluted expaination.
Thanks for your answers especially regarding the noise or lack there of.
When someone says, they are marketing an airplane part for my car, I get a little nervous.
Also, thanks for the math on the not all psi are psi. We should concentrate on injected moles of air shouldn't we?
With the RX-8's torque curve being relatively flat, it sounds like your charger is going to put an upwards slope to that curve. Not all bad and in some respects better than a laggy turbo just not exactly what everyone here is looking for.
I think most people here want to raise the entire torque curve, I hope this doesn't discourage you. The price is right and the product sounds very interesting.
-Mr. Wigggles
05-31-2004, 06:35 PM
#59
I'm hoping that this allows for an attachment at the end.
Anyway here is another good formula for determining mass flow as recieved into the manifold. And that is the final task isn't it, not manifold pressure.
To find the mass of intake charge:
CFM X MAP X AMB TEMP R X .072
OVER
29.92 X MAN TEMP R
= LBS. AIR PER MIN
Note: The constant .072 is not standard corrected dry air 60 F at sea level it is a number I use for realistic enviorment.
MAP is manifold pressure absolute "hg
or inches of mercury
in general hp is 10x #/min
I'd better be carfull and say rule of thumb in Otto cycle engines
so if you can flow 50 lbs/min you get 500 hp.
all letters on this one will get filed.
Anyway here is another good formula for determining mass flow as recieved into the manifold. And that is the final task isn't it, not manifold pressure.
To find the mass of intake charge:
CFM X MAP X AMB TEMP R X .072
OVER
29.92 X MAN TEMP R
= LBS. AIR PER MIN
Note: The constant .072 is not standard corrected dry air 60 F at sea level it is a number I use for realistic enviorment.
MAP is manifold pressure absolute "hg
or inches of mercury
in general hp is 10x #/min
I'd better be carfull and say rule of thumb in Otto cycle engines
so if you can flow 50 lbs/min you get 500 hp.
all letters on this one will get filed.
Last edited by Richard Paul; 06-01-2006 at 08:25 PM.
06-01-2004, 12:28 AM
#64
Registered
I haven't had much of a chance to look this all over. From what little I did read, it all makes sense. I'll see if I can translate this into rotary language tomorrow.
06-01-2004, 11:50 PM
#66
Registered
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chandler, Az
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Richard,
I have a number of questions that may be beyond the scope of this discussion but are important relative to the topic you've presented.
By the way, if you are interested in a brief technical description of rotary engine designs Chapter 7 of Kenneth Weston's book titled "Energy Conversion" has basic equations describing compression ratio, displacement, and power calculations. This book has a number of additional references at the back of the chapter.
On to my questions:
1. In general, there is a transition point between axial flow compressors and centrifugal compressors. As pressure ratios increase and or mass flow rate decreases... the back stages of axial compressors become very short and the blade height to tip clearance ratio leads to poor efficiency. At what point would you go from an axial flow compressor design to a centrifugal design?
2. How many stages of axial compressor would you use to generate boost pressures between 8 and 14 psig. Obviously, this equates to a pressure ratio of 1.5ish to approximately 2.0
3. How would you plan on distributing the stage pressure ratio in a two or three stage design? Can you give me an idea about the target peak diffusion factor you would design for?
4. Axial compressors tend to be more sensitive to inlet distortion and back pressure and as a result tend to be easier to stall. When they surge, the entire flow field tends to break down in an axial design. However, a centrifugal compresor will often continue to pump even when operating in rotating stall (*note efficiency and flow are compromised if operating in stall). What design techniques have you employeed to minimize this behavior or alternatively how much surge margin do your axial flow compressor designs have?
5. Why use a 4-to-1 planetary gear to change the speed of the compressor rotor? This seems expensive to me. Why not just use a 4 or 5 to 1 gear/pulley ratio to step the speeds for the compressor up.
6. I assume that the compressor rotors are integrally bladed disks (I'm guessing CNC machined rotors) and stator segments. What is the estimated cost for this type of compressor? I'm just looking for a ballpark number not a quote. It just seems like it would be much more expensive than a centrifugal design. Is this a split case design or do the segments sack together and use a tensioned tiebolt?
7. Axial compressors, especially ones with small blades, tend to be good vacuumn cleaners but are also very sensitive to foreign object damage. What special steps have been taken to make the compressor less susceptable to damage?
8. In earlier posts, you quoted an adiabatic efficiency of approximately 85% for your axial compressor. As you know this corresponds to a specific compressor pressure ratio. Can you tell me what the expected polytropic efficiency for your compressor designs are? This is a better indication of technology level as it is independant of compressor pressure ratio.
Sorry for all the questions. I'm intrigued by your design. I also have a significant amount of experience in the gas turbine area. So I would like to get a better feel for the specifics about what you are proposing.
Thanks for any additional info you can provide.
I have a number of questions that may be beyond the scope of this discussion but are important relative to the topic you've presented.
By the way, if you are interested in a brief technical description of rotary engine designs Chapter 7 of Kenneth Weston's book titled "Energy Conversion" has basic equations describing compression ratio, displacement, and power calculations. This book has a number of additional references at the back of the chapter.
On to my questions:
1. In general, there is a transition point between axial flow compressors and centrifugal compressors. As pressure ratios increase and or mass flow rate decreases... the back stages of axial compressors become very short and the blade height to tip clearance ratio leads to poor efficiency. At what point would you go from an axial flow compressor design to a centrifugal design?
2. How many stages of axial compressor would you use to generate boost pressures between 8 and 14 psig. Obviously, this equates to a pressure ratio of 1.5ish to approximately 2.0
3. How would you plan on distributing the stage pressure ratio in a two or three stage design? Can you give me an idea about the target peak diffusion factor you would design for?
4. Axial compressors tend to be more sensitive to inlet distortion and back pressure and as a result tend to be easier to stall. When they surge, the entire flow field tends to break down in an axial design. However, a centrifugal compresor will often continue to pump even when operating in rotating stall (*note efficiency and flow are compromised if operating in stall). What design techniques have you employeed to minimize this behavior or alternatively how much surge margin do your axial flow compressor designs have?
5. Why use a 4-to-1 planetary gear to change the speed of the compressor rotor? This seems expensive to me. Why not just use a 4 or 5 to 1 gear/pulley ratio to step the speeds for the compressor up.
6. I assume that the compressor rotors are integrally bladed disks (I'm guessing CNC machined rotors) and stator segments. What is the estimated cost for this type of compressor? I'm just looking for a ballpark number not a quote. It just seems like it would be much more expensive than a centrifugal design. Is this a split case design or do the segments sack together and use a tensioned tiebolt?
7. Axial compressors, especially ones with small blades, tend to be good vacuumn cleaners but are also very sensitive to foreign object damage. What special steps have been taken to make the compressor less susceptable to damage?
8. In earlier posts, you quoted an adiabatic efficiency of approximately 85% for your axial compressor. As you know this corresponds to a specific compressor pressure ratio. Can you tell me what the expected polytropic efficiency for your compressor designs are? This is a better indication of technology level as it is independant of compressor pressure ratio.
Sorry for all the questions. I'm intrigued by your design. I also have a significant amount of experience in the gas turbine area. So I would like to get a better feel for the specifics about what you are proposing.
Thanks for any additional info you can provide.
06-02-2004, 12:48 AM
#67
Geezz Turbine, there has to come a time when I have shut up. I thought I was already disclosing too much. But lets see what I can do on some of it.
1. These things will not happen in my aplication. The max compressor I will proably ever build is Pr2.5. I have no problem with tip clearences up to. I have zero clearance on the stator. Look at some of the photos I think there is stator in there. On second thought get me an e mail address and I'll send one.
2. 4 stages as shown makes 8 psi with some left at more rpm.
5 stages will go 11 psi. I will also e mail you some pictures of a 7 stage I built for an airplane 600 inch V-12. It was 1800 cfm and 18 psi. It could have gone to 20 if it had spun max.
3. A two or three stage would not be practical here. and you are getting to senitive areas. Nuf said, OK. Nothing personal.
4. Here is where all my time was spent for years. I really think I'm the only one who has worked with this combination of problems. Consider, off design operation. Unlike aircraft or gas turbine users we have to run from host engine idle to max. Then consider the intake density is constantly changing due to throttle opening. Next you are feeding a positive displacment pump. Again I.m really speaking out of class.
5. I tried that with the belt overdrive on my larger units for years.
6. I can't go there. You can see in the pics it is stacked.
7. They run an aircleaner or I sell them a new compressor section. No really, I have sold hundreds of units and only a few were ever damaged that way. Mostly from carb jets. We don't have those anymore. But they still have nuts. Normal FOD has not been a problem. Plus my old one was investment cast and these are solid billet. Solid bar stock and I will not tell you the rotor alloy. unobtainium they say.
8. On the instant unit all I can say is that the adiabatic goes from very high then slopes and then up again. The low speed can hardly be accuretly read with the equipment we have. Even with digital temp readings the delta is so small that I have to give it some slack or we would be running in the 90's. I reported this to my professor of turbo machinery and he said that is normal for this design.
Sorry I went back and removed some things. I really don't know when to speak and when not. I'm sure this forum would never wind up bitting me in the butt, but lets stop someplce
Maybe in the future we should speak privetly.
Richard
1. These things will not happen in my aplication. The max compressor I will proably ever build is Pr2.5. I have no problem with tip clearences up to. I have zero clearance on the stator. Look at some of the photos I think there is stator in there. On second thought get me an e mail address and I'll send one.
2. 4 stages as shown makes 8 psi with some left at more rpm.
5 stages will go 11 psi. I will also e mail you some pictures of a 7 stage I built for an airplane 600 inch V-12. It was 1800 cfm and 18 psi. It could have gone to 20 if it had spun max.
3. A two or three stage would not be practical here. and you are getting to senitive areas. Nuf said, OK. Nothing personal.
4. Here is where all my time was spent for years. I really think I'm the only one who has worked with this combination of problems. Consider, off design operation. Unlike aircraft or gas turbine users we have to run from host engine idle to max. Then consider the intake density is constantly changing due to throttle opening. Next you are feeding a positive displacment pump. Again I.m really speaking out of class.
5. I tried that with the belt overdrive on my larger units for years.
6. I can't go there. You can see in the pics it is stacked.
7. They run an aircleaner or I sell them a new compressor section. No really, I have sold hundreds of units and only a few were ever damaged that way. Mostly from carb jets. We don't have those anymore. But they still have nuts. Normal FOD has not been a problem. Plus my old one was investment cast and these are solid billet. Solid bar stock and I will not tell you the rotor alloy. unobtainium they say.
8. On the instant unit all I can say is that the adiabatic goes from very high then slopes and then up again. The low speed can hardly be accuretly read with the equipment we have. Even with digital temp readings the delta is so small that I have to give it some slack or we would be running in the 90's. I reported this to my professor of turbo machinery and he said that is normal for this design.
Sorry I went back and removed some things. I really don't know when to speak and when not. I'm sure this forum would never wind up bitting me in the butt, but lets stop someplce
Maybe in the future we should speak privetly.
Richard
Last edited by Richard Paul; 06-05-2004 at 03:24 PM.
06-02-2004, 06:48 AM
#68
Re: Re: FI
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MrWigggles
Also, thanks for the math on the not all psi are psi. We should concentrate on injected moles of air shouldn't we?
-That's what we should do. Actually someone already thought of it and named them "slugs". That is how we use the "Gas Law". I'm out of wind, ask Turbine.
RAP
Also, thanks for the math on the not all psi are psi. We should concentrate on injected moles of air shouldn't we?
-That's what we should do. Actually someone already thought of it and named them "slugs". That is how we use the "Gas Law". I'm out of wind, ask Turbine.
RAP
06-02-2004, 01:40 PM
#69
Registered
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Roselle, NJ
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For all of you guys biting into this Richard Pauls' hype regarding an sc, be very cautious. I for 1 don't want any person developing anything for my car when they have to ask questions about rotary engines. Mr Paul, if you're really legit, give your sc to a rotary expert and have them develop it for the 8.
As far as asking if there is a market for it, the RX8 community shouldn't have to prove anything. The aftermarket performance market has been growing so fast that question is moot. Where's the product. Don't hype us up, just put it out.
As far as asking if there is a market for it, the RX8 community shouldn't have to prove anything. The aftermarket performance market has been growing so fast that question is moot. Where's the product. Don't hype us up, just put it out.
06-02-2004, 02:49 PM
#71
I for one welcome new blood into the rotaty world. I'm sure Richard can work out the details on how to apply his SC to a rotary - with the help of others? Probably. But I'm sure he can do it.
Will I be the first one to buy a kit? Probably not, but I'd be tempted. Yes, Richard has a long way to go to deliver something (and may never), but I respect him for starting an open discussion. And since he hasn't made any delivery commitments yet, calling this thread hype is, well, hype.
Will I be the first one to buy a kit? Probably not, but I'd be tempted. Yes, Richard has a long way to go to deliver something (and may never), but I respect him for starting an open discussion. And since he hasn't made any delivery commitments yet, calling this thread hype is, well, hype.
06-02-2004, 03:26 PM
#73
TALAN7
Gee TALAN7, and I always talk so highly of you.
Just to show how fair I am, you can buy a bare compressor and do your own kit.
If you can't, then you are on my special discount program. List price PLUS 30%
Noticed the only thing you have bought is a speaker system. Did that make it go faster?
If you don't open your mouth they never know how dumb you are.
Just to show how fair I am, you can buy a bare compressor and do your own kit.
If you can't, then you are on my special discount program. List price PLUS 30%
Noticed the only thing you have bought is a speaker system. Did that make it go faster?
If you don't open your mouth they never know how dumb you are.
Last edited by Richard Paul; 06-02-2004 at 03:44 PM.
06-02-2004, 03:31 PM
#74
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Richard,
I hope the response you've received (idiots aside) has shown how enthusiastic this group is about FI for the RX-8. There's going to be a great market for it as a lot of us are clearly foaming at the mouth just talking about the possibilities.
Given that so many highly respected members of this forum are interested in what your compressor can do (namely rotarygod and Wakeech) it's definitely piqued my interest. Of course, it'll take an installation and #s to make the case complete, but I certainly hope you're able to bring this to market. Best of luck.
I hope the response you've received (idiots aside) has shown how enthusiastic this group is about FI for the RX-8. There's going to be a great market for it as a lot of us are clearly foaming at the mouth just talking about the possibilities.
Given that so many highly respected members of this forum are interested in what your compressor can do (namely rotarygod and Wakeech) it's definitely piqued my interest. Of course, it'll take an installation and #s to make the case complete, but I certainly hope you're able to bring this to market. Best of luck.
06-02-2004, 04:59 PM
#75
Registered
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Roselle, NJ
Posts: 683
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't get me wrong Mr Paul, I don't knock you for introducing a possible new product particularly a performance enhancing one. It's just that this board is full of rumors and hype regarding products that never see the light of day. People try to take advantage of those seeking power gains. Good luck in bringing your product to market.
