You guys need JATO bottles

[turbo2nr]

tcobra,
they have many "imports" that make easilly 700hp@wheels, supras,skylines,300ztt, 2 name a few n many 4cyld imports make well over 400hp with mods including civics. me personally i don't like all civics for the fact that almost people have them n say that they are fast with there intake n exaust n giv the rest of ur import racers a bad name!
but u do meet some few hondas that will blow peeps away!
in nyc there is this green 96hb civic powered by a b18b engine just using nos n he does low 11s runs n his car is daily driven n reliable,
btw did u ever go street racing? cause they have some fast cars occasionaly, also in nyc they have 2 rx-7 wit 13b's that 2 10s runs wit bout 450+hp @rw n they 2 are also daily driven, also countless other 4g63 powered eclipses doing 11s run daily driven, if u look at this months sport compact car they have a challange fo street cars, in there they have a 9sec daily driven eclipse, as well as supras, turbo integras,wrx, n yea a skyline!
u no a skyline will rape most domestics here,
n a modifyed skyline will kill alot of vipers, z06, n other american cars!
american cars run but u have 2 give respect to the imports 2 because they run as fast or faster then domestics with less cyld's...

[TcobrA]

What your posing here is highly modified imports v. stock domestics.
As for the Impreza WRX -- I have one -- quick but not cobra quick.

Domestics to look for:
Lingenfelter Corvettes -- WAY FAST
Supercharged Shelby Series 1 -- way fast
Any modded 03 Cobra -- a "cheap" set of blower pullies buys a LOT of power. Add a chip -- WOW
The new Viper has already got AM tuners looking at it -- that's one mean V-10 out of the box -- some mopar boys speculate BIG hp gains with relatively inexpensive AM tuning.
The Saleen S281 is quick
The Steeda Q400 is nasty

The Max Wedge 426 I have been talking about did low 12's out of the box in 1964 -- no hi-rev, hi tech there -- just MoPower.......

In short, domestics start you off at a higher point and get you moving at alarming rates with far less cash invested........

[turbo2nr]

i understand domestics are fast from da factory but..
give da respect 2 da imports dat are also fast from da factory
wat u think bout da skyline, is dat slow 2?
all im trying 2 say is u dont have 2 like imports jus dont hate on all of dem cause there are sum fast 1's out there!
i no u noe dat!

1

[TcobrA]

I like them all....
What I strive to correct is some of the silly children who, with every uninformed utterance, prove to the world that the either haven't taken or failed freshman physics. As for the Skyline -- how many Japanese-spec versions are here in the USA?
As for really powerful domestics -- we have a bunch of tree-huggin' types round here that tend to pull in the reins....... those "55 Saves" types spoil all the fun -- worst yet was a bunch of "smelly hippi types" protesting at the Boston World of Wheels chanting "No Blood for Oil" --
The big three domestics could, by merit of the technology available to them, build some incredibly fast cars -- some now are giving them really strong underpinnings (like the forged crank and rods in my Cobra) so that uber-modding can be done -- God bless the domestic performance aftermarket.

Remember, Honda Indy engines are 8 cylinder NOT 4!

[ivymike1031]

Sometimes you must demonstrate absurdity by using absurdity.

I'm sure you have plenty of practice.

I have, in my 41 plus years on this planet, seen no evidence that a Honda, or any other foreign offering, is any more reliable or longer lived than any American car I have owned. I once had a Dodge Dart Slant 6 that ran for 22 years and OVER 425,000 miles with simple routine maintenance. At some point the weather and road salt of New England turned it into a pile of orange and brown dust. A '78 Toyota my wife and I owned was so reduced by 1984! (That's 6 SHORT years!)


So you got lucky once... if you look at reliability statistics for the manufacturers as a whole, you'll find that through the 90s most of the Japanese offerings clobbered the comparable US vehicles. To compare two particular vehicles and then extrapolate to the populations as a whole is an exercise in absurdity... but I guess that's your game, isn't it?

Some of the US manufacturers have made great steps towards improving the reliability of their vehicles. This is largely due to the adoptation of Japanese manufacturing concepts. Read up on poke-yoke, kan-ban, and lean thinking. For a simply written text on the last, try "The Hunters and the Hunted: A Non-Linear Solution for Reengineering the Workplace" or "Lean Thinking."

However, some of the (for the lack of kinder words) backwards-baseball-caped IMBECILES I see driving sticker-bedecked, winged, and fart-canned Civics, cause me to take pause and consider just how far beyond the chimpanzee we realy are.

Clearly idiots can be found in any type of car, even the Dodge Dart.

Remember, it is easy to copy and improve. The Japanese have done it with cars and electronics.

You claim to have been involved in the design of several vehicles, so I surmise that perhaps you are somehow involved in vehicle engineering. I challenge you, then, to name a single automotive component that was not a copied or improved version of previous technology. As far as I can tell, the whole of engineering is based on the gradual improvement of existing technology.

Thankfully some of us, Americans, have learned lessons and wised up.

Or, as you seem to prefer to call it, "copied and improved," right? Good thing we red-blooded Americans have this inate ability to learn that's lacking in our yellow adversaries! Oh wait, that's a common trait amongst animals in general, and particularly homo sapiens, isn't it.

I feel bad when young people, filled with propeganda, call their own people, products, and way of life, inferior and cast aside the real achievments of this Nation.

Your bigoted beliefs are as unamerican as communism. This country was founded on capitalism and individualism, both of which dictate that one must evaluate a product based on its merits and price, not on the country of its origin. One of the most important achievements of this nation is the free-market economy that you seem to despise. Shall I choose an inferior, more expensive, product because it was manufactured locally? Not a chance.

Some of these young mush-filled skulls simply parrot opinions that may have carried some truth back in say, 1977, that are just no longer true.

As does yours, apparently.


Now smarten up before a group of Japanese tourists buy Hawaii, raise the Arizona, and turn it into Honda parts. Or do you find the flying of the American Flag offensive?

That's not particularly likely to happen, now is it? Oh wait, absurdity is your thing, I forgot.

Out of curiosity, which of these counts as "buying American?"
* buying a US-branded product, manufactured in the USA from a mixture of local and foreign components, from a company that is largely owned by foreigners (many Chrysler products)
* buying a foreign-branded product manufactured in the USA from 100%local content, from a company that is partially US owned, but mostly owned by foreigners (Toyota Avalon, etc)
* buying a US-branded product manufactured in a foreign country from foriegn components, from a company that is largely US-owned, but is partially owned by foreigners (some Ford products, some GM products)
* buying a US-branded product manufactured in the USA from a mixture of local and foreign components, but built by a foreign company (some GM products)

All automobiles on the road in the USA today are conglomerations of foreign- and domestic- designed components. Final assembly may or may not happen in the US, regardless of what brand you're buying. Tell me again what makes a Ford an American car, because I'm really not sure. As far as I can tell, you just like the sound of the name more than you like "Mazda." A bit too slanty-eyed and yellow for your tastes, eh?

Go wrap yourself in a flag, and maybe people won't recognize you for the shallow bigot that you really are, right? Just make sure that your flag wasn't made in China. Oops.

--------------------------------------

On another subject entirely, if a turbo isn't a substitute for displacement, then why the heck do all modern class-8 trucks use turbocharged engines? Why are nearly all reciprocating-piston engines used for stationary power generation turbocharged? It's because a turbo isn't just a replacement for displacement, it's a far more feasible alternative in many applications.

[TcobrA]

Originally posted by ivymike1031
Sometimes you must demonstrate absurdity by using absurdity.

I'm sure you have plenty of practice.

I have, in my 41 plus years on this planet, seen no evidence that a Honda, or any other foreign offering, is any more reliable or longer lived than any American car I have owned. I once had a Dodge Dart Slant 6 that ran for 22 years and OVER 425,000 miles with simple routine maintenance. At some point the weather and road salt of New England turned it into a pile of orange and brown dust. A '78 Toyota my wife and I owned was so reduced by 1984! (That's 6 SHORT years!)


So you got lucky once... if you look at reliability statistics for the manufacturers as a whole, you'll find that through the 90s most of the Japanese offerings clobbered the comparable US vehicles. To compare two particular vehicles and then extrapolate to the populations as a whole is an exercise in absurdity... but I guess that's your game, isn't it?
Actually, several times -- most of my American-made cars have seen 200K plus- except the 94 SHO -- YAMAHA ENGINE -- might make 90K

Some of the US manufacturers have made great steps towards improving the reliability of their vehicles. This is largely due to the adoptation of Japanese manufacturing concepts. Read up on poke-yoke, kan-ban, and lean thinking. For a simply written text on the last, try "The Hunters and the Hunted: A Non-Linear Solution for Reengineering the Workplace" or "Lean Thinking."
Actually, an American pioneered these "Japanese" practices (I'll look it up for you). Sadly, at the time American Manufacturers were to complacent to listen.

However, some of the (for the lack of kinder words) backwards-baseball-caped IMBECILES I see driving sticker-bedecked, winged, and fart-canned Civics, cause me to take pause and consider just how far beyond the chimpanzee we realy are.

Clearly idiots can be found in any type of car, even the Dodge Dart.Very true.

Remember, it is easy to copy and improve. The Japanese have done it with cars and electronics.

You claim to have been involved in the design of several vehicles, so I surmise that perhaps you are somehow involved in vehicle engineering. I challenge you, then, to name a single automotive component that was not a copied or improved version of previous technology. Sealed-beam headlights invented USA, Seatbelts invented USA, Fuel Injection invented USA, Hydrolic Brakes invented USA -- shall I go on? As far as I can tell, the whole of engineering is based on the gradual improvement of existing technology.Oh? Audion tube invented by USA. Transistor invented USA. Cathode Ray Tube invented by USA. TV invented by USA. VCR invented by USA. Telephones and all Telecom invented by USA. The modern computer invented by USA. IC invented by USA. Automobile -- difficult to say, lots of simultaneous work BUT NOT BY THE JAPANESE.

Thankfully some of us, Americans, have learned lessons and wised up.

Or, as you seem to prefer to call it, "copied and improved," right? Good thing we red-blooded Americans have this inate ability to learn that's lacking in our yellow adversaries! It's called freedom. Oh wait, that's a common trait amongst animals in general, and particularly homo sapiens, isn't it.So I see you're a PETA type eh?
They sure know how to pull off a successful sneak attack!

I feel bad when young people, filled with propeganda, call their own people, products, and way of life, inferior and cast aside the real achievments of this Nation.

Your bigoted beliefs are as unamerican as communism. This country was founded on capitalism and individualism, both of which dictate that one must evaluate a product based on its merits and price, not on the country of its origin. One of the most important achievements of this nation is the free-market economy that you seem to despise. Shall I choose an inferior, more expensive, product because it was manufactured locally? Not a chance. Country of origin is immaterial, frankly. If something is better, it's better. No one has proven it to me. And as the transmission in our Impreza WRX (2002) failed at 12K miles, I have to wonder. Shall I scan the repair sheet for you? Sir, I am not bigoted. As for the Japanese, I admire them as true capitalists. But think. The catylist of their success may be rooted more in Americans lack of self worth than in any earth-shattering super human work ethic. Check out the suicide rate of young Japanese during the 80s and 90s. As for less expensive foreign products, you mean like shoes made by enslaved children, or inexpensive Japanese-made televisions made so through the practice of price gouging on their domestic market? Hmmm?

Some of these young mush-filled skulls simply parrot opinions that may have carried some truth back in say, 1977, that are just no longer true.

As does yours, apparently. And what, exactly, am I parroting? Please explain.


Now smarten up before a group of Japanese tourists buy Hawaii, raise the Arizona, and turn it into Honda parts. Or do you find the flying of the American Flag offensive?

That's not particularly likely to happen, now is it? Oh wait, absurdity is your thing, I forgot. Actually, follow the real estate market in Hawaii --

Out of curiosity, which of these counts as "buying American?"
* buying a US-branded product, manufactured in the USA from a mixture of local and foreign components, from a company that is largely owned by foreigners (many Chrysler products)
* buying a foreign-branded product manufactured in the USA from 100%local content, from a company that is partially US owned, but mostly owned by foreigners (Toyota Avalon, etc)
* buying a US-branded product manufactured in a foreign country from foriegn components, from a company that is largely US-owned, but is partially owned by foreigners (some Ford products, some GM products)
* buying a US-branded product manufactured in the USA from a mixture of local and foreign components, but built by a foreign company (some GM products)So, are you for or against NAFTA? What matters is where the money ends up. As you espouse capitolism i am sure that you understand that it IS all about the money.

All automobiles on the road in the USA today are conglomerations of foreign- and domestic- designed components. Final assembly may or may not happen in the US, regardless of what brand you're buying. Tell me again what makes a Ford an American car, because I'm really not sure. As far as I can tell, you just like the sound of the name more than you like "Mazda." A bit too slanty-eyed and yellow for your tastes, eh?Not at all. We race a Lotary 7 -- based on a 95 RX7 -- the statement of historical fact does NOT make one a bigot. Your argument is specious. This row started with the fact that the average Civic needs a rocket assist to be fast. That is still true.

Go wrap yourself in a flag, and maybe people won't recognize you for the shallow bigot that you really are, right? Just make sure that your flag wasn't made in China. Oops. You should unwrap youself from the shroud of ignorant accusal. As a matter of fact the two flags I own where probably made over seas. As for China - read "Lessons" by An Wang - see what the Japanese did to his family. An Wang was a friend of mine -- a GREAT AMERICAN and proud of it.

--------------------------------------

On another subject entirely, if a turbo isn't a substitute for displacement, then why the heck do all modern class-8 trucks use turbocharged engines? Why are nearly all reciprocating-piston engines used for stationary power generation turbocharged? It's because a turbo isn't just a replacement for displacement, it's a far more feasible alternative in many applications.

A turbo is an augmentation not a substitute. Study my friend, study.

[ivymike1031]

Actually, several times -- most of my American-made cars have seen 200K plus- except the 94 SHO -- YAMAHA ENGINE -- might make 90K

When you get to a few hundred thousand times, compile your data and dispute the evidence compiled by countless surveys. I'll be happy to listen then. The simple fact is that when you work at an OEM (have you done that?), there are always companies out there who "set the bar" (in recent history, the Japanese) and those who try to catch up (the rest).


Actually, an American pioneered these "Japanese" practices (I'll look it up for you). Sadly, at the time American Manufacturers were to complacent to listen.

You're thinking of Deming, and some of the Japanese principles have a great deal in common with Deming's. Some of them are almost entirely Japanese in origin.
http://www.dharma-haven.org/five-havens/deming.htm
http://www.sme.org/cgi-bin/get-newsl...AN&20021209&1&


Sealed-beam headlights invented USA

An adaptation of the non-sealed headlight, which was an improvement over the gas lamp, which replaced candles...


Seatbelts invented USA

Sweden, if memory serves. Relies on existing textile technology, closely resembles harnesses used on motive creatures for eons.


Fuel Injection invented USA

Another fuel delivery method. (Arguably) an improvement over carburetion. Relies on countless manufacturing processes & subcomponents, which existed previously.


Hydrolic Brakes invented USA

That's hydraulic, and they're an improvement over other varieties of brakes, which existed previously. Hydraulics were pioneered long before the USA existed (Newton and others).

(me previously): As far as I can tell, the whole of engineering is based on the gradual improvement of existing technology.

Oh? Audion tube invented by USA.
Transistor invented USA. Cathode Ray Tube invented by USA. TV invented by USA. VCR invented by USA. Telephones and all Telecom invented by USA. The modern computer invented by USA. IC invented by USA. Automobile -- difficult to say, lots of simultaneous work BUT NOT BY THE JAPANESE.

You just don't get it, do you? None of the inventions that you mention came from nothing. They all built on the previous work of other scientists and engineers. What's a transistor without semiconductor research? Without wires? Without electricity and magnetism? A television is a glorified radio, which is alternative to a telegraph, which replaces paper messages, which can be traced back to scrawlings on cave walls. Could you make a piston without metallurgy? Could you make a car without ever having had a wagon? A wheel? Engineering is an incremental process. Franklin would have had trouble experimenting with electricity if nobody had learned to make wires.


It's called freedom.

Are the Japanese not free? The Germans? The Swedes?


So I see you're a PETA type eh?

Yes, I'm a member of "people eating tasty animals."


Country of origin is immaterial, frankly. If something is better, it's better.

Huh? I thought you said earlier that you're tired of people calling American products inferior? If you admit that country of origin is not an important factor, then why do you refuse to acknowledge that American products can be inferior to foreign competitors?


No one has proven it to me.

You should be trying to find these things out for yourself, rather than waiting for someone to disprove your prejudices.


you mean like shoes made by enslaved children

Some of those are American products... and the "enslaved" children are, in many cases, (again arguably) better off than they were before they were "enslaved" by the "evil" capitalists.


And what, exactly, am I parroting? Please explain.

Awk! Buy American! Awk! Love it or leave it! Awk! The Japs are trying to take over! Awk! Awk! Riceboy! Awk!


the statement of historical fact does NOT make one a bigot

I missed it... when were you talking facts?


A turbo is an augmentation not a substitute. Study my friend, study.

Let me slow this one down for you, since you don't seem to get it: The statement "there is no replacement for displacement... not even a turbo" suggests that rather than turbocharging an engine, one should use an engine with greater displacement. Increasing displacement is not a feasible option in many applications. In those applications, a turbo is not just a replacement for displacement, it's a far more practical alternative. Yes, the turbo augments the displacement. The displacement is augmented by a turbo in place of... more displacement! Thus the turbo is a substitute for... displacement! Get it?

[Self]

Originally posted by ivymike1031
[b]
Let me slow this one down for you, since you don't seem to get it: The statement "there is no replacement for displacement... not even a turbo" suggests that rather than turbocharging an engine, one should use an engine with greater displacement. Increasing displacement is not a feasible option in many applications. In those applications, a turbo is not just a replacement for displacement, it's a far more practical alternative. Yes, the turbo augments the displacement. The displacement is augmented by a turbo in place of... more displacement! Thus the turbo is a substitute for... displacement! Get it?

That's from my quote...But not, it isn't a replacement. It's an augmentation, like cobra said. Let's keep things in terms of power in vehicles since this is an automotive forum. What that phrase means is that there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY POSSIBLE to make up the difference in power caused by the variation of displacement in two engines. Exanple...You have a 5.7L engine making 305hp and a 1.8L engine making 170hp. You throw a turbocharger onto the 1.8l and turn the boost up to achieve 400hp. Now that's an EXCELLENT hp rating, but wait, let's add a turbocharger to the 5.7l and see what happens. His horsepower instantly jumps to 600, or however much, the actual numbers are irrelevant. What IS relevant is the fact that despite being able to make over 200 additional horses, the larger engine is still able to overpower the smaller engine because of it's larger size. This fact isn't really disputable. BUT you are 100% correct in saying that more displacement is always better. There are many many many cases when a turbocharger on a smaller engine is a more feasible option, than a huge displacement engine.

[ivymike1031]

Originally posted by Self

BUT you are 100% correct in saying that more displacement is always better.

you meant "isn't," right?

[Self]

Originally posted by ivymike1031


you meant "isn't," right?

Oh yes, that's exactly what I meant

"You are 100% correct in saying that more displacement IS NOT always better."

Thanks for catching that for me, considering it changed the entire direction of my post

[ivymike1031]

Originally posted by Self

That's from my quote...But not, it isn't a replacement. It's an augmentation, like cobra said. Let's keep things in terms of power in vehicles since this is an automotive forum. What that phrase means is that there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY POSSIBLE to make up the difference in power caused by the variation of displacement in two engines. Exanple...You have a 5.7L engine making 305hp and a 1.8L engine making 170hp. You throw a turbocharger onto the 1.8l and turn the boost up to achieve 400hp. Now that's an EXCELLENT hp rating, but wait, let's add a turbocharger to the 5.7l and see what happens. His horsepower instantly jumps to 600, or however much, the actual numbers are irrelevant. What IS relevant is the fact that despite being able to make over 200 additional horses, the larger engine is still able to overpower the smaller engine because of it's larger size. This fact isn't really disputable.

If you're only trying to say that for a given BMEP and operating speed, a larger displacement engine will produce more power, then all I can say is "duh." That's not a very interesting point to make. If you have a desired power output, then you have to balance BMEP, displacement, and operating speed, based on the requirements of the particular application. Increasing BMEP increases power just as effectively as increasing displacement.

I gather that you're a fan of "large" displacement, naturally aspirated engines, and generally prefer them over smaller turbocharged engines of the same output. Let me pose a design problem, and see if you still feel the same way. Let's say that you absolutely must have at least 600 horsepower to the flywheel, or your engine will not be acceptable to your customer. You also want to make the engine as light and as small as possible, because this is a vehicle and therefore packaging and weight are both very important. Your desired rated operating speed is 1800rpm. You can make the engine naturally aspirated, and if you're clever with your cam design, you can probably get about 14 bar BMEP out of it. To get your desired horsepower, you would need to have a displacement of 21.3L. If you go with a turbocharged design, not only can you dramatically improve the driveability (by controlling boost, and thus torque rise), but you can also (fairly easily) achieve a BMEP of 21 bar, giving a required displacement of only 14.2L. The package volume of the engine is substantially smaller, the weight is much less, and as a bonus, the turbocharged engine is significantly more efficient than the naturally aspirated version.

The example above, of course, refers to a medium speed, light-to-medium duty diesel engine. Gasoline engines are a bit different because they're knock limited, but you didn't specify that you wanted to talk gasoline only.

It seems to me, that if I were asked to generalize, I would have to say that increasing BMEP, if it can be done in a cost-effective manner, is usually a better way to increase power output than increasing the displacement. (gas or diesel) IE, if you want to have a high-output version of a car, you're probably better off to make it with a high-perf cam and/or boosted intake, than to increase the displacement of the engine. Then again, I hate to generalize, because there are always enough exceptions to keep everyone screaming.

[ivymike1031]

(note that I changed the first paragraph of the above post a few seconds after I initially posted it)

[Self]

Originally posted by ivymike1031


If you're only trying to say that for a given BMEP and operating speed, a larger displacement engine will produce more power, then all I can say is "duh." That's not a very interesting point to make. If you have a desired power output, then you have to balance BMEP, displacement, and operating speed, based on the requirements of the particular application. Increasing BMEP increases power just as effectively as increasing displacement.

I gather that you're a fan of "large" displacement, naturally aspirated engines, and generally prefer them over smaller turbocharged engines of the same output. Let me pose a design problem, and see if you still feel the same way. Let's say that you absolutely must have at least 600 horsepower to the flywheel, or your engine will not be acceptable to your customer. You also want to make the engine as light and as small as possible, because this is a vehicle and therefore packaging and weight are both very important. Your desired rated operating speed is 1800rpm. You can make the engine naturally aspirated, and if you're clever with your cam design, you can probably get about 14 bar BMEP out of it. To get your desired horsepower, you would need to have a displacement of 21.3L. If you go with a turbocharged design, not only can you dramatically improve the driveability (by controlling boost, and thus torque rise), but you can also (fairly easily) achieve a BMEP of 21 bar, giving a required displacement of only 14.2L. The package volume of the engine is substantially smaller, the weight is much less, and as a bonus, the turbocharged engine is significantly more efficient than the naturally aspirated version.

The example above, of course, refers to a medium speed, light-to-medium duty diesel engine. Gasoline engines are a bit different because they're knock limited, but you didn't specify that you wanted to talk gasoline only.

It seems to me, that if I were asked to generalize, I would have to say that increasing BMEP, if it can be done in a cost-effective manner, is usually a better way to increase power output than increasing the displacement. (gas or diesel) IE, if you want to have a high-output version of a car, you're probably better off to make it with a high-perf cam and/or boosted intake, than to increase the displacement of the engine. Then again, I hate to generalize, because there are always enough exceptions to keep everyone screaming.

Nooo, I'm a fan of large displacement FORCED INDUCTION vehicles, like this turbo 3rd gen http://www.hustonstreetracing.com/guidonews.htm or even better yet, this twin turbo z28 http://www.turbocharged.net/
I like BIG POWER. BIG BIG BIG POWER. If the quad turbo Camaro producing nearly 5000hp that popular hot rodding chronicled earlier this year was available in a kit, I'd buy it Whatever it takes to get the BIG BIG BIG power, I'm for. And what could be better than the growl of a V8 engine mixed with the sound of a TT setup?

[TcobrA]

Well, I guess I am too tired to reply fully. Thanks for reminding me of Demings.

I am off for my "chemo" now. You see, I am a bit of a pioneer. We are working to cure and reverse the effects of Multiple Sclerosis. I, myself, am fighting to stay out of a wheel chair. If my responses seem a bit irritated, I apologize. If you are so inclined, http://www.bostoncure.com is looking for volunteers.

This is an interesting conversation. Perhaps, when I am well again, we could continue this over a beer -- though I am a scotch and cigar type myself.

BTW, Lee Deforest thought he invented the "audion" or triode. He didn't understand how it worked. Armstrong, the "Father of FM" derived the equations. Regarding the transistor, there is a bunch of old folks at AT&T that would strongly refute your assertion; as with the Integrated Circuit and the folks at Fairchild.

Peace

[TcobrA]

One more thought, the nurse beckons....

I never said American Products couldn't be inferior to foriegn ones... you may have inferred this... Sir, I drove an 81 Oldsmobile! I lived under that hood during each hour that I wasn't sleeping or working!
I also drove a '89 Lotus Elise (a electrical fire on wheels) and the '81 Olds was more reliable.

Peace, again.