What do u think of electric turbo that works

:smokin: i repeat, we are not insulting anyones brain level here. but we have engineers who are working on this unit with us, so if your not an engineer, then do not preach your physics to us.

Compressor maps don't pertain to anything other than the flow characteristics of a particular compressor. Engine modifications will not effect that compressors flow characteristics. The flow map provided is in greater detail than typically provided by the majority of flow maps.

Polygon,
I started this thread and I don't believe that I had any intention on questioning anyones intelligence. The reason I started it was to prove the point that this item does actually work, but as you can see everyone just feels like it's a question of physics, when in reality "it works". I am not trying to start a battle of witts, just point out the facts. As I've said in the past "We don't make'em, we just sell'em and we don't sell it if it doesn't work.". If you're interested more then just click the link at the bottom of any of my posts and you can see pics, prices, etc. under the "punch it" catagory. :smile:

If you must know, I work in the shipping/receiving department for a software company, and I own my own business dealing with all aspects of computers. I also work a lot with home theater and Hi-Fi systems. I also do a lot of work on cars. Your occupation has no bearing on your knowledge or intelligence. So I don't see your argument here.

I am not against your product, and I hope that I haven't made it seem that way. I am all for anything that will add power reliably. Each side has very convincing points it is just tough for you to prove yours when there is certain information that you won't tell us, and I wouldn't either until I had a patent. I simply wouldn't have a use for your product since my cars are turbo-charged except for one and I would be willing to try it on that if the price were right. I would just rather spend money on my real performance cars than on my daily driver.

The problem with you guys using your dyno chart as your only proof is this; I took your dyno chart and modified it to show greater power gains, it took me 10 minutes, but I did a poor job. It was done in microsoft paint, a program most people have. The graph may not match the numbers perfectly but this is simply to show you how simple it is. I'm not accusing you of this, I am simply trying to show you why a dyno chart can't be your only proof.
http://files.automotiveforums.com/gallery/watermark.php?file=/503/6334563345Forged_dyno2.jpg
Easy to see how simple it would be to make a dyno chart say anything you want, if you were so inclined.

:mad: i believe the dyno said. not to duplicate!!!!!! you have taken 4 years of hard work and modified it to look like were fakes here. is this the level that your willing to go to to make this look like a bildge pump????

:mad: i have informed the moderator of this rediculas making of fake dyno's from our own dyno's. we get an ass load of e-mails and phone calls daily from magazines and turbo people wanting to do their own testings for verification. were going into max power in england & was contacted today from overboost.com for the same thing. if your not smart enough to create your own unit that works, then i will highly suggest that you leave our proof the hell alone!!!!!! that is not a damn request neither!!

I DID NOT DUPLICATE!!! I MODIFIED. To duplicate is to copy exactly, perhaps you should be more specific in your wording. MSN Encarta defines duplicate;

du·pli·cate

transitive verb (past du·pli·cat·ed, past participle du·pli·cat·ed, present participle du·pli·cat·ing, 3rd person present singular du·pli·cates)

1. copy something: to make an exact copy of something

As you can tell I did not make an exact copy of it, and therefor did not duplicate it.

And perhaps you should read my post more carefully before you act so outraged. Please note where I said "I'm not accusing you of this, I am simply trying to show you why a dyno chart can't be your only proof.". If your whole case revolves around a single peice of evidence, you should be prepared to have that evidence questioned.

:mad: well lets go modify a vortec dyno too, there may be legal action in that one. hmmm. lets put it this way. you keep your fucking hands off the dyno.

The difference between modifying your dyno chart and a vortec dyno chart is the fact that vortec has a copyright and privacy page (please note the portion that includes modification); http://www.vortechsuperchargers.com/copyright.html
While you simply had "do not duplicate" stamped on the front of the chart...Hardly legally binding. Especially since I did not duplicate it. It is my opinion that the modification of the chart was necessary to point out the ease with which such a chart can be made to construe any kind information. Not to accuse you of such a thing, but merely to explain one reason why none of us find your chart to be concrete proof.

:smokin: the subject of the electric turbo is a very delicate situation, it took a very long time to design and proove that the item works. and for some idiot to modify the proof is the bottom of the barrell defense. do you realize that if you type in electric turbo on the net, that the dyno is #7 on the damn list. we have lots of people who are getting demo units for testing, just to varify. not a problem. what you done was completely stupid. thats ok, were the ones getting the calls and requests for units to test. there is now a big interest in these. how many people call your shop or home wanting info or demo's to verify a product that you designed? probobly none.

So it is now uncouth to point out the reason your proof is inconcrete? Especially since the only proof you have offered us is a dyno chart and your word that it works? In my previous post I pointed out the problem inherent in online communication, it is extremely simple to falsify just about anything. Again, I am not accusing you of such.
As for your continuous statments that you constantly receive phone calls, good for you, I'm happy for you. I still don't know how any of this pertains to the subject at hand. And you are correct in your assumption that no one calls me about the product that I developed, as I did not develop any products. The lack of product makes such phone calls unnecessary. That hardly crushes my world. If you would like I will print "FALSE DYNO" across the front, or something to that effect, but your outrage is hardly called for.

You are correct when you say that this issue is a delicate one, the reason for this is due to the numorous scams of the past. With such a track record it pays to be scepticle, and the only way to overcome scepticism is through concrete proof. It is almost impossible to create irrefutable proof through an editable media. It was my aim to explain this quandary through the creation of the chart, nothing more. It was not my intent to offend, if I did so, I am genuinely sorry.

Sluttypatton,
If you were to have taken the time to go to the link at the bottom of any of my posts you would see that everything on the cargodz site is under copyright at the bottom of the home page meaning that everything posted by cargodz c.c. is protected by it. Now although you may not feel as if you have duplicated anything I can assure you that you have, as you have "TAKEN" our publication and altered it. That vehicle belongs to me, the test was paid for by me, so I believe you are closing in on theft.

Dear Mr. Moderator,
I know you check your threads often and I can't believe you could stand for such a thing, hopefully this post and the fact that one of your members is showing disrespect by any means will have you remove this imposter. Thank you.

This is an excerpt from the Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code.

Section 107
"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

That's fairly clear cut. I believe that this would fall under the "fair use" exemption. After all, my post was criticism, or comment. And if not, by uploading the file onto automotive forums you authorized the reproduction of that file.

:smokin: i repeat, we are not insulting anyones brain level here. but we have engineers who are working on this unit with us, so if your not an engineer, then do not preach your physics to us.

1. I never tried to talk about physics in this thread, but I do understand physics and take great interest in that subject. Also, I will talk about the physics of turbo-chargers until I am blue in the face if I so please, so don't tell what I can and can't do.

2. I specialize in computers and I will tell you that just because you design something doesn't mean you understand it completely. Most computer engineers couldn't fix a computer to save their life.

3. What Sluttypatton did was modify. He did not "duplicate" your dyno. He has made it different enough and even with a disclaimer. It is much like R&B and rap artists that used the tunes from other artist's songs. They make a small change, small enough that most people don't notice. That change means that the intellectual copyright has not been infringed. So I'm not going to reprimand a respected member of this forum when he has done nothing wrong. If you don't agree with my decision then take it up with the administrator.

I just find it funny how he proved that your only evidence can be so easily tampered with. Just imagine what I could do to it with Photoshop. I agree with him because you can't have that as being concrete evidence because you can fake them very easily, and you being engineers, should know that all a dynometer does is theorize, which is a fancy word for guessing. So they aren't always accurate. You also came in at a bad time. We just had a hoax come through and people lost a lot of money on it. It was called the DPS. It was supposed to be able to clean the "dirty power" and take the unused power and make better use of it. They claimed better throttle response, more power, and a lot of other lofty claims. The unit was $250 and seemed like a good device. After quite a few people bought some someone decided to open it up to find a wire going in and a wire going out with a damn 12 volt fuse in the middle. So don't come in here with lofty promises and expect a warm welcome. Why don't you get a patent, and then come back and show us some more concrete evidence of how it works, or perhaps send a unit to Sport Compact Car to see if they will test it? Do something like that because you can't expect use to take your word for it and believe a dyno sheet and lay down $350 for one of these when you can get a REAL turbo for the same price.

Also, street freakz, back off! :nono:

:smokin: patent status. pending #10/146,870, claims-4, drawings-4,ind claims-4. this is my product and i will not back off.

Both Sluttypatton and I have tried that patent number at http://pair.uspto.gov/cgi-bin/final/home.pl and the patent number does not exsist.

Also, this might be your product, but nobody has infringed upon your rights, your copyright, or any type of patent. Now on the other hand I am a moderator of this discussion board so if I tell you to back off you will.

This thread is no longer productive and is being closed.