Another worthless test from FFI?

"Buy 1 for yourself and get the chance to sell your friends and family 5 and get your downline started!" We examine the multi-level marketing industry, where only the people who come up with the ideas make any money, and everybody else is left unhappy, broke, and tired of reading scripts and selling overpriced vitamins and similarly worthless products. Includes Global Prosperity, Pinnacle Quest International, IRS Codebusters, Stratia, and other new Global Prosperity scams.

Moderator: wserra

PonziKiller

Another worthless test from FFI?

Postby PonziKiller » Fri May 18, 2007 10:13 pm

A FFI pusher distribute a brand new test from http://www.intertek-cb.com/ or Caleb Brett wich was their former name, wich is a recognized company.

https://backoffice.myffi.biz/memberupda ... report.pdf

The report is written in english ang belgium(flamsk) language. From what I can read, fuel consumption is not an issue in this document even if the pusher claim so. I don't even know if it's fake... :roll:

I just wonder, why don't FFI use money in only ONE test wich is according to EPA or equal? :shock:

Or do FFI just use many cheap meaningless and missleading "tests" to prove their deceitful business practice to the fullest just to cheat the most gullible prospects? :?

I hope Tony have a comment on this one also.

fuelsaving

Postby fuelsaving » Sat May 19, 2007 7:03 am

Basically this test compares the properties of diesel fuel with and without the MPG-Caps added. Most parameters are essentially unchanged, but there appears to be a slight improvement in "lubricity" (protection against wear).

So no reason at all to expect improved economy or emissions, but perhaps a chance of less wear to diesel injection pump. But the improvement is from 317 to 287, against a specified maximum of 460, so it's not exactly huge.

As PK mentions, this test seems essentially irrelevant to FFI's claims.

TheBest

Postby TheBest » Sat May 19, 2007 8:48 am

Hi PK and Tony

No matter what tests that comes they are worthless to you, because you want them to be.
But here is another one, just for emmissions.

https://backoffice.myffi.biz/memberupda ... 20Test.pdf

/TheBest

fuelsaving

Postby fuelsaving » Sat May 19, 2007 8:59 am

TheBest wrote:Hi PK and Tony

No matter what tests that comes they are worthless to you, because you want them to be.

No, not at all. Do some testing based on the industry-standard FTP75 and HFET - as is supposedly being done at Milbrook - and we will take them seriously.

TheBest wrote:But here is another one, just for emmissions.

https://backoffice.myffi.biz/memberupda ... 20Test.pdf

Have you ever heard of the phrases "placebo controlled", or "statistical significance"? Clearly the people doing this test had not. Without these controls, there's no way of saying if the MPG-Cap is actually doing anything.

In any case, the emissions values for almost all the vehicles are so low - close to the accuracy limits of the equipment - that it tells us essentially nothing about the combustion efficiency or fuel consumption of the vehicles. The HC and CO values measured equate to a tiny fraction of one percent of the fuel going into the engine, so even halving this is hardly significant.

PonziKiller

Postby PonziKiller » Sat May 19, 2007 9:14 am

TheBest wrote:Hi PK and Tony

No matter what tests that comes they are worthless to you, because you want them to be.

/TheBest


:lol:
Grow up child, and face the facts!
:lol:

TheBest

Postby TheBest » Sat May 19, 2007 10:16 am

PonziKiller wrote:
TheBest wrote:Hi PK and Tony

No matter what tests that comes they are worthless to you, because you want them to be.

/TheBest


:lol:
Grow up child, and face the facts!
:lol:


Who do you call child? I guess I´m older than you (1957).
And by the way, I know the facts.
/TheBest

artessa

Postby artessa » Sat May 19, 2007 11:16 pm

I thought this situation was quite obvious a long time ago.

For some of us that are slightly more open minded for the unlikely to happen we are satisfied with smaller indicators of a certain efficiency of a product like the MPG. It is very true that under our very limited test capabilities we are not capable of determining 100 % accuracy in our tests, but it really doesn’t matter.

Then there exist professional test facilities that has been doing business for a very long time and they charge a certain fee for there service. There are several of them and there costs are also very different. Any customer is free to choose the company that best fits his demands and budget.

Of course you can assume that some of them might have a tendency to be loyal towards there costumers but if this would be common practice I suppose that sooner or later this would become public and the consequence of that would be that they would loose credibility and go out of business.(unless they are governmental of course)
Now, each of us may consider the likeliness of this to happen. There are certainly a couple of members in this forum that assumes that this is very likely to occur, personally I hold this for a very unlikely situation.
But once again, every one is free to believe anything.

As we have been reading before there are some members that will not accept anything else but tests made by the EPA. Therefore arguing with them is useless. Admitting a test result from a different test facility would not be anything else than a lost of prestige and therefore they will always stick to there conviction that the MPG has got to be a scam.

There still are loads of people that do not believe that mankind has walked on the moon.
So we have to be realistic, some people will NEVER be convinced.

PonziKiller

Postby PonziKiller » Sun May 20, 2007 8:17 am

artessa wrote:I thought this situation was quite obvious a long time ago.


But once again, every one is free to believe anything.

As we have been reading before there are some members that will not accept anything else but tests made by the EPA. Therefore arguing with them is useless. Admitting a test result from a different test facility would not be anything else than a lost of prestige and therefore they will always stick to there conviction that the MPG has got to be a scam.

There still are loads of people that do not believe that mankind has walked on the moon.
So we have to be realistic, some people will NEVER be convinced.


:roll:
Please note that FFI have their nuce-vax invented by their "Nobel Price Nominated scientists". Please note that FFI have a deceitful way of making false claims and presenting irrelevant "tests" for the purpose of cheat the most gullible of us... :wink:

We will be convinced that day that FFI or other similar scam-companies show us a test that is made according to EPA's guidelines. :roll:

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6359
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Postby wserra » Sun May 20, 2007 2:41 pm

artessa wrote:As we have been reading before there are some members that will not accept anything else but tests made by the EPA.


Nobody here has ever said that.

What people here have said is that they won't accept ad hoc "tests" when the EPA has promulgated standards. Just choose a reputable lab, retain it to test by those standards, and publish the results.

Easy, right? Why do all these miracle fuel additive MLMs avoid it like the plague? Or have they actually not avoided it - they just don't like the results?

Therefore arguing with them is useless. Admitting a test result from a different test facility would not be anything else than a lost of prestige and therefore they will always stick to there conviction that the MPG has got to be a scam.


So show us test results from a reputable lab that tested per the EPA specs. Just one for a start. Can't do that, can you?

There still are loads of people that do not believe that mankind has walked on the moon.


And lots more than that who believe that people are regularly abducted by aliens. And even more than that who are willing to say virtually anything for a few bucks.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

PonziKiller

Postby PonziKiller » Sun Jul 01, 2007 10:46 am


fuelsaving

Postby fuelsaving » Sun Jul 01, 2007 11:16 am

Yet another test involving uncontrolled on-road driving. Why am I not surprised that this is the best FFI can do?

Any sign of the Millbrook results yet? 8)

TheBest

Postby TheBest » Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:43 pm

fuelsaving wrote:Yet another test involving uncontrolled on-road driving. Why am I not surprised that this is the best FFI can do?

Any sign of the Millbrook results yet? 8)


TÜV´s test comes first, in approx. 2 weeks.
(but I guess that´s not good enough for you "experts".?)

/TheBest

PonziKiller

Postby PonziKiller » Sun Jul 01, 2007 3:44 pm

TheBest wrote:(but I guess that´s not good enough for you "experts".?)

/TheBest


:lol: Poor little child. 8) Why this spoiled "child-king" attitude? :lol:

No one said that we never will believe any test. Just let a reputable test-organisation make a test according to your(FFI) claim and according to EPA's guideline. Until now, we have seen many nosense "tests". But no really rigid test. :roll:

TheBest

Postby TheBest » Sun Jul 01, 2007 3:55 pm

PonziKiller wrote:
TheBest wrote:(but I guess that´s not good enough for you "experts".?)

/TheBest


:lol: Poor little child. 8) Why this spoiled "child-king" attitude? :lol:

No one said that we never will believe any test. Just let a reputable test-organisation make a test according to your(FFI) claim and according to EPA's guideline. Until now, we have seen many nosense "tests". But no really rigid test. :roll:


Well, I guess TÜV is good enough.

/TheBest

fuelsaving

Postby fuelsaving » Sun Jul 01, 2007 5:08 pm

TheBest wrote:TÜV´s test comes first, in approx. 2 weeks.

Promises, promises. We've heard this so often before you're rapidly turning into "the boy who cried wolf".

I would be willing to bet quite a lot of money that one of four things happens:

1) The TUV test mysteriously does not appear around the 15th July. I'm sure TheBest will have some implausible reason why.
2) The test turns out to not follow proper guidelines (eg EPA or European NEDC), but instead is just uncontrolled on-road testing.
3) The vehicles involed are very old, or in some other way unrepresentative.
4) The test shows a very small (<5%) economy benefit.

Let's wait and see...

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6359
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Postby wserra » Sun Jul 01, 2007 7:17 pm

PonziKiller wrote:Test "made in Ukraina"? 8)


Hey, haven't you heard of the Chernobyl Cruiser? It doesn't even need headlights.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

fuelsaving

Postby fuelsaving » Mon Jul 16, 2007 6:41 am

on Sun Jul 1st TheBest wrote:TÜV´s test comes first, in approx. 2 weeks.

15 days elapsed, and counting...

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6359
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Postby wserra » Mon Jul 16, 2007 2:12 pm

OK, time for a quick review.

Here are the organizations supposedly providing the definitive tests showing that this stiuff really works.

(1) The Competition Bureau (Canada):

Posted March 18:
artessa wrote:For those that actually believe that the test has not even been carried out, it could be interesting to inform that The Canadian Competition Bureau is about to carry out official testing before approving this business. And how do I know? Well, that will be my secret, at least for time being.


Four months, and still nothing. A search of their web site for "Fuel Freedom" comes up empty.

And please define "time being". Do we have to wait for an ice age?

(2) Millbrook (UK):
TheBest wrote:Was in contact with the test lab on wednesday (21 of march), and the test will be ready early next week, approx. 27 of march. Then they are going to do a document on it and send it out.
If someone tells you otherwise, they don´t tell the thruth.

Another four months of nothing. Gonna blame it on global warming? El Nino is so last-decade.

(3) TUV (Germany).
TheBest wrote:started their test on the 4th of may and it goes on through the summer

And, of course, a search of their web site shows nothing.

This can't be all BS, can it, guys?
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

TheBest

Postby TheBest » Mon Jul 16, 2007 10:44 pm

fuelsaving wrote:
on Sun Jul 1st TheBest wrote:TÜV´s test comes first, in approx. 2 weeks.

15 days elapsed, and counting...


Just count a few more days and I´ll send it to you.

TheBest

fuelsaving

Postby fuelsaving » Tue Jul 17, 2007 6:05 pm

TheBest wrote:Just count a few more days and I´ll send it to you.

How many? Have you actually got the report, or are you just being promised it by your upline? Do you see any reason to believe them, based on previous experiences?


Return to “MLM Scams Forum (as if any of them aren't)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest